“EPA
Emission Report Card Is A Failure”
by Dr. J. Winston Porter
(As published in The Trenton Times, 4/4/00)
Sometimes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is less than effective in fulfilling its mandate to protect the environment. One unsettling example of EPA’s faulty approach can be seen in the agency’s annual publication of its inventory of toxic chemical releases to the air, water, and land—a sort of “environmental report card” of major industries.
EPA requires 37,000 industrial facilities—including more than 1,000 in New Jersey—to file reports on some 800 different chemicals that are discharged to the environment. The agency plans to release the results shortly, listing companies according to the volume of their emissions state by state.
Whatever merits this annual listing may have, EPA has managed to make it less than effective by considering only the magnitude of the release of individual substances, while totally disregarding the comparative hazards of each emission. This approach is basically an erroneous one.
The Toxics Release Inventory, as the report is officially called, does not address the relative toxicity individual chemicals. After all, chemicals can vary greatly in their toxicity, a pound of one chemical can be much more dangerous than a pound of another.
Nor does the inventory consider the different exposures received by people living close to or far away from a release site. And it does not take into account whether a substance can get into the environment from other sources such as municipal and agricultural runoff.
This is the juncture at which to revamp the inventory, which was established by Congress in the aftermath of the 1984 chemical disaster in Bhopal, India.
Large releases of relatively benign chemicals are by some as alarming, while small releases of more toxic chemicals may b overlooked. Many of the substances in the inventory are already covered by other federal environmental statutes, particularly the Clean Air Act, and do not belong in the TRI. The tendency therefore, is for citizens to focus their interest on raw annual numbers and not seek real improvements in environmental quality.
At the very least, Americans have a right to accurate information about potentially dangerous releases of chemicals to the environment. Few people seem aware that a number of chemicals listed in the inventory are benign, having cancer risks that are well below one in a million, benchmark for the regulatory practice. The chance of getting cancer as a result of being exposed to these chemicals is four times smaller than an individual’s lifetime risk of being struck by lightening or drowning in a home bathtub.
The inventory also ignores the social and economic benefits of many chemicals. Some of those listed as toxic are used to make health-enhancing products like safety glass, bicycle helmets and pharmaceuticals. Others are byproducts of electrical plants that account for nearly two-thirds of the nation’s power supplies.
In addition, the data from the TRI program is neither timely nor locally focused. TRIU data is not released to the public until at least two years after it is first reported. And the data is sent to Washington and only sporadically finds it way back to the public, often through the efforts of the reporting company.
The solution is to put inventory information on a sound scientific footing through risk assessment. Revamping the inventory to report risk as well as the volume of emissions should be the first step. Information should include the concentrations of chemicals received by people who live near a facility, taking into account wind conditions, topography, and many other environmental factors. If risks are significant—for example very toxic chemicals that into underground water systems, the local community should be informed directly. State and local officials should have a major role in this reporting process.
Finally, we need to recognize that better information will help us identify what is really important in decision making. The data must be based on sound science using correct exposure models. For is the sky is said to be forever falling, real—not just imagined—problems may go unrecognized.
J. Winston Porter is president of the Waste Policy Center in Leesburg, VA, and former EPA assistant administrator with national responsibility for solid and hazardous waste programs.
©J. Winston Porter 2001