Making Sense of Toxic Releases in the Chemicals and
Metals Industries: A Descriptive Analysis
Timothy Larsen (Public Affairs Department)
Dr. Mark Stephan (Public Affairs Department)
Washington State University Vancouver
Introduction
Fifty years ago, access to corporate data was considered a privilege which was not available
to all citizens. Over time, access to numerous types of information has become a right for all
citizens of the United States. The movement to make information public started with financial
institutions and then migrated to the government, providing access and freedom in its retrieval.
The start of the movement towards broader disclosure was articulated in the early works of
Joshua Brandeis, who later become a federal Supreme Court justice. He advocated that the financial
institutions should disclose to their customers any and all information that would be relevant to
customers’ investments and personal bank accounts. This message eventually spread beyond
financial information and now includes social, public health, and environmental data as well.
The exploratory research found here is meant to help us better understand if environmental
information disclosure does, in fact, impact how our industrial sectors work. With publicly available
information, we can see what our major industries, like those in our “backyards” and near our
schools, are doing with their industrial releases. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
established the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program in 1989. This program established a way for
citizens to look into the companies next door and see what they were depositing into our air, water
and land. By looking at the following graphs we get a better sense, over a timeline of ten years, of
what our industries are doing and we can come up with possible explanations as to why these
changes are occurring.
National Trend
The first thing that we did was compile information on the nation’s pollutants being released
from all industrial sources. We used the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database located on the EPA
website (www.epa.gov/tri) to access the data. What we came up with in our review of the data are
the trends of pollutants over a 10 year period (1991-2000). We chose to look at the 1991 “core”
chemicals in order to be consistent over the ten year time period that we examined. The graph
shows that a significant drop in emissions of the core chemical set occurred from 1991 to 1992 with
a relatively consistent decline in those emissions for the following years. Why did this occur? Are
there particular industries that are causing this trend, or all of the U.S. industrial sectors acting in
the same way? Are there variations across media (air, land, water)? Are there variations across
states? Could these changes be signs that regulations are actually working? These are some of the
many questions that arise when looking at the data.
National Trends for All Industries
Emissions (Pounds)
4,000,000,000
3,500,000,000
3,000,000,000
2,500,000,000
2,000,000,000
National Trend
1,500,000,000
1,000,000,000
500,000,000
0
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
Years
Industry by Years (91-95-00)
Since we had questions as to why the trends occurred in the manner that they did, we took a
closer look at which industries were driving this change by examining three years from the 10 year
time span (1991, 1995, and 2000). From the data, we see that there are two major spikes in the total
emissions of all of the registered industries. These spikes indicate that two industries, the Chemical
and Primary Metals industries are the most significant actors when it comes to emissions. By
examining these spikes we see that the Chemical industry’s releases are decreasing while the
Primary Metals industry’s releases are increasing. We began to wonder why these two industries are
showing such different results from one another. Is the Chemical industry being regulated more
aggressively than Primary Metals? Are there technological factors that allow the Chemical industry
to reduce its emissions that are not transferable to Primary Metals? Is it due to the market, where
the consumers are eventually driving the amount that is produced?
National Trends by Industry by Year
700,000,000
600,000,000
Emissions
500,000,000
1991
1995
2000
400,000,000
300,000,000
200,000,000
100,000,000
0
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Industry
Standard Industrial Classification Codes
20
21
22
23
24
Food
Tobacco
Textiles
Apparel
Lumber
25
26
27
28
29
Furniture
Paper
Printing
Chemicals
Petroleum
30
31
32
33
34
Plastics
Leather
Stone/Clay/Glass
Primary Metals
Fabricated Metals
35
36
37
38
39
Machinery
Electrical Equipment
Transportation Equipment
Measure/Photo Equpment
Miscellaneous
Chemicals and Primary Metals
From the data that was collected at a national level, we see that there are two industries that
stand above the rest: the Chemical and the Primary Metals industries. We felt these spikes were
significant enough to warrant further investigation. The trend we see when we analyze them
separately from other industries, is that the Chemical industry is being driven downward steadily,
whereas the Primary Metals industry has a steady increase until 1997, where it begins to slowly
descend. With these graphs, we come to some more questions. First, are there reasons why these
two industries are moving in the directions that they are? Do influences like political power or
technological advances come into play? Are these changes market driven? Although we cannot
answer these questions directly at this point, we can look into the possibilities a bit more by further
disaggregating the data.
Comparison of Chemical and Primary Metals
Industry Emissions (1991-2000)
Air, Water, Land Emissions
(Pounds)
700,000,000
600,000,000
500,000,000
400,000,000
28 Chemicals
33 Primary Metals
300,000,000
200,000,000
100,000,000
0
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
Years
By Medium (Air, Water and Land)
Since we had selected these two industries to observe more closely, we next decided to look
at the different media, like air, water and land, into which they make releases. This let us see which
medium is more affected by the industry rather than just looking at the total emissions. From this,
we see that the Chemical industry’s emissions are mainly into the air, while the Primary Metals
industry’s emissions are mainly into the land. We can make comparison between the mediums in
order to determine differences between the two industries. In particular, it becomes obvious that
decreases in emissions in the Chemical industry are due to changes in air and water discharges. In
contrast, the Primary Metals industry sees increases due to greater amounts of toxic waste on land.
Emissions (Pounds)
Trends in the Chemical and Primary Metals
Industry for Air Emissions
500,000,000
400,000,000
300,000,000
28 Chemicals
33 Primary Metals
200,000,000
100,000,000
0
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
Years
Emissions (Pounds)
Trends in the Chemical and Primary Metal
industry for Water Emissions
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
28 Chemicals
33 Primary Metals
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Years
Emissions
(Pounds)
Trends in the Chemical and Primary Metal
Industry for Land Emissions
300,000,000
200,000,000
28 Chemicals
33 Primary Metals
100,000,000
0
1991
1994
1997
2000
Years
By State (Drivers and Outliers)
It is also beneficial to examine the data state by state in order to better determine which states
are driving the national results and which states might be serving as outliers. Thus, we examined
each state over this time period. We looked at total emissions as well as air, water and land to see
which states demonstrated the same or opposite trends as the national data. Though the states
included here are only for illustrative purposes, they highlight a number of key points. First, state
variations do exist, with some states clearly driving the overall results (e.g., Texas and the chemical
industry emissions), while other states move against the grain (e.g., New Mexico and primary metals
industry emissions). These variations raise further questions about the role of regulations,
technological change, and other factors that drive the results.
Emission (Pounds)
Total Emissions for Chemicals in Texas (Driver)
180,000,000
160,000,000
140,000,000
120,000,000
100,000,000
80,000,000
60,000,000
40,000,000
20,000,000
0
Chemical
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Years
Emission (Pounds)
Total Emissions for Chemicals in Louisana (Driver)
100,000,000
80,000,000
60,000,000
Chemicals
40,000,000
20,000,000
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Years
80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
0
Primary Metals
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
Emission (Pounds)
Total Emissions for Primary Metals in Arizona (Driver)
Years
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
0
00
20
99
19
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
19
19
92
Primary Metals
91
Emission (Pounds)
Total Emissions for Primary Metals in Ohio (Driver)
Years
Total Emissions for Chemicals in Florida (Outlier)
Emission (Pounds)
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
Chemical
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Years
Emission (Pounds)
Total Emissions for Chemicals in Maryland (Outlier)
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
Chemical
1,000,000
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Years
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
Years
00
20
99
19
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
91
Primary Metals
19
Emission (Pounds)
Total Emissions for Primary Metals in New Mexico (Outlier)
Emission (Pounds)
Land Emissions for Primary Metals in South Carolina
(Outlier)
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Primary Metals
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Years
Conclusions
Examination of the data leads to some initial conclusions:
1)
Aggregate results hide important variations at lower levels of analysis. In
particular, national trends hide significant differences across industries, media,
and states.
2)
Though in general there is good news to report about reductions in emissions,
there are some trends which are less positive. In particular, in the Primary
Metals industry there is mixed evidence that suggest that on-going reductions are
not occurring
3)
Some states seem to be leaders in emission reductions, others seem to be
laggards. The lack of uniformity in trends across states raises a variety of
questions about appropriate policy prescriptions to reduce pollution emissions.
Possible explanations for the variations across industry, medium, and state
A) Stricter regulations are targeted towards specific industries, media, and states.
What do you think? Plausible?
Somewhat plausible: In the United States there are variations across states in their regulations
and maybe, more importantly, there are variations across regulations because land, air, and water
pollution are all regulated under overlapping (but not identical) laws such as the Clean Air Act
and Clean Water Act.
B) More intense enforcement of regulations has been targeted towards specific industries,
media, and states.
What do you think? Plausible?
Highly plausible: Enforcement in many cases can be key to whether regulations have an
influence on the private sector. Some anecdotal evidence suggests that the Chemical Industry
has been targeted in ways that other industries, including the Primary Metals industry, have not
been targeted.
C) Technological improvements have affected particular industries and/or media, but have not
been influential across all industry or media.
What do you think? Plausible?
Plausible: Anecdotal evidence from the primary metals industry suggests that technological
fixes to reduce land emissions have been limited, while clear gains have been made in reducing
the amount of waste that finds its way to air and water. In fact, some reductions to air and water
discharges may be leading to increases in land discharge amounts. The Chemical industry saw
either no change or increases of emissions to land in the ten year period that there were decreases
to air and water.
D) Emissions have seen increases or decreases based on production changes across industries.
That is to say, some industries are seeing decreases because production is down, while other
industries are seeing increases because production is up.
What do you think? Plausible?
Not very plausible: Though it is true that numerous companies have moved their production
facilities overseas (or just gotten out of the business completely), this has been less true of the
Chemical industry and more true of the Primary Metals industry overall. Furthermore, the 1990s
were a boom time economically and almost all industries were swept upward by this tide.
E) The provision of information to the public has created a heretofore unexplained dynamic that
engenders reductions in particular industries, media, and states.
What do you think? Plausible?
Somewhat plausible: The Chemical industry may have seen larger decreases in emission less
due to regulations and more because of intense mass media scrutiny (especially in the late 1980s
and early 1990s). It was this industry’s practices in the early 1980s and mid-1980s that caught
the attention of the US Congress and prompted the creation of the TRI in the first place. That
said, if we would expect communities to put the greatest attention on the biggest polluters, the
fact the Primary Metals industry saw increases in emissions makes little sense. How could this
industry get away with practices that other industries could not?