Grantee Research Project Results
2006 Progress Report: Evaluating The Impact of Public Disclosure on Polluter Behavior: Evidence from the TRI
EPA Grant Number: R832850Title: Evaluating The Impact of Public Disclosure on Polluter Behavior: Evidence from the TRI
Investigators: Bui, Linda T.M.
Institution: Brandeis University
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Project Period: April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2008
Project Period Covered by this Report: April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007
Project Amount: $235,040
RFA: Environmental Behavior and Decisionmaking: Determining the Effectiveness of Environmental Information Disclosure and Provision (2005) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Environmental Justice
Objective:
The main purpose of this research project is to examine the effectiveness of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) for controlling toxic releases. In particular: (1) How have reported declines in TRI-listed releases come about? (2) Have supplemental state-level environmental policies contributed to the reductions in toxic releases? (3) Have Pollution Abatement Cost and Expenditures (PACE) Survey expenditures for non-toxic emissions affected the level of toxic releases? (4) Is the observed effectiveness of the TRI sensitive to the use of toxicity indices? The studies I propose make use of plant-level data for the printed circuit board (PCB) industry, petroleum refiners, electronics manufacturers, pulp and paper mills, and pharmaceuticals.
Progress Summary:
The study of the PCB industry is near completion. We have found that, although changes in market structure have made it less likely for PCB manufacturers to voluntarily reduce toxic releases, TRI releases within this industry have fallen by more than 94% since 1988. Some fraction of these reductions can be explained by attrition within the industry—between 1988 and 2003, fewer than 20 reporting facilities remained in the sample for all 16 years. There is strong evidence that facilities exiting the industry tended to be the dirtier (more toxic) facilities. Whether the exit was due to TRI reporting or something else cannot be determined. Those that remained in the sample, however, showed significant reductions in TRI releases over time (approx. 80%), suggesting that the overall industry reductions cannot be explained through attrition of dirty plants alone. Furthermore, through somewhat indirect data on output, we find that the reduction in releases is not due to a reduction in output levels. So, not only have aggregate releases fallen over time in this industry, it appears as though TRI releases per unit of output (board) have also declined—a strong indication that the industry is more pollution efficient.
Having determined that PCB facilities have actually gotten cleaner since TRI reporting began, we next turn to the question of why these reductions have occurred.
Although PCB manufacturing is known to be more water than air pollution-intensive, PCB TRI releases are mainly in the form of toxic air releases. And, because of both direct and indirect effects, a large portion of the reduction in TRI releases in this industry can be attributed to regulations for the criteria air pollutants. In particular, we find that firms located in non-attainment counties are significantly cleaner than those located in attainment counties. Furthermore, facility-level reductions are significantly greater for facilities that are in counties that have recently switched from being an attainment county to a non-attainment county.
The other large determinant in TRI reductions is state-level regulations for toxic pollutants. We find that for facilities located in states that have additional regulations that specifically target TRI releases and have numeric reduction goals (state-wide), TRI releases are much smaller and their reductions of releases much larger than facilities located elsewhere.
Finally, we find some evidence that the EPA-sponsored program called the Design for the Environment, which actively engaged industry and university researchers to conduct research into pollution prevention and waste management for the PCB industry, led to declines in TRI releases, although this result is somewhat preliminary.
Future Activities:
We hope to resubmit the PCB paper to a peer reviewed journal before the end of summer 2007. For the second large project under this grant, we continue to clean the data, work on obtaining access to the Census Bureau, try to develop a “phase out” index for TRI chemicals, and look at differences in TRI response between industries that are air pollution-intensive and water pollution-intensive.
Supplemental Keywords:
toxics, public policy, information regulation,, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, Scientific Discipline, Corporate Performance, Economics and Business, Social Science, impact of state policy instruments, impact of federal policy instruments, policy making, toxic release inventory, TRI, environmental compliance determinants, information dissemination, public reporting, right-to-know programs, environmental behaviorRelevant Websites:
The Web site is under development; it will provide access to the regulatory data set and PCB TRI data used in one of the papers.
Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.