EPA wants to let companies report every other year

By Robert McLure, Seattle Post-Intelligencer

The Bush administration is proposing to relax requirements for factories, shipyards and other businesses to inform the public about their releases of more than 600 toxic chemicals.

Now required annually, these reports would be skipped every other year under a proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. And for most of the chemicals, businesses would get to release 10 times as much waste before being required to submit detailed records about their practices.

Seattle environmentalists are alarmed by the proposal, and so is a Washington Department of Ecology pollution-control official. Spokeswomen for both of the state's U.S. senators called the proposal "outrageous."

Administration officials defend the idea, though, saying they can save businesses some of the money they spend to track chemicals' handling and release.

"We're looking for some real opportunities for businesses, particularly small companies," said Kim Nelson, the EPA's assistant administrator in charge of environmental information.

"We're asking: How much of this (information) is really useful? How much are people using and doing any analysis on, and can we do anything to make it easier (on businesses.) ... We're trying to balance the needs of all our stakeholders," Nelson said.

Among those concerned about the proposals is Idell Hansen, an Ecology Department official who tracks the pollution reports for the state.

"The communities, this is their one source of information in many cases for releases into the environment," Hansen said. "We feel like we're losing a valuable information source."

At issue is a federal program called the Toxic Release Inventory, or TRI, that affects 42 businesses in Seattle and 345 around the state.

Congress ordered the annual reports in the wake of a 1984 accident at a Union Carbide factory in Bhopal, India, that released a poisonous gas, killing thousands. Many Bhopal residents didn't even know the pesticide was being made in their midst.

Since the pollution reports were required in 1987, waste dumping by American firms has plummeted. Industry, government and environmentalists agree that it prompted corporate executives to institutionalize waste-cutting programs that, in the long run, saved many companies money by preserving valuable byproducts that once were wasted.

The EPA on Sept. 21 notified Congress that the agency intends next year to consider changing to the biennial reporting.

But the agency is pushing forward more quickly with a related proposal. It would allow some businesses to give out much less information about their chemical releases.

Currently, any business releasing more than 500 pounds a year of most chemicals on the TRI list must fill out a form each year stating how much of it goes into the air, the water, the ground, or down the drain or through some other disposal route.

A company that releases less than 500 pounds fills out a form saying it releases the chemical, but it doesn't have to say how much.

The EPA is pushing to increase the limit tenfold, so that businesses could avoid quantifying their chemical releases up to 5,000 pounds.

It would save businesses $7.4 million a year nationwide, the EPA estimates. (For a small subset of chemicals that accumulate in the environment, companies would have to continue to report any releases.)

The proposals both have strong backing from business.

Mike Walls, managing director of the American Chemistry Council, said the EPA's own figures show that businesses spend $650 million annually on tasks required under the Toxic Release Inventory program.

"We've gotten the benefit out of TRI. You've made the companies aware of where emissions go that could be better controlled to control costs," Walls said.

But he added: "We've probably reached the technological limit of how far we can go to reduce emissions without affecting productivity. ... What we're talking about now is how you best manage this process."

Kirk Thomson, director of environmental affairs for The Boeing Co., which has sliced its TRI-reported emissions 39 percent over the past five years, said the biennial reporting "wouldn't make a difference to us."

"We're set up to do it annually," he said. "It's just a good business practice to track your hazardous materials, how much you're using of each product and how much you're losing to the environment."

Supporters of the proposals note that the Census is done just once every 10 years, and then analyzed extensively. Similarly, they reason, by providing the EPA an "off" year every other year, environmentalists and others would get more in-depth analysis by the EPA.

"That basically makes as much sense as selling your car engine so you can afford to paint your car," said Sean Moulton of OMB Watch, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that focuses on budget and information-access issues. "It doesn't make sense to get rid of the substance of a program so you can have more fluff and analysis."

While it now takes three to four years to spot trends in a plant's emissions, it would take six to eight years under the Bush proposal, he said.

In Seattle, residents concerned about chemicals in their neighborhoods frequently turn to the Community Coalition for Environmental Justice. And pretty much the first thing the activists there do is consult the Toxic Release Inventory.

"We provide technical assistance to communities, and TRI is a real vital part of that," said Yalonda Sinde, the group's executive director.

Under the proposed changes, "We will get less information, less frequently, and I think this whole thing is being motivated by industry interests. I think the EPA is forgetting who they're actually supposed to be protecting here."

"The regulatory changes being proposed by EPA are both disturbing and dangerous," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. "This administration has consistently tried to roll back rules that are in place to protect the health and well-being of our communities."

One problem with the TRI information is that it is already dated when it comes out. The most recent readings available, from 2003, show Seattle's biggest polluter to be Puget Sound Coatings, a South Park company specializing in paints and other coatings for industrial materials.

In 2003, it reported releasing some 54,000 pounds of solvents: xylene and methyl ethyl ketone.

However, since then the company has greatly reduced its use and release of toxic chemicals, according to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.

Rich Tieman, the company's manager, said it bought more efficient equipment, persuaded customers to opt for less-hazardous coatings and put better shop practices into effect.

Similarly, at Art Brass Painting, the No. 3 Seattle chemical emitter in 2003, the firm has substituted a new, non-toxic chemical for the degreaser it once used, said engineer Bob Hay.

And at Asko Processing in Fremont, which applies platings to equipment used in the aerospace industry, spokesman Sandy Hallberg was surprised to hear the company ranked the fourth-highest discharger for Seattle.

"We used to be way down on the list," he said. However, with other firms reducing their waste, Asko moved up

What about the idea of biennial Toxic Release Inventory reporting?

"It's almost easier to do it every year, instead of having to keep track of it for two years," he said.