Heritage Foundation Leadership for America

Background:  In 1986, after two serious incidents involving toxic chemical release spurred demand for more information, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted. Under the program, businesses are required to report locations and quantities of chemicals stored on-site to state and local governments. Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency and states annually collect data on releases and transfers of certain toxic chemicals from industrial facilities and make the data available to the public in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Status:   Since its inception in 1988, the TRI program has expanded drastically. The number of chemicals included has nearly doubled and seven new industry sectors have been added. In effort to reduce the burden, EPA has proposed a rule that would expand use of a shortened report form (Form A) – a proposal that is expected to save 165,000 hours per year while ensuring “long form” (Form R) reporting on over 99 percent of toxic releases and other waste management activities. The proposal also provides new incentives for facilities to emit less in order to be able to use the shorter form.  

In addition to this, EPA has proposed allowing industries to report every other year rather than annually. Under the TRI Burden Reduction Proposed Rule, the savings from this program in the non-reporting years would be reinvested to programs that would help improve electronic reporting.

Discussion:   TRI does not directly affect what chemicals are released into the environment nor does it merely require industries to report on what chemicals they release. In its current form, TRI requires that thousands of small businesses that release little or no toxic materials jump through the same regulatory hoops that larger businesses which release tons of chemicals must. This is especially burdensome for small businesses. EPA’s proposal would help to alleviate some of this burden without sacrificing accurate reporting from larger companies.

The bigger issue is whether TRI actually provides valuable information. It merely requires that businesses report the pounds of chemicals they release into the environment– without regard to how dangerous the chemicals are. Yet, the way in which “release” is defined distorts the information. For instance, TRI counts shipments of chemicals between companies and from companies to landfills, as well as on- or off-site recycling or reuse of listed chemicals as a release.

Another argument against TRI’s usefulness involves national security. The availability of public information on amounts of toxic chemicals available at industrial facilities can easily be used as blueprints for terrorism.

Action item:   Although more fundamental changes to TRI should be considered, adopting this proposal would be a step in the right direction. In addition, TRI should be revamped to measure environmental risk, which is much more consistent with the program’s original intention and would provide much more valuable public knowledge.

This brief was prepared by Heritage Research Assistant Nancy Marano.

The "Regulation In Brief" is produced regularly by The Heritage Foundation, providing concise summaries of key regulatory issues, along with links to key background material on each issue.

Regulation In Brief Library

Return to the main regulation research page