DATA: EPA “HONOR SYSTEM” LEADS TO MORE POLLUTION AT
10 OUT OF 13 INDUSTRIAL SITES GETTING LESS OVERSIGHT
Groups Urge Investigation of Program, Freeze on Planned Expansion; Pollution
Jumps Seen at Industrial Sites in AL, IA, LA, ME, NC, PA, SC, VA and WA.
WASHINGTON, D.C.///February 8, 2006///An U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) program that puts major U.S. polluters on an honor system with less federal
oversight may be backfiring, with 10 of the original 13 facilities on the EPA’s so-called
“Performance Track” reporting the release of more toxic chemicals to the air or water
than they were before entering the program, according to data released today by the
nonprofit and nonpartisan Environmental Integrity Project (EIP).
The data raises new questions about the controversial EPA program. EIP and the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) are calling for the “Performance Track”
deregulation push to be frozen pending an independent scale investigation. Currently,
EPA is expected to announce plans to expand the “Performance Track” program at a
meeting with state environmental commissioners on February 22, 2006, and also recently
awarded $40 million in support contracts for the polluter honor roll system.
The EIP data shows rises in the releases of toxic chemicals to air and/or water at large
manufacturing plants in Alabama, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Virginia and Washington state.
Eric Schaeffer, director, Environmental Integrity Project, said: “The EPA is allowing
‘self reporting’ of the worst kind today, as polluters get to pick their subjects, design
their own tests, grade themselves, and even change their report cards after the fact
to avoid a failing grade. Despite evidence that some participating companies are
polluting more, not less, EPA continues to advertise fewer regulations and less
enforcement for Performance Track members, in the kind of hyped up language
usually reserved for infomercials on late night television.”
Schaeffer added: “Our initial review conflicts with the Agency’s claim that this
program somehow encourages superior environmental performance. EPA should
pause for breath before expanding Performance Track, conduct an independent and
open evaluation of just what it has accomplished, and determine whether the
returns are worth sacrificing laws that protect the public health and our
environment.”
The US Environmental Protection Agency advertises its “Performance Track” program as
a haven for companies with exemplary environmental records. In return for a voluntary
commitment to go “beyond compliance,” Performance Track corporations are promised
regulatory incentives, an “exclusive” right to be shielded from “routine” inspections, free
advertising (including photographs with the EPA Administrator), and insider access to
senior decision-makers in government.
REPORT FINDINGS
Most of the original group of manufacturers reaping Performance Track rewards are
releasing more toxic pollution to the environment than they were before signing up to the
program. The EIP report examined 13 large manufacturing plants with a significant
history of toxic emissions that joined the program in 2001, its first year. EIP compared
emissions reported by these companies to the Toxics Release Inventory in 2000, the year
before they joined Performance Track, with amounts reported in 2004, the latest year for
which information is available.
Key findings include:

Seven facilities reported significantly increasing air emissions of toxic pollutants by a
combined total of more than 2 million pounds between 2000 and 2004. Toxic
pollutants include carcinogens (chemicals linked to cancer) as well as pollutants that
cause birth defects or other diseases. International Paper’s Androscoggin mill in
Franklin County, Maine, one of the flagship Performance Track facilities, more than
doubled its toxic emissions between 2000 and 2004, while Monsanto’s chemical plant
in Muscatine, Iowa, increased toxic air emissions by more than 80 percent.

Five of the ten plants that discharge pollution directly to surface water reported
releasing 457,000 pounds more toxic pollution to nearby rivers in 2004 than they did
in 2000. Dupont’s chemical plant in Chesterfield County, Virginia nearly tripled its
reported toxic discharges over the four year period, as did International Paper’s Kraft
mill in Mansfield, Louisiana.

Of the five plants that report significant releases of persistent bioaccumulative toxins
like lead to the air and water, four reported increasing levels of these deadly
pollutants between 2000 and 2004. Some of the releases at these four facilities,
which increased more than 3600 pounds between 2000 and 2004, may reflect a failure
to report the discharges in earlier years.

Companies that failed to live up to promises were not taken off the EPA honor roll.
Apparently, there are no consequences for not meeting commitments – targets that are
missed are simply adjusted downward to match actual performance. For example,
Dupont’s annual report for 2004 notes that it decided not to pursue a planned
wastewater treatment upgrade at its plant in Spruance, Virginia, because the expense
was deemed “too excessive.” The report advises EPA that it will therefore only cut
water consumption about six million gallons a day, instead of the 50 million gallons
originally promised.
Toxic air emissions from 11 of the 13 companies include carcinogens like acetaldehyde,
ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, or lead. Six of these eleven companies reported increasing
air emissions of carcinogens by more than 164,000 pounds between 2000 and 2004.
3M’s chemical plant in Guin, Alabama, led the pack by more than doubling its emissions
of ethylbenzene over four years, with International Paper’s Maine plant close behind with
a 90 percent increase in carcinogens overall.
Only three of the original 13 “Performance Track” facilities – 3M in Brownwood, Texas,
IBM in Essex Junction, Vermont, and Siltronic in Portland, Oregon, reported decreases or
significant increases in toxic releases between 2000 or 2004.
A full copy of the report and accompanying tables will be posted on the Environmental
Integrity Project’s website at http://www.environmentalintegrity.org.
ABOUT EIP
The Environmental Integrity Project (http://www.environmentalintegrity.org) is a nonprofit and non-partisan organization dedicated to stronger enforcement of existing federal
and state anti-pollution laws, and to the prevention of political interference with those
laws. EIP's research and reports shed light on how enforcement and rulemaking affect
public health. EIP also works closely with communities seeking enforcement of
environmental laws.
CONTACT: Patrick Mitchell, (703) 276-3266 or pmitchell@hastingsgroup.com.
EDITOR’S NOTE: A streaming audio recording of the related news event and the EIP
report will be available on the Web on February 8, 2006 at
http://www.environmentalintegrity.org.