Industries Begin Revealing Toxics They Have Released

A “revolutionary” right-to-know law that requires manufacturing firms throughout the country to disclose each year the hazardous chemicals they released into the environment went into effect Friday, launching a new era of environmental regulation inspired by the 1984 Bhopal disaster.

The law, passed by Congress and signed by President Reagan in 1986, will for the first time provide a national picture of the kind and amount of toxic chemicals released routinely and by accidental leaks or evaporation into the air, water or ground. Eventually, the information is expected to spawn more regulations.

“It is a major change in the way that toxic emissions have been dealt with in this country because it involves a whole new set of actors--the citizens,” said Charles Elkins, director of the Office of Toxic Substances for the Environmental Protection Agency.

“It is extraordinarily revolutionary because for the first time the public is going to know what the plant down the street is releasing on a species (chemical) by species basis,” said Richard Siegel, member of a Texas-based consulting firm that has helped about 300 plants throughout the country comply with the new law.

Estimated to cost industry $500 million this year to comply with the paper work, the law applies to many small and medium-sized businesses that have never before come under environmental regulation. Industry officials say “thousands” of firms probably missed Friday’s deadline for filing the disclosure reports because they did not believe they were covered.

Some industry representatives are worried that the newly required disclosures will alarm the public unnecessarily and cause lawmakers to overreact. The EPA forms require disclosure of the amount of certain chemicals that are released into the environment but not the environmental conditions under which they are released.

Without knowing such factors as wind condition and the amount and timing of the release, it is impossible to estimate the exposure and possible health risks to people.

“Our concern is that people are going to be frightened and the potential for overreaction is great,” said Siegel, a senior professional staff member of ENSR Corp. “This could lead to regulation and legislation beyond what is necessary to deal with these constituents.”

Limited Information

Indeed the forms ask companies to supply only general information. For example, a form filed by the Chevron Chemical Co. plant on Medford Street in East Los Angeles showed the firm emitted 4,500 pounds of methanol and 41,000 pounds of butyl alcohol into the air by leaks or evaporation last year. Another 42,700 pounds of butyl alcohol and 1,800 pounds of methanol were released by the firm through stacks or other controlled release mechanisms.

Methanol in large quantities can cause blindness and at low levels may be associated with neurological effects. Butyl alcohol is toxic if it is consumed but is generally considered safe to breathe in low quantities. The forms do not indicate the route of exposure or whether the releases were concentrated enough to pose any health concerns.

Another Los Angeles firm, Builders Brass Works, on Union Pacific Avenue near Vernon, reported releasing 20,000 pounds of perchloroethylene as a result of leaks or evaporation. The solvent is known to cause cancer in animals. But again, there is not enough information to determine who may have been exposed to the chemical and by how much and what route.

The EPA’s Elkins agreed that “there is not enough information in the forms to know whether you should be scared or not.”

“What we have been telling people is that this information gives them a hint of where they might want to be concerned and ask more questions, but it’s difficult to reach a final conclusion by simply looking at these forms,” he said.

Some environmentalists, who contend that releases of many chemicals in any concentration are harmful, say the disclosures will be highly valuable.

‘Idea of What’s Out There’

“We don’t know exactly who is being exposed, but we at least have an idea of what’s out there and what we’re up against in terms of reducing the overall amount of toxics in the environment,” said Jane Bloom, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York.

The right-to-know regulation was passed by Congress as a provision in a bill to reauthorize Superfund, the nation’s toxic waste cleanup program. Prompted by the deaths of more than 2,000 people from a poisonous gas leak in a factory accident in Bhopal, India, the regulation is part of a package of right-to-know requirements that are being phased in this year. In addition to disclosing emissions, industry this year has been asked to report inventories of stored chemicals and to participate in emergency response planning for accidents.

The EPA estimates that 30,000 firms throughout the country are covered by the emissions-reporting requirement. They include food, tobacco, textiles, petroleum, printing, metals, rubber and plastics firms that have 10 or more full-time employees. Firms that manufacture or process 75,000 pounds or use at least 10,000 pounds of one or more of 328 chemicals specified by the EPA must file the reports. An EPA spokeswoman described the law as similar to the required filing of income tax returns each year.

Industries, particularly smaller companies, have complained about the cost and time necessary to determine their emissions and fill out the forms.

Estimated Cost ‘Too Low’

Theresa Pugh, director of environmental quality for the National Assn. of Manufacturers, described as “too low” the EPA estimate that industry will spend $500 million in staff time and outside consulting fees to comply with the law this year.

“I have one company--it has an excellent environmental compliance record--and they have spent $1 million alone and they have 40 plants,” she said. “Some of the companies have had to hire attorneys and engineers.”

She said many companies, mostly smaller firms with fewer than 500 employees, are unaware that they are covered by the law despite efforts by the EPA to identify and alert them through letters, seminars and meetings with trade associations.

“We think there are thousands of companies--and I wouldn’t be surprised if there are 10,000--that have not filed,” said Pugh, whose association has 14,000 member-companies. “Hundreds of companies have called just in the last 10 days saying they just became aware of it, and they are having all sorts of problems coming up with the numbers of how much they had released.”

The law provides a $25,000-a-day fine for companies that do not meet the deadline. EPA officials say they will give companies that show good intentions some leeway this year because of the confusion about who must file. The forms will be analyzed by computer for mistakes or fraud, and random on-site inspections will be done to ensure companies report honestly, EPA officials said.

They admit, however, that they may not readily be able to identify companies that failed to report and will be forced to rely on residents and local governmental organizations to turn in non-complying firms. “We just have never collected that information in the past so when you ask who is subject to this law, that is a major problem for us,” said the EPA’s Elkins.

Will Be on Computer

Copies of the forms will be kept in the states and at EPA’s Washington headquarters. In California, copies will be available from the state Environmental Affairs Agency. By next spring, the EPA expects to have all the information on computer, and residents will be able to call up statistics about neighborhood factories and environmental problems on their home computers or in computers supplied by libraries, Elkins said.

“Once the computer is up, people will be able to see whether their companies appear to be doing as good a job in controlling the chemicals as other companies, which have tighter controls . . .,” he said. “You will be able to ask immediate questions, like the emission of a particular chemical in your ZIP Code or the amount of a chemical that went into a river that runs through your community.”

He said some firms, surprised and embarrassed by the amounts released to the environment, have already pledged to the EPA to reduce their emissions voluntarily.

“I think some companies, at the higher levels, may not realize how much they are emitting and will be embarrassed and want to take some steps, particularly if they find these numbers mean they are violating a permit,” Elkins said.

In Sacramento, the state Environmental Affairs Agency had received about 700 reports by Friday.

Bill Sessa, an agency spokesman, said a new state law will eventually cover more industries and many of the same chemicals in the federal program. The state Air Resources Board is developing guidelines to implement the law, and the first reports required by it are expected in 1990. Sessa said the agency will try to streamline the reporting requirements so that companies are not required to keep duplicate records for both state and federal governments.