Your Right to Know: Federal Toxic Release Inventory Program

Robert Sabie Jr. and Jarrett Wheeler are students at Huxley College of the Environment at Western Washington University.

Editor’s note: Dr. Troy Abel, an assistant professor in the Environmental Studies Department at Western Washington University’s Huxley College of the Environment, will speak on Thurs., April 21 at 7 p.m. at Village Books, 1200 11th Street, Fairhaven. Abel is co-author of “Coming Clean: Information Disclosure and Environmental Performance,” the first book to investigate the process of information disclosure as a policy strategy for environmental protection. This process requires that firms disclose information about their environmental performance. It is part of an approach to environmental protection that eschews the conventional command-and-control regulatory apparatus, which sometimes leads government and industry to focus on meeting only minimal standards.

In the early 1980s two major industrial accidents at Union Carbide chemical facilities, the first in Bhopal, India and the second in Institute, West Virginia, released toxic chemicals into the local communities and surrounding environment. The accidental release in Bhopal caused substantial loss of life. The immediate death toll was 3,000 and within a month, 15,000 were dead while 500,000 other citizens felt effects. The site continues to retain incredible amounts of hazardous waste and contaminates neighboring wells. Fortunately, the West Virginia release claimed no lives; however the incident did turn the heads of legislators toward industries using and manufacturing toxic chemicals. The media attention of these events, along with a public that was already skeptical of industry, made information disclosure a salient issue.

Following these events, citizens became attuned to potential risks associated with toxic chemicals used in industry. In addition, U.S. Congress grew increasingly opposed to the poor environmental agenda of the Reagan administration and passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) in 1986 with ease through both houses. Included in SARA was the Title III, Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), creating the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program. The program has been in place since 1986, allowing enough data to be collected for the authors to use both quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis to measure the overall effectiveness of the policy.

The authors show that toxic pollutants have significantly decreased since the inception of the TRI while the U.S. economy has grown, suggesting that the policy is working. Throughout the rest of the book, the authors examine, criticize and prescribe improvements of the TRI policy by asking: 1) what have been the consequences of adopting and implementing the program; 2) what factors influence a facility’s management of its toxic chemicals; 3) and why do some corporations do well in reducing their toxic releases and the risks associated with them while others show few signs of progress?

The federal TRI program provides information to the public about the chemicals manufacturing facilities are using and the quantity of toxins being disposed into the air, water, ground and off site. The right-to-know is a powerful thread in state, local, and federal laws. Citizens are empowered with access to information so they can better express their concerns and protect themselves from toxic releases. Having information is essential in delegating power to the people.

The basic idea behind implementing information disclosure is that business and/or manufacturing facilities will provide the public with information that would otherwise be private. Information disclosure philosophy is premised on transparency and as an avenue for increased accountability. Businesses and private industry then change their behavior preempting negative publicity. As the others observe, “There is another possibility for how information disclosure can be dynamic. In this case, requirements by the EPA that facilities report their pollution levels would force facilities to gather data which they are not already collecting. In so doing, the EPA would cause facilities to give attention to an issue they might otherwise ignore” (p.41).

There will always be mediating factors of concern for public health risk information disclosure. Three presupposed and interwoven concepts applied to the TRI program are: 1) if a community is exposed to pollution, the people have a right to know about it and its source, 2) information disclosure to the public constructs an atmosphere that prompts industry to improve its environmental performance, and 3) the range of behaviors result from various contextual variables that influence the impact of information disclosure on industry and communities.

Citizens have the right to know about the pollution that is happening in their backyard. The TRI program allows this information to become public information, earnestly appealing citizenry a right to participate in decisions involving public health and environmental risks. Right-to-know is an avenue to justice and morality. This notion is a normative assertion, an ethic aimed in evaluation and description to enable the people toward participatory democracy. But, as Dr. Abel teaches in his environmental policy classes, the intersection between the democratic and rational demands on environmental decisions can be a messy affair. This book illuminates many specific potentials and limits of disclosing information about the hundreds of chemicals being released in thousands of pounds in our communities.

The third concept behind the TRI program is that contextual variables will impact and shape behavior. Community action is relative to varying entities depending on its usefulness and reception. Toxic chemical release into airways or waterways is a collective issue for populations. Each entity may develop an independent reaction to information regarding pollution release into their collective good. Concerned individuals are often motivated to pressure a change for clean and safe practices by industry. Communities, once aware of risks to health or environment, can become mobilized. Groups and organizations may pay special attention and interpret TRI information to better inform their members or other partner organizations. Institutions such as local and state governments may pass laws or devise negotiation strategies to better protect their citizens. Business and industry itself is likely to change, if viewed less-than-favorably, when their practices negatively impact surrounding people, communities and groups.

Most environmental policies in the United States use a top down, “command and control” approach that, according to the authors’ theoretical framework in Chapter 2, reduces industries’ incentives to go beyond compliance and towards prevention. The TRI, although required of industry releasing toxics to the environment, is different from a normal top-down approach because there are no actions required other than reporting.

Industry responds by reducing emissions to avoid further possible regulations and to avoid negative public perception. The authors suggest that government and industry are in a regulation paradox and apply game theory to show what they coin the “performance dilemma.” They identify that when the government is commanding, industry meets only minimal expectations because there are little incentives to go beyond compliance. Conversely, when the government encourages industry to prevent pollution, a synergetic effect takes place and there is a move beyond compliance. The important point the authors make is that industry and regulators are in a seemingly constant battle, but when the combination of potential regulations and non-regulatory policies are in place they tend to cooperate and become more efficient and effective.

The authors criticize the TRI’s ability to reduce risk. The information being released to the public is generally in an unpalatable format for average citizens. Deciphering the information of the TRI is challenging. The authors point out that toxics are reported in pounds released, but not all toxics are equal. One pound of the most toxic material presents a greater risk than several million pounds of the least toxic materials being reported. 

Therefore, in chapter 3, the authors document that while 5,000 out of 8,389 facilities (62 percent) decreased their toxic air emission releases between 1990 and 2000, more than 3,000 increased air pollution volumes (38 percent). But pollution volume trends capture only half the story – facilities becoming cleaner or dirtier. They then report that only 55 percent of the facilities (4,614) they studied decreased their air toxic exposure risk while 45 percent (3,775) increased their risk. However, only 1,447 facilities consistently decreased both emissions and risk. Only 17 percent of the sample studied by the authors became safer and cleaner. Nearly as many, 1,082 facilities, or 13 percent, became riskier and dirtier by increasing both emissions and risk. That left 5,860 facilities unable to maintain a consistent risk and emission direction during the decade with decreases in one while increasing the other.

State performance in pollution reduction varies considerably over the TRI spectrum. States were divided into four categories of performance judged by the reduction in releases and their reduction in risk the authors examine a number of variables that are involved in performance and provide statistical support for their conclusions. Not necessarily surprising, the political environment of the state plays a significant role in how well the state has done in reducing risk and overall releases. What the authors also found was states with a more cooperative policy structure performed better than those with the traditional top-down approach. Regionally speaking, green facilities are better represented in New England at about 25 percent on average. This does not hold true for brown facilities that tend to vary by state.

Weighing the prominence of state environmental performance the author’s say, “industrial environmental performance in a larger state context shows that many facilities are moving toward a more optimal level of safer and cleaner manufacturing.” They stress a “specific blend of policy and political conditions” marshaled in liberal states through “dense environmental groups, robust regulations, and innovative pollution prevention policies [that have] led the way in fostering industrial environmental performance.” For instance, when comparing Washington and Oregon, two states considered to be politically liberal, Washington out-performed Oregon in both release and risk reductions. Oregon and Washington are shown to house nearly equivalent numbers of facilities, 101 and 122, respectively. These two states have similar political climates and number of facilities. The authors then raise questions about individual facility performance to help explain why Washington ranks 19th and why Oregon ranks 42nd in overall toxic release and risk reduction.

The authors then go on to examine the TRI from the perspectives of facilities and of regional EPA, state and local public officials. Through quantitative and qualitative analysis, the authors narrow in on the “internal dynamics of the performance dilemma.” While facility and public officials vary in response to ranking a list of most salient issues, the respondents agreed air pollution was of concern. The authors dig even deeper into the responses by contrasting the views of toxic releases of various levels of government and industry officials.

Interestingly, federal and state officials consider toxic chemicals serious environmental problems, whereas local officials are less interested in toxic chemicals and are generally more concerned with “hazardous waste, air pollution, water shortages, and broader issues such as economic prosperity and excessive regulation or taxes.” Separate from the overall perception of environmental issues is the overall understanding of the TRI. While federal employees are very familiar with the TRI, a sharp drop off of familiarity occurs with state officials (32 percent) and local officials (12 percent). The authors suggest, “the main factors driving environmental management among facilities were liability and regulation,” but “a focus on environmental performance was a third important factor for many of the facilities.” This information lays out further support that the TRI is working and that there is potential for more cooperative regulation.

The TRI is administered to all facilities equally, but the response of facilities shows wide variation. Although the trend in overall toxic releases appears to be declining, there are still facilities that are increasing. The authors pose a series of questions to examine how facility expertise, environmental goals, community involvement and local media may influence environmental performance. The discussion of these questions illustrates that the dependent variables in individual performance is difficult to define. Some of the findings were counter intuitive. A ‘green’ facility may not find the TRI useful, whereas a ‘brown’ facility can use the information to make improvements.

While Coming Clean provides no one definitive answer as to why discrepancy exists between facility environmental leaders and laggards, it does indicate that environmental management systems within the companies play a large role on how the company will function. Toxic release improvements were found to be motivated by the desire to minimize legal liability, save money and regulatory compliance.

Giving leaders and laggards a definitional status becomes useful in distinguishing the two and a means to compare and contrast them against each other. “Brown” companies were defined by their increasing risk through both window ranges evaluated in Coming Clean. The data taken from the TRI program used in the book look at three specific years: 1991, 1995 and 2000. The periods of improvement were measured from 1991-1995, then 1995-2000. If a facility increased its risk during the first period and then again over the second, it will be considered a laggard. The opposite is true for companies considered “green.” The “green” facilities, in-turn, prove their environmental performance over time by consistently reducing risk longer than that of other facilities in the ten year period analyzed. Brown facilities began with lower emissions and risk levels but ended with higher levels by 2000. The plastics industry in whole performed poorly. Coming Clean says, “where over 22 percent of the facilities in the plastics industry are brown facilities, fewer than 12 percent of all other facilities are likely to be brown.” Comparisons from green to brown facilities tell that, “between 1991 and 2000 green facilities reduced their releases an average of 85 percent while brown facilities tripled their releases.”

Regionally speaking green facilities are better represented in New England at about 25 percent on average. This does not hold true for brown facilities that tend to vary from state to state.

The conclusion section of the book provides readers with the authors’ prescriptions for the TRI. In order for citizens to make use of the TRI Coming Clean challenges the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a medium in which average citizens could inform themselves of the toxic releases in their communities and the risks they pose. Because some facilities pollute considerably more than others, the conclusion suggests the EPA use the TRI to target and assist the worst polluters in reducing releases and risks. There are several other suggested actions, but one of the more interesting points, not related necessarily to toxic release, is the parallel drawn between toxic releases and greenhouse gas emissions. The authors recommend that by requiring industry to report their annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, industry may respond by reducing their GHG to maintain or improve public perception. Whether policy makers approach GHG with information disclosure or not, this book suggests that government and industry will achieve greater outcomes by using a combination of non-regulatory actions in a cooperative fashion.

Coming Clean provides comprehensive and valuable data that can assist public policy analysts, public officials and interest groups in understanding the complications and benefits of the TRI program. For those who are unfamiliar with environmental regulatory and legislative framework, or in-depth academic exploration into intricately nuanced research, much of the material can be daunting at times. Despite these aspects, Coming Clean is fairly accessible and straightforward in its language and conclusions. Coming Clean will provide those who read it a more complete picture of the dilemma faced by industry and environmental policy makers and provide prescriptions for future decision makers to maximize the effectiveness of information disclosure. §