Toxics Released by Industry Up 16 Percent from 2009

On January 5, 2012, the US EPA released its 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) National Analysis, its annual report displaying the agency's interpretation of the most recent TRI data, which outlines national and local trends in toxic chemical disposal into the environment. The report provides the American public with vital information about toxic materials in their communities.

Now in its 25th year, the TRI program helps citizens, emergency planners, public health officials, and others protect human health and the environment by providing them with toxic chemical release and other waste management data. The information can be used in decision-making processes that affect public safety and welfare.

Facilities must report their toxic chemical releases to the EPA by July 1st of each year under the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 also requires information on waste management activities related to TRI chemicals.

The report indicates that in 2010, TRI facilities generated more than 21.82 billion pounds of toxic chemicals in production-related wastes. Of this total, nearly 17.85 billiion pounds were recycled, burned for energy recovery, or treated; the remaining 3.97 billion pounds were disposed of or otherwise released into the environment.

The data reflects on- and off-site or other releases into land, air or water, or releases injected underground. For 2010, the total releases of TRI chemicals into the environment are higher than the previous two years, but are lower than 2007 and prior-year totals. The 3.93¹ billion pounds of toxic chemicals released nationwide represents a 16% increase from 2009.

• Total air releases decreased 6%,
• Releases into surface water increased 9%, and
• Releases onto or into land increased 28% since 2009.

Most of the releases (41%) came from the Metal Mining sector, and is reflective of changes in the industry. A small change in the chemical composition of ore being mined may lead to large changes in toxic releases. The sector contributed 1,622.6 million pounds in 2010 versus 1,271.7 million in 2009, a 27.5% increase. Since 2001, however, the Metal Mining sector decreased TRI chemical release levels by 29%, or 652 million pounds. In both years, ±98% of the disposal was onto land.

Running second was the Electric Utility sector, which contributed 18% of TRI chemical releases in 2010 up from 12% in 2009, although the actual poundage was down: 702.4 million pounds in 2010 versus 801.6 million in 2009. In 2010, 88% was released into the air and land versus 91% in 2009.

In all, 7 of the 26 industry sectors originated 92% of all disposal or other releases of TRI chemicals.

The EPA has made improvements to this year’s TRI report by adding new information on facility efforts to reduce pollution and by considering whether economic factors could have affected the TRI data. With this report and EPA’s Web-based TRI tools, the public has access to information about toxic chemical releases that occur locally.

¹Note that the two metrics related to disposal or other releases are different, i.e. 3.97 and 3.93. One key source of the difference is that adjustments are made to the aggregated quantities to ensure that transfers of TRI chemicals sent off site to other TRI facilities are not counted twice.

With oil growing more scarce each year, energy companies have been turning to alternative fuel sources, including shale and coalbed methane gas.

Like other energy sources, the problem facing the natural gas and oil industry is how to regulate the environmental impact that drilling causes.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently announced a timeline for developing environmental standards that would help regulate the wastewater produced from natural gas extraction. Currently, no such set of standards are in place. The EPA will be accepting input from the energy industry and public health organizations, as well as other stakeholders.

While previously not economical, recently developed technologies have turned shale and coalbed gas drilling into a more lucrative business venture, resulting in an increase in drilling activities. The Obama administration has further encouraged drilling in the hopes of weaning Americans off of foreign oil while simultaneously creating a new source of employment.

Main environmental concerns over natural gas extraction are centered on wastewater discharges through the process of hydraulic fracking. Chemically-treated water is used in the gas well to help release the gas and pump it up to the surface. While the gas is then sent to a compressor for processing, the water used during extraction is often left in the ground, where it can contaminate freshwater aquifers. In other instances, this "produced water" is either released into streams, used in irrigation systems, or placed in evaporation ponds.

The produced water used in natural gas extraction contains dissolved compounds such as sodium bicarbonate and chloride, resulting in a higher level of salinity. In Australia, evaporation ponds have sometimes failed to properly reincorporate the water, leaving behind poor soil quality and subsequent lack of vegetative growth because of the sudden abundance of sodium.

Scientists are still debating the impact of natural gas wastewater however. Earlier this year, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released a study that showed lower levels of pollution when coupled with proper disposal techniques. Gas wells that resulted in groundwater contamination were not employing higher wastewater processing standards. The study showed that a detrimental environmental impact can be minimized with proper regulation such as those standards proposed by the EPA.

On December 20, 2010, the Fall 2010 Unified Agenda was published by the US Department of Labor for regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The Unified Agenda confirmed the next steps toward the adoption of final rules, which will overhaul the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (HCS).  The rulemaking process, which began in September of 2006, is expected to end with a final rule being completed in August 2011.

OSHA’s current HCS regulations require any employer with hazardous chemicals in the workplace to implement a hazard communication program, including container labeling requirements, material safety data sheets (MSDS) and employee training. The new rules aim to bring US requirements in line with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) which is being implemented worldwide, including adoption by the United Nations and European Union. 

In a fact sheet on their website, OSHA identifies four major changes to the HCS following the implementation of the new GHS rule. First, GHS will provide additional criteria to improve hazard classification based on health and physical hazards.  Second, a new labeling standard will be implemented, including required signal words, pictograms and hazard statements.  Third, the new regulations will require safety data sheets in a 16-section specified format. Finally, GHS regulations do not specifically address training of employees, but the proposed HCS does include some training requirements for workers within two years of the final rule, to ensure understanding of the new labels and safety data sheets.

Expected benefits of the rule include consistency in international trade markets and increased safety for workers handling hazardous chemicals. Under current regulations in the US and internationally, companies are often required to comply with differing hazard communication requirements based on the multiple countries where their products are used or sites are located.  As more countries adopt GHS regulations, companies could potentially spend less money focusing on complying with varied requirements.  Increased consistency of information provided on labels, clear pictograms and standardized precautionary statements should also improve the safety of workers exposed to and working with hazardous chemicals.

OSHA characterizes costs of implementation of GHS as a “one-time transition cost” for affected industries and companies.  Costs are likely to include reclassification of chemicals and training of workers on new label and safety data sheet information and modified HCS standards.

What actions does your company need to take to be ready for the implementation of new GHS requirements?  Will the customer be better served using the new requirements?  Do you think the benefits will outweigh the costs?