Industry
Response to
SARA Title III:
Pollution Prevention,
Risk Reduction and
Risk Communication
Susan L. Santos, M.S.
Vincent T. Covello, Ph.D.
David B. McCalilum, Ph.D.
Columbia University
Center for Risk
Communication
, Ph.D.
Elizabeth David,
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
May 1994
-------
-------
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Dr. Edward Nelson and John Stevenson
of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for their
assistance in developing and implementing the survey. They and
Dr. Elizabeth David developed and administered in Wisconsin many
of the questions in Sections I, II and X of tiiiis survey. The results
of their survey of the hazardous waste generators in Wisconsin is
contained in: Wisconsin Department of Natijral Resources, Bureau
of Research, Reducing Hazardous Waste in Wisconsin, Madison,
Wisconsin, Report I (PUBL-MB-003 (91), January 1991); Report
n (PUBL-MB-004 (91), March 1991); Report HI (PUBL-MB-005
(92), August 1992); Report IV (PUBL-MB-006 (92), August 1992;
Report V (PUBL-MB-007 (92), August 1992). Also, Dr. Linda
Fisher and Michael Barton of Rowan & Blewitt Incorporated assistec3.
in.the preparation of the report. The authors also wish to
acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Ann Fisher of Pennsylvania State
University, as well as Aim Mason and the members of the Chemical
Manufacturers Association Pollution Prevention Task Group and
Community Outreach Task Group for their assistance in developing
the survey instrument. The work was fundedjin part by a cooperative
agreement from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lynn
Desautels, Project Officer.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication ; Pagei
-------
-------
Preface
The Emergency Planning and Community Righi:-to-Know Act of 1986
(EPCRA, also known as SARA Title III) establishes requirements for
industry regarding emergency planning and coihmenity right-to-know
reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals. As a result of Title III,
communities now have access to information about the amounts, location
and potential effects of hazardous chemicals jbeing used or stored;
information on the quantities of routine releases) of hazardous materials
to the environment; and information about accidental releases of hazardous
materials to the environment. ;
" • ' '. - , < • .- • •"':''
The legislative intent of Title III was that it woiild serve to inform and
educate the public about chemicals and risks. It has been speculated that
an increase in public awareness and concern might ialso prompt corporations
to change their facility practices regarding the use and control of toxic and
hazardous substances. At the time of passage, it was hoped that Title III
might significantly affect the responses taken] by industries both to
communicate information to the public about chemicals and risks, and to
reduce the potential for routine emissions and accidental releases.
' • . . j" ' .
Under a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
conducted a survey of risk reduction, pollution prevention and risk
communication initiatives in three industries: pujlp and paper, chemical,
and petroleum and refining. The purpose of the slpdy was to evaluate the
extent of industrial activities since passage of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (SARA Title III), to examine the
rationale for actions taken, and to identify those factors mat may contribute
to a company or facility engaging in risk comimjuiication, risk reduction
or pollution prevention activities. j
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication j Pageii
-------
-------
The specific objectives of the survey were to: I
• Evaluate industry waste minimization anij pollution prevention
practices and public outreach/risk communication activities since
-." 1987; ,
• Examine factors leading to individual facilities taking actions
and to identify potential barriers to action;
• Examine SARA Title III requirements as a motivating factor;
• * and ' ' '•;,'•.'. ; . ' - .
• Examine the relationship between risk communication activities
and pollution prevention/waste minimization activities.
Two focus groups were held with industry groups as part of the
questionnaire-development phase of this study. In addition, this study is
part of a larger project that also endeavored to look at the impact of
community right-to-know from the point of view of the public. Review
of national surveys of the general public as well as Baseline and follow-up
surveys in 1988 and 1992 of six. communities throujjhout the United States
probed public awareness and opinions to assess changes, if any, since the
implementation of these laws. This report focus|es specifically on the
industry survey, with reference to the public surveys where appropriate.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication ; Pageiii
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Summary and Implications
Industry Survey Findings at a Glance.
Summary of Key Findings . . . , . .
Methodology. ........... .
1
3
4
9
1. Factors Affecting Pollution Prevention
and Communication. . v. . .
2. Waste Reduction and Elimination.
3. .Community Outreach and Communication
4. Effects qf Environmental Laws . r . .
5. Implications and Recommendations.
Appendix A: Bibliography.
Appendix B: Tables . . . . ..... ,
Appendix C:, Questionnaire .......
.18
.29
.47
.68
.76
.85
.87
207
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page iv
-------
-------
List of Figures
Reduction .
e Elimination of
Figure 1: Industry Response to SARA Title IE
Figure 2: Sample by Industry Group. . .
Figure 3: Environmental Issues at Facility
Figure 4: Visibility of Plant Operations .
FigureS: Waste Minimization Policies .
Figure 6: Communication Capabilities. .
Figure 7: Waste Reduction per Unit of Production
FigureS: Means of Waste Reductiqn . . .
Figure 9: Importance of Factors Promoting Waste
Figure 10: Importance of Factors Promoting 1th
Wastes & Releases. .......
Figure 11: Importance of Factors Preventing Waste Reduction
Figure 12: New Measures to Prevent Releases. . . . . . . . .
Figure 13: Pollution Reduction Index .
Figure 14: Community Outreach and Commi nication
Figure 15: Methods of Community Outreach
Figure 16: Importance of Factors Driving Decisions
on Community Outreach & Communication
Figure 17: Sources of Public Inquiries...
Figure 18: Types of Information Requested
Figure 19: Effects of Environmental Laws.
Figure 20: Effectiveness of Environmental
Figure 21: Industry Changes as a Result of Laws
Laws
,4
11
.20
.22
.23
.26
.30
,32
.33
.36
.37
.40
.44
• 48
.50
.53
.62
.63
.69
.70
,72
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page v
-------
-------
List of Tables
Table 1: Generating Moreor less Wastes . |. . ........ .88
Table 2: More or less Wastes per Unit of Production ...... 89
Table 3: IVfore or less TRI Releases. . .... ... . . .... .90
Table 4: More or less TRI Releases per Unit of Production. . . 91
Table 5: Methpds of Waste Reduction . .L . .92
Table 6: Employee Health and Waste Reduction . . . . . >. . .93
Table 7: Regulations and Reduction of Wastes and Releases . , 94
Table 8: Reducing Liability and Waste Reduction .95
Table 9: Reducing Community Risk and W;aste Reduction . . . 96
Table 10: Company Policy and Waste Reduction . . . ... . .97
Table 11: Profitability and Waste Reduction;. . . , ..... , . .98
Table 12: Community Relations and Waste Reduction. . . ."'. .99
Table 13: Paperwork Reduction and Waste Reduction . . . . . 100
Table 14: Eliminated Any Hazardous Wastes . . ... .... 101
Table 15: Eliminated Any TRI Substances Completely 102
Table 16: Reasons for Eliminating Hazardous Wastes and
TRI Releases: To Reduce Health'Risks. . . . . . .103
Table 17: Reasons for Eliminating Hazardous Wastes and
, TRI Releases: To Meet Government Regulations . .104
Table 18: Reasons for Eliminating Hazardous Wastes and
TRI Releases: To Reduce Liability . . .. . . . . , . 105
Table 19: Reasons for Eliminating Hazardotis Wastes and
TRI Releases: Company Policy..;. . . . ; . . ... 106
Table 20: Reasons for Eliminating Hazardous Wastes and
TRI Releases: To Reduce Treatment Costs . . . . .107
Table 21: Reasons for Eliminating Hazardous Wastes and
TRI Releases: To Improve Community Relations. . 108
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication | Pageyi
-------
Table 22: Reasons for Eliminating Hazardous Wastes and
TRI Releases: To Reduce Paperwork .. . . . . . 109
Table 23: Reasons for Eliminating Hazardous Wastes and
; TRI Releases: Using Different Formula. . .... .110
Table 24: Reasons for Eliminating Hazardous Wastes and
TRI Releases: Dropped Products . .-.-.• -HI
Table 25: Reasons for Not Eliminating Hazardous Wastes and
TRI Releases: Savings Too Small. ........: 112
Table 26: Reasons for Not Eliminating Hazardous Wastes and
TRI Releases: No Substitutes Available. . ,.. ... 113
Table 27: Reasons for Not Eliminating Hazardous Wastes and
TRI Releases: Substitutes Too Costly. . . . . . . . 114
Table 28: Reasons for Not Eliminating Hazardous Wastes and
TRI Releases: Waiting to Retire Existing Equipment 115
Table 29: Reasons for Not EliminatingHazardous Wastes and
TRI Releases: Product Quality May Suffer ..... 116
Table 30: Reasons for Not Eliminating Hazardous Wastes and
TRI Releases: Others'Methods Won't Work Here. . 117
Table 31: Reduce Spills by Adding Containment Measures . . 118
Table 32: Reduce Spills by Adding Monitoring Devices . ... 119
Table 33: Reduce Spills by Adding Process Conrols . ... . 120
Table 34: Reduce Spills by Reducing Stored Ch-micals . . . . 121
Table 35: Reducing Now May Increase Future Requirements . 122
Table 36: Treat Some Non-Hazardous Materials as Hazardous. 123
Table 37: Management Won't Innovate Unless Required. . . . 124
Table 38: Waste Reduction in Process/Product Modifications . 125
Table 39: Evaluate Worker Health Risks of New Materials . . 126
Table 40: Measure Annual Reductions. . . . . . . . . . • .' • 127
Table 41: Program for Providing Community Information . . . 128
Table 42: Frequency of Communication Efforts . . . . . . . .129
Table 43: Public Communication Activities for past Year . . . 130
Table 44: Reasons for Communication Programs: Cost-Benefit 131
Table 45: Reasons for Communication Programs:
Increased Public Scrutiny . . . . . ... . ..... 132
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication : Pagev"
-------
Table 46: Reasons for Having Communication Programs:
TRI Release Reports. ...... I v ........ 133
Table 47: Reasons for Having Communication Programs:
Increase Our Credibility.. ...;......... .134
Table 48: Reasons for Having Communication Programs:
Turn Around Image . . 135
Table 49: Reasons for Having Communication Programs:
Decrease Demand for Regulations!. . . . . . ... . 136
Table 50: Reasons for Having Communication Programs:
Frightened Public r ....... i. 137
Table 51: Frequency of Voluntarily Providing Information:
Information about Plant Operations .. . . . . . . .138
Table 52: Frequency of Voluntarily Providing Information:
SARA Title III Forms . . . ...{.... . . . . . 139
Table 53: Frequency of Voluntarily Providing Information:
Facility Accident/Incident History 1 ... . . . . . . . 140
Table 54: Frequency of Voluntarily Providing Information:
Chemical Toxicity (MSDS) ... 141
Table 55: Frequency of Voluntarily Providing Information:
What to Do in Emergencies ;........;. '. . 142
Table 16: Frequency of Voluntarily Providing Information:
Environmental Problems/Risks . .... . . . . . . 143
Table 57: Frequency of Voluntarily Providing Information-
Efforts to Reduce Health Threats [. . . . . . . ... 144
Table 58: Targets for Public Information Programs . .... . 145
Table 59: Trade Association Supports Communication Efforts. 146
Table 60: Forms of Trade Association Support. . . ... . . .147
Table 61: Have Trade Association Materials Been Helpful:
Developing Community Outreach Program 148
Table 62: Level of Public/Media Interest in Facility . . . . . . 149
Table 63: Experienced Environmental Problems or Incidents . 150
Table 64: Would Publicity Cause Undue Alarm ....... .151
•' • i - • ,
Table 65: Admiration of Community or Actii/ist Group . . . . 152
Table 66: Publicly Targeted by Community or Activist Group. 153
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Pageviii
-------
Table 67: Changes, in Public Requests for Information, . . , .154
Table 68: Requests from the Media In the past Year .... '. . 155
Table 69: Requests from Health Professionals In the past Year 156
Table 70: Requests from Activists In the past Year. . . . . f . 157
Table 71: Requests from Community Leaders In the past Year. 158
Table 72: Requests from Educators In the past Year ..'... /. 159
Table 73: Requests from Emerg. Responders In the past Year . 160
Table 74: Requests from Individual Citizens In the past Year . 161
Table 75: Requests for SARA Title III Forms In Last 5 Years . 162
Table 76: Requests for Facility Accident History . • • • • • • 163
Table 77: Requests for General Toxicity Information . , . . . 164
Table 78: Requests for What to Do in Emergencies . . . . . .165
Table 79: Requests for Efforts to Reduce Risks ... 166
Table 80: Requests for Emergency Response Plans . . . . . .167
Table 81: Employee Communication Training In the past Year 168
Table 82: Percentage of Employees Communicating with the
Public Who Have Had Communication Training . . 169
Table 83: Employees Communicating with the Public . . . . . 170
Table 84: Environmental Laws Have Made Public Feel Safer . 171
Table 85: Environmental Laws Have Caused Needless Concern 172
Table 86: Environmental Laws Have Reduced Cnity. Risks . . 173
Table 87: Environmental Laws Have Increased Prod. Costs . . 174
Table 88: Environmental Laws Have Downgraded
More Important Environmental Priorities . . . . . - 175
Table 89: Environmental Laws Have Allowed Facility to Improve
Envir. Protection While Remaining Competitive. . . 176
Table 90: Environmental Laws Have Improved Facility's
Community Image . .... 177
Table 91: Effectiveness of Superfund (CERCLA) ....... 178
Table 92: Effectiveness of SARA Title III . ....... J . . 179
Table 93 Effectiveness of RCRA . . . . . . • • • • • • • - - 18°
Table 94: Effectiveness of Clean Air Act. . . . . . ... • • . • 181
Table 95 Effectiveness of Clean Water Act .......... 182
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Pageix
-------
Table 96: Increased Community Information Activities
Because of SARA Title III. ... .j .... . .... 183
Table 97: Focus on Worker Safety j
Because of SARA Title III ! • • • • 184
Table 98: Changed Production Processes !
Because of SARA Title III. . . . .;. . , . . .... 185
Table 99: More Attentive to Hazardous Substances
Because of SARA Title III. . .:.!.... . .... 186
Table 100: Eliminated Use of Substances j
Because of SARA title III. ..j. ....... .187
Table 101: Reduced Use of Substances
Because of SARA Title III. . j . . . . . . . . . 188
Table 102: Increased Media Interest '. ;
Because of SARA Title III. . .! ...... . . .189
Table 103: Increased Activist Interest j
Because of SARA Title III. .1 . . . . . . . . . 190
Table 104: Public Has Been Apathetic to SiARA Title HI . . 191
Table 105: Percentage of Operating Costs Spent
Communicating with Public . I-."... ... . . . 192
Table 106: Number of Employees,-al Facility . . .... . . 193
Table 107: Change in Facilit> s Business I . . . . . . . . .194
Table 108: Environmental Problems in pasit Five Years . . . 195
Table 109: Tracks Toxic Substances and Hazardous Wastes. 196
Table 110: Written Policy Supporting Waste Reduction. . , 197
Table 111: Facility Has a Parent Company . . . . . . . . . 198
Table 112: Development of Waste Minimisation Policies . . 199
Table 113: Specific Waste Reduction Goals..'. .200
Table 114: Publicized Waste Reduction Gbahs. . ..... . . 201
Table 115: Percent of Operating Costs on Pollution Control 202
Table 116: i Local Facilities Within 500 Feibt of Plant . . . . 203
Table 117: Visible Aspects of Production . . . . .. . . ... 204
Table 118: Pollution Reduction Index . .'.......... 205
Table 119: Demographics of the Survey Sample. 206
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Pagex
-------
-------
Summary and Implications
Under a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, during November and EJecember of 1992, the
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication conducted a
mail survey of environmental and facility managers in three indus-
tries: pulp and paper, chemical, and petroleum and refining.1 The
purpose of the survey was to evaluate the impact of the Emergency
Planning and Community Righl-lo-Know Acl of 1986 (Title III of
the Superftmd Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, also
known as SARA Title III) on industry waiste minimization and
pollution prevention practices, as well as on industry public outreach
and risk communication activities. ;
f . '. \ ..••.•'.
-.) :'•'",
The evidence from this survey is that SARA Title III has been
accompanied by a wide variety of waste aiid pollution reduction
activities in all three of the industries surveyed. Whether the volume
of reductions reported represents an actual decrease in pollution is
not clear and no independent verification of reported reductions was
attempted. Yet virtually all those surveyed said they have reduced
pollutants or wastes on at least one often measures in the survey
(such as reducing TRI releases per unit of production, for example),
and 84% acknowledged paying more attention to hazardous wastes
and toxic substances as a result of Title III..
1 The survey was completed by mail according to the procedures outlined in
D. A. Dillman's Meal and Telephone Surveys —The Total Design Method, New York:
Wiley, 1978. Questionnaires were mailed to environmental and facility managers
at 600 industrial facilities. The sample was drawn by SIC codes, as follows: 25%
from pulp and paper (SIC 26), 50% from chemical (SIC! 28) and 25% from refinery
and petroleum (SIC 29). The details of the sampling procedures are explained in
the Chapter 1 (Methodology) of this report. After liwo followup mailings, 229
completed surveys had been returned, including 54 from pmlp and paper facilities,
126 from chemical facilities, 41 from refinery and petroleum facilities and 8 unknown.
All statistics are unweighted, as explained in Chapter;!.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 1
-------
Half of those surveyed reported that their communication activities
have increased over the past five years as a result of SARA Title III.
The facilities that reported increased community outreach and
communication tended to be the larger facilities that say they have
public affairs staffs, communication programs and employee
communication training. They are also more likely than others to
have received encouragement for their public communication efforts
from their trade associations, particularly in the form of assistance
with communication training for their employees. :
In addition, those at facilities that have increased their community
communications were more likely than others to say that their
facilities have visible pollution, have experienced increased requests
for information as well as publicized environmental problems within
the past five years, and that their facilities have responded to SARA
Title III by increasing their communication efforts and by increasing
their focus on worker safety. Finally, those who have more extensive
communication tend to be the same respondents who reported the
largest number of activities to reduce or prevent pollution.
These findings suggest that public access to information may be a
contributing factor in decisions to further company emission
reduction and pollution prevention activities, despite industry claims
to the contrary. However, in the absence of crisis, most of these
facility representatives do not even profess to provide information
to the public unless specifically asked to do so. Moreo\ er, most of
those surveyed see the public as being largely apathetic about SARA
Title III information, and public opinion surveys support this view.
Not surprisingly, the passive availability of information has not
increased public awareness and interest, and thus may be limited
as a potential stimulus for encouraging industry to reduce pollution.
There are no guarantees, of course, that any type of information
campaign will engage the public. However, if EPA_ wants to
maximize success in this endeavor, then some more active means
of getting this information to the public is recommended - one that
takes into consideration the priorities and interests of a broad cross-
section of public opinion. Chapter 5 of this report expands on the
implications of this research for EPA.'s future activities in this area.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication , / Page 2
-------
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
Industry Survey
Findings At A Glance
POLLUTION RKDUCTION
More than eight in ten (84%) of
those surveyed said their facilities
pay more attention to hazardous and
toxic substances as a result of SARA
Title in.
Nearly all (94%) said their facilities,
have either reduced or eliminated
hazardous wastes, TRI releases, or
stored chemicals; 16% said they have
done all these things.
Safeguarding employee health and
meeting federal and slate regulations
top thejist of reasons for reducing
hazardous wastes and TRI releases.
Community relations was far down
the list of .reported'motivations.
.Though -84% acknowledged paying
more attention to hazardous materials
as a result of Title HI, just 65% said
Title III was effective, including only
17% who said it was very effective.
On the other hand, 91 % said the law
increased production costs (50%
agreeing strongly) and 81% said it
causes needless public concern.
COMMUNICATION
Half of thoi.se surveyed said their
facilities have increased their com-
munication activities as a result of
SARA Title iIII.
Increases in communications were
most prevalent among large facilities
with a publ if affairs staff, high-pro-
file environmental problems, and
many pollution reduction initiatives.
One in three* (36%) said their facili-
ties have a program for communicat-
ing information about facility opera-
tions and environmental issues to the
public. ,!.
One in five j( 19%) said they have a
public affairs sniff to communicate
with the puhrlic. The remainder rely-
on their plant manager, corporate
communications, facility environmen-
tal officials pr other technical staff.
.. i- ,.••-'.'
One in three (34%) said their facili-
ties provide communication training
to their facility employees who have
to communicate with the public.
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS AND CONDI
Of 600 surveys mailed, 229 were returned, for a 38% response rate and a completed
sample of 58%-chemical industry, 24% pulp and paper and 18% refinery and petroleum.
The type of industry was not a major predictive factor for either pollution reduction or
communication activities. Si/e of facility was important, as was having visible aspects
of production such as smoke plumes (61% reported some type'of visible pollution) and
having experienced high-profile environmental problems (reported by 42%).
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 3
-------
Summary of Key Findings
Impact of SARA Title III
(1) More than eight in ten (84%) of those surveyed said their
facilities pay more attention to hazardous and toxic substances,
and half (50%) said they have increased their communication
activities, as a result of SARA Title III and state community
right-to-know laws. Respondents were given a list of suggested
impacts of these laws, and Figure 1 shows the responses.
Results of SARA Title III
More Attentive
Worker Safety
Public Apathy
Reduced Use of Chem.
Elim. Use of Chem.
Production Processes
Media Interest Up
Activists' Interest
Incr. Cmty. Info.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% , 100%
• Agree Strongly
D Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Disagree Strongly
Figure 1: Industry Response to SARA Tide IH
(2) hi spite of the acknowledgement mat their own facilities have
changed their environmental practices in response to
environmental laws, respondents did not consider the laws to
be veiy effective overall. They were more likely to agree that
these laws have increased industry's production costs and
caused needless public concern than to agree that they have
reduced community risks or made the public feel safer.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 4
-------
(3) Most (79%) believe the public has been generally apathetic
about the information generated by SARA Title III. Only 17%
said that the number of requests they have received for
information from public sources has increased during the past
five years. ;
(4) Protecting employee health and meeting state and federal
regulations are at the top of the list (far 0utranking community
relations), when respondents rate the importance of various
factors in decisions about waste and tcixic release reduction.
Hazardous Waste Reduction i
(5) Nearly all (94%) of those surveyed say their facilities have
taken at least one of the following actions over the past five
years:" , - '. ••'•!•...•' '•,-.-.•
• 75% have reduced hazardous wastesjper unit of production;
• 67% have reduced TR1 releases2 peir unit of production;
• 56% have reduced the quantity of $tored chemicals; ,
• 53% have eliminated one or more waste products; and
• 40% have completely eliminated at least one TRL substance.
(6). A "pollution reduction index" was created using the five items
above (see Chapter 1 for complete description). Ninety-four
percent of all respondents said their facilities had taken at least
one of these measures, 82% said two^ 58% three, 34% four
and 16% said their facilities had taken iall five of these actions.
' ' ' \ f ' " • • '
• . *' • " -
(7) The most compelling reasons cited by survey respondents for
reducing hazardous wastes and.TRI rel eases are to protect the
health of facility employees and toj meet state or federal
regulations. These same factors, plus complying with company
policry to reduce pollution, and reducing liability, top the list
2 Section3l3 of SARA Title III requires industries; that manufacture, process or
use 300 listed chemicals and twenty categories of chemicals to file annual reports, which
are made public. In January of 1994, EPA proposed adding 308 chemicals and five
chemical categories to-the list with the intention of finalizing the rule before the end
of 1994. "Current Developments," Environment Reporter. Vol. 24. No. 37, January
14.1994. p. 1619, Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., V/ashington, D.C., 1994.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication - | Page 5
-------
of reasons for completely eliminating some wastes. Improving
community relations was significantly lower on the list of
reasons, though certainly not rated as unimportant.
(8) What problems prevent industrial facilities from eliminating
hazardous materials from their production processes? Two
factors lead all others as "very important" — the lack of avail-
ability of substitutes (which 70% said is "very important") and
fears mat product quality will be adversely affected (50% "very
important").
Community Communications
(9) Though virtually all respondents said their facilities had taken
at least one action to reduce or prevent pollution, only about
half (47%) said their facility's efforts to communicate with the
community have increased over the past five years. Even fewer
said they had a community information program, or that they
provide communication training to employees, or engage in
specified means of communication:
• 47% have increased community communication efforts;
• 36% have a program of public communication;
• 34% provide employee communication training;
• 32-36% meet with community leaders or hold open houses;
and
•. 7-8% have conducted focus groups or opinion surveys.
(10) Most respondents (78%) acknowledged that a favorable cost-
benefit ratio is at least somewhat important as a reason to have
an active community relations program. Yet most (73%) also
said that public or media interest in their facilities has not
increased, and this undoubtedly affects the cost-benefit ratio
' for those facilities. Community outreach and communication
activities were most frequently reported among the larger
facilities, as well as the six in ten that reported visible aspects
of production (such as smoke plumes) and the four in ten that
have experienced high-profile environmental problems with
media attention.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication • Page 6
-------
Other Factors ;
(11) Visibility in the Community. Six in ten respondents (62%)
reported residential, business, school, hospital or recreational
facilities within 500 feet of their facility, and a similar
proportion (61%) also reported visible aspects of production
(such as odors, smokestack plumes, etc.) that call attention to
their facilities. Communication activities were more frequently
reported for these facilities.
(12) Environmental Problems. Six in ten (61%) reported having
had problems related to their environmental practices in the
past five years, and four in ten (42%) said their environmental
problems have received media attention. For example:
• 47% have been subject to an enforcement action;
• 24% experienced a reportable hazardous waste spill;
• 23% experienced difficulty obtaining permits; and
• 20% had a reportable air toxics release.
• ' ( "'•-.-.
Those with increased media attention to environmental
problems were more likely than others! to report community
outreiach activities. !
! " " ! •- •
Subgroup Biffere*,ces |
(13) Size of Facility. The characteristic that differentiated
responses throughout the survey more than any other was the
size of the facility, as measured by the number of employees.
Those responding from facilities with more than 200 employees
(30%. of the total sample) more often reported both reducing
pollution and participating in a variety of community outreach
and communication activities man those in smaller facilities.
(14) Public Affairs Staff. Community outreach and communication
activities were more frequently reported among those in
facilities with a public affairs staff than in those without such
a staff. Only one in five (19%) reported that their facilities
had a local public affairs staff. For most facilities, the public
affairs and communication responsibility is handled by the
plant manager, facility technical staff orcorporate headquarters,
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication ; Page?
-------
(15) Industry. The survey was designed to evaluate practices
among three industry categories. There were very few major
differences in either reported pollution reduction activities or
in reported communication activities based on the type of
industry represented. On most questions, the responses from
me three industries were virtually identical.
It certainly is plausible to postulate that concerns about meeting
regulatory requirements are so widespread across industries
that any differences are too subtle to be captured by an
instrument of mis nature. The lack of differences could also
be due in part to the small sample size and response rate, if
those factors resulted in a bias toward industries who are more
active.
However, results from a recent survey of 850 hazardous waste
generators in Wisconsin which achieved an 80% response rate
(based on an original sample of 1,100) tend to confirm that
there are not important cross-industry differences.3
3 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Research, Reducing
Hazardous Waste in Wisconsin, Report V (PUBL-MB-007 (92), August 1992).
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 8
-------
Methodology
During November and December of 1992,! under a Cooperative
Agreement with the U.S. Environmental! Protection Agency,
Columbia University's Center for Risk Communication conducted
a survey of environmental and public affairs managers and staff in
three industries: pulp and paper, chemical, and petroleum and
refining.4 The, purpose of the survey was to evaluate the impact of
the Emergency Planning and Community Righit-to-Know Act of 1986
(SARA Title III) on industry waste minimization and pollution
prevention practices, as well as industry public outreach/risk
communication activities. The specific objectives were to:
• Evaluate industry waste minihmation and pollution
prevention practices and public outreach/risk communication
activities since 1987; ,
• Examine factors leading to individual facilities taking actions
along these lines and identify potential barriers to action;
• Examine SARA Title III requirements as a motivating factor
for pollution reduction/waste minimization and public
outreach; and j
• Examine the relationship between! risk communication
activities and pollution preventioii/waste minimization
activities. :
This study is part of a larger project that also endeavored to look
at the impact of community right-to-know from the point of view
of the public. Review of national surveys of the general.public as
4 The sample was drawn by SIC codes, as follows: pulp and paper (SIC 26),
chemical (SIC 28) and refinery and petroleum (SIC 29).
by mail according to the procedures outlined in Dillman'i
— Tlie Total Design Method.
The survey was completed
Mail and Telephone Surveys
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 9
-------
well as baseline and follow-up surveys in 1988 and 1992 of six
communities throughout the United States probed public awareness
and opinions to assess changes, if any, since the implementation of
these laws. This report focuses specifically on the industry survey,
with reference to the public surveys where appropriate.
Survey Sample
The population selected for the survey was a subset of Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) reporters. In order to evaluate potential differences,
three SIC codes were selected: Pulp and Paper (SIC 26), Chemical
(SIC 28) and Refinery and Petroleum (SIC 29). Selection of these
industry groupings was made on the basis of a review of case studies
and other qualitative information which suggested that these industry
groupings would have the greatest response to Title III. Sample size
was based on the total population of TRI reporters in these codes.
Survey questionnaires were mailed to a nationwide sample of 600.
facility representatives, including 150 from the pulp and paper
industry, 300 from the chemical industry and 150 from the refinery
and petroleum industry. Of the 600 survey questionnaires mailed,
229 were returned, for an overall response rate of 38%. This size
sample yields 95% confidence intervals of ±6.5% for the total sample
of industrial facilities.
The response rate was higher for chemical industry facilities (42%)
than for pulp and paper (36%) or refinery and petroleum industry
facilities (27%). The final sample of returned interviews is
proportionately quite similar to the mailed sample, as Figure 2
illustrates. The original sample of 600 facilities constituted 50%
chemical industry, 25% pulp and paper and 25% refinery and
petroleum. The final sample of respondents was made up of 126
chemical industry representatives (58%), 54 pulp and paper industry
representatives (24%) and 41 refinery and petroleum industry
respondents (18%). For reasons of confidentiality, industry code
was not entered on the questionnaires, and eight returns could not
be coded for industry.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 10
-------
25%
24%
25%
50%
58%
18%
Mailed
Returned
Refinery/Petroleum E~3 Pulp & Paper • Chemical
Figure 2: Sample by Industry; Group
'! - '
Although the sample was randomly selected, there are a number of
sources of potential respondent bias. While some sources of bias
could have influenced die results in either direction, most of the
incentives for responding would tend to resulit in overestimation of
the level of both pollution prevention and communication activities.
For example, personnel at more environmentally responsive facilities
may have been more likely to respond to the survey. Those facilities
that had more positive activities to report may have had more
incentive to respond than did others.5 Personnel who held the most
negative attitudes about laws and regulations may have wanted to
get their opinions on the record, In addition, sinaller companies may
have had less time and expertise than others to complete the survey.
On the other hand, some facilities may not havie responded as a matter
of policy, and this factor could have affected the results in either
direction. The survey was directed to the facility and not the
The results of the Wisconsin survey of hazardous waste generators, with its
response rate, would tend to support this possibility; just 55% of firms in
Wisconsin reported having reduced hazardous wastes per unit of production, compared
to 75% in this national survey; Op. Cit.,Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
1991 and 1992. '
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 11
-------
corporate headquarters, and in some cases, it is corporate policy that
only corporate offices respond to surveys.
Characteristics of the facilities which may have affected sample bias
include: 52% said their business had improved in the past five years,
62% said they had homes, businesses or recreational facilities within
500 feet of their facilities, 61% said their facilities have visible
aspects of production, and 61% said they have experienced some
notice of violation or other similar environmental problem. These
factors could indicate some bias toward the more active facilities \
and those with higher-profile environmental difficulties responding.
On the other hand, only 27% of those responding said public or
media interest in their facilities has increased in recent years, and
just 42% said they have experienced environmental problems that
have drawn media or public interest.
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument (reproduced in Appendix C) was developed
and implemented following the procedures outlined in Dillman's Mail
and Telephone Surveys —The Total Design Method A direct mail
survey was chosen primarilv on the basis of cost and the type of
information sought. The original research proposal considered a
second phase of case study interviews or focus groups with plant
and environmental staff to provide additional information that would
complement the survey and analysis. However, this second phase
was not a part of the final cooperative agreement.
In order to develop an effective survey instrument, input was sought
from a variety of sources, including EPA staff, outside experts,
(particularly the staff of the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources), and members of the chemical industry. Many of the
survey questions in Sections I and II were adapted from the 1991
Wisconsin survey of hazardous waste generators. The Chemical
Manufacturers Association was helpful in reviewing the instrument
and identifying methods to enhance response rates.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 12
-------
The primary problem in developing the survey instrument was to
limit the breadth of questions and to respond to various reviewers'
objectives while maintaining the project focus and intent. During
the design of the survey instrument, two focus-groups were held with
industry groups. The wording of the instrument was modified
substantially after the first focus group session to avoid a negative
response bias and allow respondents to repprt industry initiatives
other than those required by regulations, In addition, the references
to various environmental laws and programs, ias well as toxic wastes
and TRI releases, were clarified to make thie questionnaire easier
to answer.
Pretest j
!-'',., • f
Fifty surveys were sent to randomly selected Toxic Release Inventory
reporters using the 1990 inventory for the six communities where
the baseline and follow-up public opinion surveys had been
conducted. All fifty facilities were called prior to'the mailing to get
the name of the plant or environmental manager.
' . .'•..•' ' ' : .}••'' '"'''''."
Personalized advance letters were sent directly to the facility plant
or environmental manager from the Center for Risk Communication.
(There was no single listing of the names of facility or environmental
managers. For the pretest, all fifty facilities were called.) This letter
referenced the input received from the Chemical Manufacturers
Association (CMA) in designing the survey and 'discussed potential
benefits the information would provide for industry. The letter also
noted the interest in having the survey completed, at the facility,
explaining that the intent was not to obtain parent company or
coiporate responses. Finally, the letter requested that just one person
respond at the facility. Approximately one week after the advance
letters had been mailed, survey questionnairejs and cover letters with
self-addressed (but not stamped) return envelopes were mailed. The
focus group had indicated that stamped envelopes would not be a
major incentive and it was decided that postage money could be spent
more effectively.
Columbia University .Center for Risk Communication ! Page 13
-------
Approximately two weeks later, reminder postcards were sent to all
facilities not responding. At this stage it was determined that some
facilities had not received the survey. Therefore, a decision was
made to modify procedures for the full survey, so that the first survey
reminder postcard would be sent to all participants one week after
the survey was mailed. The pretest resulted in a 32% response rate.
Survey Implementation
Using the 1990 EPA list of TRI reporters, a nationwide sample for
the survey was drawn from these SIC codes: 26 (pulp and paper);
28 (chemical), 29 (refining and petroleum) Three hundred facilities
were drawn from the chemical industry and 150 each from pulp and
paper and refining and petroleum. The EPA provided the nationwide
stratified random sample of TRI reporters.
hi November of 1992, advance letters were sent to sample industrial
environmental plant managers. Names or titles were taken from the
TRI database. The advance letter was followed one week later by
the survey mailed with self-addressed, stamped return envelopes
(stamped envelopes were used to improve returns). One week later,
reminder postcards were sent to all facilities. '''.''',
A second mailing was done on December 13, 1992 with a revised
cover letter and a self-addressed, stamped return envelope to all
facilities which had not responded/as of December 10,1992, Out
of a total sample of 600, 229 questionnaires were returned. The
revised procedures based on the pretest mailing raised the response
rate from 32% to 38%.
This response rate is average considering the conditions (cited below)
of this survey. Response rates to direct mail surveys vary from 5%
for completely untargeted solicitation "surveys" to over 80% for
highly targeted surveys where the incentive for a response is clear
and unambiguous. In mail surveys of chemical plant employees
(combining both salaried and hourly) response rates typically range
from 35-50% under conditions where management has announced
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 14
-------
" I - .
the survey> provided home addresses and asked employees to
respond, but responses are completely confidential.
In this survey, the endorsement of the CMA, reference to the project's
being funded by the EPA, the fact that the surveys were targeted to
upper level employees, and the fact that reminder letters were sent,
should have been positive factors in increasing the response rate.
On the other hand, the lack of any corporate endorsement, or
targeting of individuals by name, as well as tiie lack of any specific
clear-cut incentives to respond, probably depressed the response rate
for this survey. Moreover, it is possible that some facilities were
reluctant to respond because they did not believe they had much to
report in the way of waste reduction, or did riot agree with the goals
of the laws. Finally, many may simply have seen it as a low priority
given their: current responsibilities. ;
; • . , . ' • . y ' • -.
The Wisconsin survey of hazardous waste generators conducted by -
David, et. al had a higher response rate: 80% of 'the 1,100 generators
surveyed responded to the 34-page questionnaire. The sponsors of
the survey attributed 'the high response rate in large part to its
sponsorship. The Wisconsin survey was sponsored by the
environmental protection agency of the state of Wisconsin, the
Department of Natural Resources. Previous research in Wisconsin
indicates that when identical'questionnaires are sent to households,
half sponsored by the state and the other half ostensibly sponsored
by the University of Wisconsin, the University response rate is about
ten percentage points lower.6 [
6 Op. Cit,,Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication j Page 15
-------
Analysis
The tables in Appendix B present the data crosstabulated by key
factors which the authors hypothesized might result in differences
in pollution prevention and communication activities. The subgroups,
and their proportions of the total survey sample, are as follows:
• Industry group:
chemical (58%), pulp & paper (24%),,refinery/petroleum (18%);
• Number of employees: :
under 50 (38%), 50-200 (32%), over 200 (30%);
• Overall business has:
increased (52%), decreased (24%) or remained the same (24%);
• Proximity to homes, businesses or recreation areas:
62% within 500 feet of one of the above;
• Visible aspects of production such as smoke plumes:
61% have some such visible pollution;
• High-profile environmental problems with media attention:
42% have experienced such problems;
• Increase in public/media interest in past 5 years (27% increased):
• Having a public affairs staff at facility (19% have staff); and
• Increase in facility's communication efforts (47% increased).
Judgements about the statistical significance of subgroup differences
are based on a Pearson Chi-square test. Differences discussed in
the text are statistically significant with less man a .05 probability
that the differences are due to chance, unless otherwise noted.
The statistics in the tables were not weighted to equalize SIC codes.
The original sample was distributed according to SIC codes in such
a way as to be representative of TRI reporters, and in spite of the
different response rates, the final sample of respondents (58%
chemical, 24% pulp and paper and 18% refinery and petroleum)
is distributed fairly similarly to the original sample to which the
Survey was mailed (50:25:25). Therefore, the unweighted sample
should be representative of the population of TRI reporters as well.
Moreover, the responses are always reported by industry, and the
differences in substantive responses by industry were relatively small.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication ', . Page 16
-------
Pollution Reduction Index. In order to test further the possibility
that communication factors may be affecting decisions on pollution
reduction (and vice versa), an index of pollution reduction was
created, and that index was then measured against the communication
activities of each respondent (Table 118). The "pollution reduction
index" was created by counting the number; of positive responses
(indicating pollution has been reduced) of ekch respondent on the
following five factors: !
reductions in hazardous wastes per limit, of production,
reductions in TRI releases per unit 0f production,
elimination of any hazardous wastes,
elimination of any TRI substances aiid
reduction in stored chemicals. <
• '>••. ' ' i- „ / '••••'
' , i ' • " ... , . 4' „',- , •••.•"'
Thus, someone who responded positively on none of these items
would receive a score of 0, while someone who responded positively
on all five would receive a score of 5. More than nine out of ten
respondents (94%) responded positively to atleast one of these items,
and 82% claimed their facilities had reduceid pollution by at least
two of these measures, <
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication . I , Page 17
-------
-------
1. Factors Affecting Pollution Preivention
and Communication
The Environmental Protection Agency is grapplmg with the question
of what role voluntary initiatives should play in efforts to achieve
its pollution prevention goals. These goals include both encouraging
more pollution prevention and shifting frpm enforcement and
compliance or traditional "command and: control" regulatory
approaches to pollution prevention and other more innovative and
non-regulatory approaches.
Traditional regulatory programs rely on enforcement and compliance
as incentives for pollution prevention. Voluntary programs, on the
other hand, must provide other more positive incentives. The impetus
behind SARA Title El is the concept that public awareness and access
to information might encourage pollution prevention. Such voluntary
approaches .iave to take into consideration what the public expects
(in terms of 'ndustry pollution control and reduction efforts) and how
risk is perceived versus the company's overall self interests. Those
self interests may include favorable publicity and improved public
relations, as well as cost savings from process; changes and reduced
waste disposal costs. i •';'..,
' ' " ' - • " ' i - „ ' '.
The results of this survey can be helpful iin understanding how
effective public information is: (1) as a regulatory strategy, (2) as
a means of encouraging voluntary pollution prevention activities,
and (3) as a means of providing to the public ithe kind of information
it needs in order to participate in the discussion of environmental
health issues. This survey was,designed to obtain information from
facility representatives, not only about their reported pollution
prevention and waste minimization activities, but also about their
reported reasons for taking these actions;. Information about
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication " : Page IS
-------
incentives and motivations for action can be used in crafting methods
of improving those incentives without regard for the issue of whether
or not facility representatives are overstating or understating their
pollution prevention activities. (The project did not involve any
attempt at independent verification that these activities took place.
EPA is exploring the verification of overall changes in TRI reporting
under several different initiatives).
Before looking into how and why industrial facilities have responded
to Title in, this chapter will examine some of the contextual factors
that potentially influence decisions to reduce emissions or engage
in community outreach activities. Specifically, this chapter will
examine how, if at all, the circumstances of the local plant provide
either opportunities or obstacles when it comes to responding to
outside events. Factors such as past environmental problems, the
public profile of a facility, its communication capabilities and its
business circumstances are evaluated as factors that may have an
effect on both pollution prevention and communication activities.
Environmental Conditions !
Respondents were presented with a list • .f specific types of
environmental problems that their facilities n-ay have experienced
during the past few years. Six out of ten (61%) said their facility
had experienced at least one of these problems, and 42% said they
had experienced environmental problems which received media
attention.
Figure 3 shows the distribution of these responses. Nearly half (47%)
said their facilities have been subject to an enforcement action or
"notice of violation" in the last five years, while at least one in five
have experienced a reportable hazardous waste spill (24%), had
difficulty in obtaining environmental permits (23%) or had a
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 19
-------
reportable air toxics release (20%). (See Table 108; for exact
question wording, see Q. X: 4 in Appendix |C).r"
. ;!"L'" " '
'. j.. •
Thirteen percent reported having had to implement RCRA (Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act) corrective action and 13% reported
having had difficulty finding permitted treatment, storage and
disposal facilities to which to take hazardous wastes. Eight of the
facilities surveyed (3%) have been designated as EPA or state
Superfund sites. |
Notice of Violation
Reportable Spill
Getting Env. Permits
Reportable Release
RCRA Corrective Act.
Finding TSD Facility
Named Superfund Site I! 3%.
47%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure 3: Environmental Issues at Facility
Visible Cues ' j
The extent to which operations are visible to nearby residents has
the potential to impose limitations on an industrial facility's activities,
as well as impose some requirements on the way business is
conducted. The survey attempted to discern to what extent these
7 Throughout this report, survey questions win be icentified by the survey section
and question within that section (such as Q. X: 4 as used above).
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 20
-------
r
visible cues affect a facility's community outreach efforts as well
as its pollution reduction or prevention activities. Visible cues are
postulated as a factor which correlates with public scrutiny and
potential concern.
For example, how close is the facility to residences, businesses, and
other non-industrial activity, and to what extent are smoke, steam,
flares, odors and other sensory cues present to the nearby
community? Six in ten (62%) said that some residential, business,
school, hospital or recreational activity was located within 500 feet
of their facility, as follows (See Table 116, Q. IX; 1.):
40% reported homes or apartments within 500 feet;
29% reported office buildings; • • ,
19% reported wildlife, wetlands or nature preserves;
14% reported parks or outdoor recreational facilities;
5% reported schools or day care facilities; and
1% hospitals or nursing homes within 500 feet
Six in ten (61%) also reported visible aspects of production that call
attention to their facilities. As Figure 4 indicates, 40% reported that
there are odors coming from their plants, while 30% report visible
plumes from their smokestacks, 13% visible water discharges into
nearby streams or rivers and 11% visible flares burning. One in
four (26%) also reported ten or more tracks per day driving through
nearby neighborhoods on the way to and from their facilities. (See
Tablell7,Q. IX: 2.) ;
Later sections of this report discuss survey results which appear to
indicate mat these "sensory" cues have a definite effect on reported
community outreach and communication activities, as well as a more
limited effect on pollution reduction activities. The results of this
analysis show that a wide variety of communication activities were
more frequently reported among the facilities that have visible aspects
of production and those that have experienced high-profile
environmental problems than in those that do not have these
characteristics.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Pa8e
-------
Odors
Plumes
Truck Traffic
Water Discharges
Flares Burning
50%
Figure 4: Visibility of Plant Operations
Waste Minimization Policies and Activities
Company Policy. The survey questionnaire identified a number
of potential motivational factors for reducing hazardous wastes and
TRI releases, including company policy, and asked respondents to
evaluate them. Company policy is considered an important factor
in these decisions for a significant portion of Ihose surveyed. Three-
quarters (73%) of the firms indicated that their facilities have written
policies supporting toxic and hazardous \yaste minimization or
reduction.. (See Tables 10, 109 and 110, Q. I: 6, X: 5-6.)
.1 •' • -
•' > ' ' •
Locus of decision-making. Waste minimization policies may in
some cases be developed by a parent company rather than .a local
facility, but must be implemented at the local level to be effective,
• In evaluating the extent of a facility's pollution reduction activities,
Section X of the survey attempted to ascertain to what extent local
facilities had responsibility for their own policies. Figure 5 shows
the distribution of facility policies on waste management.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 22
-------
For three out of four (74%) of the facilities included in the survey,
waste minimization policies are developed either solely or partially
on site. This figure includes 33% with no parent company, 33% who
develop their own waste minimization policies even though they do
have a parent company and 8% who said both facility and parent
are responsible for developing waste minimization policies. (See
Table 112, QX: 8.)
Have Policy
Devlp. at Site
Specific Goals
Publish Goals
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FigureS: Waste Minimization Policies
• - •' -• . ' . • /
One in five (19%) of all those surveyed said the parent company takes
complete responsibility in the development of waste minimization
policies. Seven percent volunteered that their facilities have no
waste minimization policies. (See Tables 111-112, Q X: 7-8.)
Publicity about Policies. Just over half (52%) said their firm's waste
minimization policies include specific waste reduction goals. Only
one-third of those with goals (17% of all those surveyed) said their
facilities had made public their waste reduction goals. (See Tables
113-114, Q.X: 9-10.)
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 23
-------
The larger facilities (those with more than 200 employees) are more
likely to have specific waste reduction goals,! and to publish those
goals, than are the smaller facilities. Among the larger facilities,
two-thirds (63%) have specific waste reduction goals and 28%
publish those goals. Among facilities with fewer than 50 employees,
fewer than half (44%) have specific waste reduction goals and only
7% publish them. (See Tables 111-114.)'
,••'. \ . • • ' • [ ,-..'.
Tracking Waste. Seven in ten (70%) of those surveyed said their
facilities track toxic substances and hazardous wastes to tie their
generation to specific production processes.
t
Abatement Costs. In spite of facility activities geared toward
hazardous waste minimization, seven out of ten (71%) estimated
the pollution abatement and waste minimization costs at their
facilities to be not more than 3% of total operating costs, including
25% putting the percentage at less than 1 percent and 38% at 1-3%.
Thirteen percent estimated these costs at from 4-5%, and 14%
thought they were more than 5% of total operating costs at their
facilities. (See Table 115, Q. X: 11.) !
i- .
It could not be determined from the survey whether pollution
prevention costs are considered a positive cost (cost savings) versus
a negative operating expense, such as pollution abatement and
regulatory compliance costs. The extent to; which perceived cost
savings (or the lack thereof) are considered in facility decision-
making for pollution prevention should be explored further.
Business Conditions !
• ' ' • ' •' • ' -| •••;•'.-. '.
Business considerations influence how industry responds to the
regulatory environment at the most basic leveil - by determining both
their ability and their incentives to act. Moreover, when measuring
trends, both increases and decreases in production strongly influence
how to evaluate emissions reductions or increases.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 24
-------
More than half of those surveyed (52%) reported that their facilities'
business increased over the past five years, with 17% saying it
increased more than 25%. The other half are about evenly divided
between those who say their business has remained about the same
(24%) and those who say their business has declined (24%). (See
Table 107, Q. X: 3.)
Measuring Pollution Reduction Progress. On the one hand, those
facilities whose business has increased can be presumed to have both
a financial stake and the financial capability for responding to new
challenges. On the other hand, when public information about
pollutants is given in gross amounts, an increase in business may
mean an increase in pollutants that is both difficult to contain and
difficult to explain. At the same time, facilities that are only
maintaining or decreasing their production may appear to be
improving their environmental performance when in fact they are
not. Hence, it is important to consider emissions in both absolute
terms and as a percent of production volume.
Voluntary vs. Mandatory Pollution Reduction Goals. These
concerns were reflected in the comments of focus group participants
when the survey instrument was being developed. Group members
noted the difficult decisions managers face in meeting increasingly
stringent and complex regulations. The results suggestthat some
companies believe voluntary programs can achieve protection and
environmental benefits more cost-effectively than regulatory
programs.
This belief may reflect the greater degree of control managers believe
they have with voluntary initiatives. In a competitive business
environment, managers base their decisions about investments in
voluntary actions on how they might affect their competitive position.
Voluntary programs without some control mechanism such as public
scrutiny may put progressive companies at a competitive
disadvantage.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication ; Page 25
-------
On the other hand, voluntary initiatives may also serve as a negative
incentive. Focus group participants and suryey results (Table 35)
indicated reluctance to meet current pollution Deduction goals if new
regulatory limits would then be established which did not give
retroactive credit to firms that have already a|cted. Apparently this
attitude reflects a concern by industry representatives that being out
ahead of the regulations could work against "them in the long run.
Such views need to be countered if EPA intends to continue to push
for voluntary initiatives as a major tool for achieving pollution
prevention and reduction. J
Communication Activities ,
A substantial portion of the survey focused on the communication
activities at each facility, and some of those items reflect on both
the capabilities and the incentives that industries have to encourage
communication.
Have Comm. Prog.
Provide Training
Public Affairs Staff
36%
34%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Figure 6: Communication Capabilities
As Figure 6 demonstrates, one in three (3
have active programs of public communication
-o) said their facilities
, one in three (34%)
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 26
-------
said their staff who communicate with the public receive any formal
communication training and just under one in five of those surveyed
(19%) said their facilities have a public affairs staff. (See also and
Tables 41, 81 and 83, Q. V: 1, VII: land 3.)
The existence of a public affairs staff at the facility has a definite
impact on the extent to which facilities engage in active public
communication efforts, though this effect is no doubt due at least
in part to the fact that it is mostly the larger facilities that have public
affairs staffs.
On the other hand, though most facilities attribute some of their
pollution reduction activities to SARA Title III, and those who are
the most active in pollution reduction are also more likely than others
to be communicating that fact, there is little other evidence from this
survey mat pollution reduction activities are externally driven by
the need to communicate reductions to the community. Pollution
reduction activities are far more frequently reported than are
communication initiatives, as Chapters 2 and 3 document. Many
of those surveyed see the public as largely apathetic about Title III
information (Q. Vffl: 3, also analyzed in Chapter 4). Moreover, that
perception appears to reinforce their own failure to communicate
actively. This is counter-intuitive to the generalized fears and
concerns expressed during the legislative history of SARA Title III
that the release of information to the public would result in undue
public concern and a negative reaction.
Summary
As discussed more fully in the remainder of this report, the primary
factor associated with pollution reduction activities is the size of the
facility measured in number of employees. Those facilities that have
more than 200 employees more frequently report pollution reduction
than do smaller facilities. v :
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication v Page
-------
Though more than six in ten of the facilities surveyed are reported
to have waste minimization policies with specific waste reduction
goals, most (more than 80%) do not publish! them;
Where community outreach and communication are concerned, other
factors such as visible aspects of production and having experienced
environmental problems that received meiilia attention become
important, along with the institutional factors of having a public
affairs staff and an active community communications program.
. .. . - i- .••• - ' ••' .•
More than six in ten facilities are located within 500 feet of homes,
businesses, schools, hospitals of recreational iireas, have some form
of visible cues of environmental releases of wiiste materials, and have
experienced some kind of environmental problems related to recent
environmental laws. These facilities were J more likely to report
communication activities. I
. ' - * , ' ' - '
Few facilities spend more than 3% of their operating costs on waste
minimization activities. This may suggest to Regulators that potential
cost-savings are unlikely to provide a strong imbtivation for action.
However, it is likely that at least some of those polled see this 3%
as being a sizeable investment. j
' * '• i" ; ' • "''",'
The rest of this report will take a more detailed look at industry
actions, both in minimizing wastes and in communicating with the
public about environmental issues. The primary focus will be on
evaluating motivations for industry to reduce pollution and
communicate with the public, looking particularly at the extent to
which environmental and community right-to-rknow laws have shaped
industry actions. j
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 28
-------
2. Waste Reduction and Elimination
All those surveyed were asked a series of questions about the extent
to which their facilities have reduced the hazardous wastes generated,
reduced their Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) releases, or actually
eliminated some toxic substances from their plant's premises. Then
they were asked to rate the importance of a series of factors, including
environmental laws, in determining decisions on these issues. A
later chapter of this report focuses on respondents' explicit
evaluations of environmental and right-to-know laws. This chapter,
however, focuses on respondents' reporting of how and why their
facilities have changed their environmental practices. Based on these
reports, an attempt is made to evaluate how environmental laws
compare to other motivations to reduce pollution and wastes at
industrial facilities.
Hazardous Wastf Reduction
This opening section of the survey questionnaire asked respondents
whether, in 1991, their facilities generated more, less or the same
amount of hazardous wastes man they generated five years ago, and
also whether their TRI releases were more, less or the same as five
years ago (Questions 1:1-4).
When asked to report on changes in waste per unit of production,
as Figure 7 below demonstrates, three out of four (75%) of those
surveyed said their facilities have reduced the amount of hazardous
wastes they generate per unit of production over the past five years;
21% said they are producing about the same amount of hazardous
wastes per unit of production, while 4% said they are producing more
wastes per unit of production than they were five years ago. (See'
also Table 2.)
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication PaSe 29
-------
Hazardous Wastes
TRI Releases
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Less Waste D About Same H Wore Waste
Figure?: Waste Reduction per Unit of Production
, * j- — .
Similarly, two'put of three (67%) said they haye reduced the amount
of their SARA 313 TRI releases per unit of production; 32% say their
TRI releases per unit of production have not li>een reduced, and 1%
said they have increased. (See Table 4.) | _ ,
Chapter 1 of this report indicated that more than half of the facilities
included in this survey reported an increase in their business during
the past five years. Yet two out of three (64%) said their facilities
have reduced the absolute amount of hazardous wastes they produce,
and 59% have reduced the absolute amount! of their TRI releases,
regardless of changes in production volume1. Only 16% said they
are producing more hazardous wastes now thim they were producing
five years ago, and 15% said their TRI releases have increased. The
rest said their hazardous wastes and TRI relejises are about the same
as five years ago. (See Tables 1 and 3, Q. 1: 1 and 3.)
A few respondents explained that, while theiit overall waste volume
has decreased* regulatory changes causing previously non-hazardous
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 30
-------
wastes to be declared hazardous have made it difficult to reduce their
volume of hazardous wastes!
Number of Employees. The pne factor that consistently makes some
difference in reported pollution reductions is the size of the facility
(measured as number of employees). The larger facilities — those
with more than 200 employees — were more likely to say their
facilities have reduced both hazardous wastes and TRI releases,
particularly when the measure is per unit of production. For example,
among spokespersons at the larger facilities, 86% said their facilities
had reduced their hazardous wastes per unit of production, compared
to 68% of those at the smaller facilities with fewer than 50
employees. (See Tables 1-4.)
Industry. Whether the issue is hazardous wastes or TRI releases,
differences in reported reductions are minimal among industries in
the three SIC codes surveyed (pulp and paper, chemical, and refinery
arid petroleum).
Business Conditions. Those facilities where business has increased
recently were more likely to report increased total hazardous wastes
and TRI releases; but they were also more likely to report decreases
in their hazardous wastes per unit of production than were those
facilities where business has declined. Among facilities where
business has increased, for example, 80% reported decreases in
hazardous wastes per unit of production, compared with 63% of those
with declining business. (See Tables 1-4.)
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 31
-------
Means of Waste Reduction i
The survey questionnaire listed a number of means of waste reduction
and asked respondents to indicate which meithods have been used
at their facilities. Most respondents (77%) cited improved
housekeeping practices (such as eliminating leaks, improving
inventory control and improving equipment niaintenance), as Figure
8 demonstrates. Changing the materials used! (65%) and changing
production processes (58%) followed close behind improved
housekeeping. One in four (25%) said they have changed the
products they make. (See Table 5, Q. I: 5) ;
Housekeeping
Change; Materials
Change Processes
Change Products
No Reduction E4%
77%
0% 20% 40% 60% . 80% 100%
FigureS: Means of Waste Reduction
Improved housekeeping practices are vital to the effort to reduce
pollution, and it is a favorable trend if nearly eight in ten facilities
have improved their housekeeping practices. The large numbers
saying they have changed materials or changed processes is also
encouraging. However, to encourage more of what it defines as
pollution reduction (i.e., source reduction!), EPA may want to
consider ways to help more facilities move beyond housekeeping
practices. The next few pages examine the sui|vey findings on current
motivations for and barriers to waste reduction.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 32
-------
Factors in Decision to Reduce Wastes
The following question was designed to assess what motivated firms
to try to reduce wastes, and particularly to assess the relative
importance of environmental legislation with other factors driving
these decisions:
"Here are some reasons -why your firm may have decided
to try to reduce the volume of hazardous wastes generated
or TRI releases. Please tell us how important each of the
following were for your firm."
Protecting the health of facility employees (cited by 68% as "very
important") and meeting state or federal regulations (cited by 62%
as "very important") outranked all other motivations for waste
reduction decisions, as Figure 9 illustrates. (See also Tables 6-7,
Employee Health
Meet Regulations
Reduce Liability
Community Risk
Company Policy
, Profitability
Community Relations
Reduce Paperwork
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very HI Somewhat D Not
Figure 9: Importance of Factors Promoting Waste Reduction
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 33
-------
About half of those surveyed cited reducing liability (54%), reducing
risk to the community (54%) or complying with company policy to
reduce pollution (48%) as "very important." Two out of five (42%)
named improving profitability as a "very important" motivation.
(See Tables 8-11, 13.) f
Note that these five reasons were viewed a? "very important" or
"somewhat important" by about 85% of all those surveyed.
Reducing paperwork is not an important motivation; less than one
respondent in five cited mat as "very important."
Improving community relations is somewhat less important than the
top five reasons. About one in three respondents (36%) said that
improving relations with the community was Tveiy important," while
another 38% said community relations were "somewhat important"
as a motivation to try to reduce their hazardous wastes. (See Table
12.) EPA and communities may want to consider ways in which
to bring community concerns to bear on industry pollution prevention
decisions. Circumstantial and anecdotal evidence indicates that the
annual publication of the nation's worst polluters, those at the top
of the TR1 list of firms ranked by volume of reported generation,
gets the attention of managers of those firms. Firms at the top of
the list seldom remain mere for more than two years. More puolicity
about gains in pollution prevention could be helpful in enhancing
a facility's image. This issue will be revisited as the results are
presented for other communication items on the survey.
- v -
There were no major differences in reported iriotivations for reducing
pollution based on industry type, contextual or public affairs factors
included on Tables 6-13. However, there was a small (but
statistically significant) difference in the importance' of community
relations as a motivation for reducing pollution, between those who
reported visible aspects of production and those whose pollution was
not visible. (See Table 12.) i
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication ••-•„' Page 34
-------
Hazardous Waste Elimination
Another series of questions focused on whether or not industrial
facilities had completely eliminated one or more hazardous waste
products that they had produced in the past—and what factors were
important in motivating those decisions. (See Q. II: 1-4)
Two out of three of those surveyed (65%) said their facilities had
either completely eliminated one or more wastes that they had
produced five years before (53%), or completely eliminated one or
more TRI substances during that time period (40%). There were
no differences among the three industries, nor among the other
subgroups tabulated, except mat large firms were more likely than
small ones to have eliminated a waste or TRI substance. (See Tables
14 and 15.) .
Once again, as Figure 10 illustrates, reducing employee health risks
(cited by 35% of all respondents as "very important") led the list of
motivations cited for eliminating these wastes, followed closely by
meeting state and federal regulations (29%), complying with
company policy (28%) and reducing liability (27%).8 (See Tables
16-19.)
Using a different formula to make a product was cited by 21%, while
17% said they no longer make the product for which they had used
the eliminated waste. Finally, 16% cited improving community
relations and 13% reducing treatment costs as "very important." Just
7% said paperwork reduction was "very important." (See Tables
20-24.) ; : •
8 Though the top motivations are similar to those for reducing wastes and TRI releases,
the proportions saying these reasons are "very important" are much smaller. This is partly
because there is less conviction in these responses (fewer of those responding said they
were very important), but also because approximately one in three of those surveyed said
their facilities had not eliminated any hazardous wastes or TRl substances, and thus did
not respond to these questions.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 35
-------
Employee Health
Regulations
Company Policy
Liability
Different Formula
Cancel Product
Community Relations
Reducing Costs
Less Paperwork
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very H Somewhat D Not H None Elim./No Answer
Figure 10: Importance of Factors Promoting the Elimination of
Wastes & Releases | ,
,•. ' ' " '; . ' ' ' ,'• \ ''
• ' . - t • ' '.; -°
Industry Differences. As Tables 16-24 indicate, there were no
differences between industries in reasons jgiven for eliminating
wastes. However, firms in the chemical industry were more likely
than those in the pulp and paper industry to cite dropping products
as a means by which wastes and/or TRI releases were eliminated.
In contrast to the chemical industry, the pulp and paper industry has
many fewer different types of importable wastes, so it would be harder
for them to eliminate a waste type by eliminating a product line
without making serious inroads on production. (See Tables 16-24.)
Number of Employees,, Although few firms (7%) indicated that
they had eliminated a waste in order to reduce jpaperwork. small firms
(12%) were twice as likely as large firms (5%) to cite this as a reason.
Small firms have fewer different waste types man large firms so that
eliminating a waste may well result in their no longer having any
hazardous wastes to report, releasing them from the burdens of
tracking and reporting hazardous wastes. (See Table 22.)
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
.Page 36
-------
Small firms were also twice as likely as large firms to have eliminated
a waste by no longer making a product that resulted in hazardous
waste generation: one in five (21%) of the small firms and only one
in ten (11%) of the large firms said this was a "very important"
reason. (See Table 24.)
Public Interest Increased. Those representatives who reported
increased public interest in their facilities were more likely to report
community relations as an important motivation for eliminating
wastes. (See Table 22.) This finding is in contrast to survey findings
that the public is perceived as apathetic and few respondents make
their waste reduction goals public.
Barriers to Waste Reduction
In the face of so many compelling reasons to reduce or eliminate
certain substances from their premises, why are some firms unable
to eliminate more substances? Figure 11 and Tables 25-30 show
the reasons provided by survey respondents.
No Substitutes
Quality Impact
Substitutes Costly
Wont Work Here
Small Savings
I
Retire Equipment
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very ED Somewhat D Not
Figure 11: Importance of Factors Preventing Waste Reduction
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 37
-------
Most firms say that the lack of less hazardous or toxic substitutes
is the largest barrier to doing more pollution prevention. This lack
of substitutes is both a total lack of acceptable substitutes (cited by
70% as "very important") and a lack of substitutes that are not much
more expensive (24%). This finding suggests! the need to find other
inputs and other production processes to substitute for current
production patterns; and perhaps the need to substitute less
satisfactory, albeit less polluting, alternatives to current products.
Another barrier is the perception that available substitutes may hurt
product quality, cited by half the firms as "very important." In
addition, one in seven (15%) fear that what has not been tried ."may
not work here." This reason was cited by about one in seven (15%)
as "very important." Just about one in:ten (12%) said that the
potential for only small cost savings is a "very important" deterrent
to waste reduction.
1 i . i ... ,i- .-.,'. .j •
A number of respondents volunteered that they are hot able to
eliminate hazardous substances because their customers will not
accept the end result, either because of the product itself, or because
of the costs involved. Said one, "Our customers do not want to
change from what they are now buying." Another volunteered,
"Customers do not want to change from solvent-based products to
water-based products because of costs at their end." And another,
"Customers will not accept new products because they are more
expensive and as long as we can offer two types of products they
will continue to select the cheaper products. People are slow to
change their ideas and ways."
Price sensitivity among manufacturers may reflect the same
philosophy found at the consumer level, While consumers report
environmental "friendliness" as an important attribute, price and
quality are reported as the major criteria for purchases. Consumers
also report a low frequency of not purchasing from companies based
on their environmental record.9 !
Roper Organization, Public Attitude? and Individual Behavior, July 1990.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 38
-------
' . - •',-.,-*
What was not assessed was whether the lack of regulatory
requirements may impede hazardous waste elimination and facility
reduction efforts., In reality, very few federal or state laws exist
which require emissions reduction. One example is the state of
California Air Toxics Hot Spots Bill (AB2588) which requires that
facilities complete an emissions inventory and that certain facilities
conduct a health risk assessment. Pending those results, facilities
may be required to notify the affected public and undertake emissions
reduction activities.
A requirement such as AB2588 combines bom the regulatory
initiative of traditional compliance and enforcement provisions with
public access to information as incentives for pollution reduction
and prevention. While not within the scope of this research project,
it would be interesting to explore which of these two motivators is
most effective. The law also requires active communication and
notification and specifies communication channels rather than relying
on passive availability of information as in SARA Title III. EPA
may want to consider research which evaluates the relative
effectiveness of this type of approach for achieving emission
reductions.
Actions to Prevent Releases
Facility representatives were also asked whether their facilities had
taken certain specific actions to prevent releases, and Figure 12 shows
the results. (Survey Section IV, Q, 1-4). Nearly eight out of ten
(78%) of those surveyed said their facilities have added to their
containment measures such as dikes, berms, etc., in the past five years
to reduce the chances of spills or releases. The others either said
their facilities do not need these types of containment measures (5%)
or their containment measures were already adequate five years ago
(17%).' (See Table 31, Q. IV: 1.) '
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 39
-------
Added Containment
Process Controls
Reduced Stored
Chemicals
Monitoring Devices
0%
20% 40% - 60% 80% 100%
Figure 12: New Measures to Prevent Releases
Seven in ten (70%) said their facilities have installed additional
process controls to reduce hazardous wastes; generated and/or TRI
releases tp the water or air. The remainder said their process controls
were already adequate five years ago. Finally, 36% said they have
reduced the amount of chemicals stored at their facilities. (See
Tables 33 and 34, Q. IV: 3-4.) | ~ '
'! ' • . •. ! ' ; i. '•..'•'". '*''*•'.'
About one in three (29%) said their facilities have instituted or added
monitoring devices to detect releases. Two put of three (63%) said
their facilities do not need such devices, while the rest (9%) said
their monitoring devices were already adequate five years ago. (See
Table 32, Q. IV: 2) {
There were no major reported differences, either by industry or by
any other subgroup, in the proportion saying they have added
containment devices or process controls or have reduced the amount
of chemicals stored at their facilities. However, there was some
reported variation in the proportion saying they have added
monitoring devices.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 40
-------
Number of Employees. Nearly half (45%) of the largest facilities
(with more than 200 employees) said their facilities had installed
monitoring devices, compared to 23% of those with fewer than 50
employees. (See Table 32.) / ';''/
Visible Pollution. Those in facilities with visible pollution were
nearly twice as likely as others (34% to 19%)to say they have added
new monitoring devices; and they were also somewhat more likely
than those without visible pollution to say they have added new
containment measures and new process controls. (See Tables 31-33.)
Increased Communication. Those who have increased their
communication activities were nearly twice as likely as others (38%
vs. 20%) to say they have added new monitoring devices; and also
somewhat more likely to have added containment measures and new
process controls. (See Tables 31-33.)
Public Affairs Staff. Though only 29% of all those surveyed said
their facilities had added monitoring devices, more than half (55%)
of those respondents in facilities with public affairs staffs responded
positively on this question, ; '
- - ' ( ' •"
The correlations between communication variables and the
installation of monitoring devices may be, at least to some extent,
a result of the fact that larger facilities (those with public affairs
staffs) are the most likely to have problems that require monitoring
devices, and they are also the most likely to have the resources to
install these devices. - ,
Attitudes toward Hazardous Waste Management
When asked to agree or disagree with three statements regarding how
environmental regulations may have affected their facilities' decisions
on waste management, respondents appeared more likely
to go beyond the requirements of the regulations than to hold back
for fear that they would not get credit for their early actions if
restrictions were tightened. Though 10% agreed strongly that "if
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 41
-------
we reduce our waste now, it could hurt us later if EPA. issued
required goals for percentage waste reductions," 27% agreed strongly
that "we manage some non-hazardous wastes |as hazardous to avoid
future liability risks." (See Tables 35-36, Q|. IV: 5.)
I '< - ' ''.""•" ' -
Six in ten (38%) agreed (including 10% agreeing strongly) that "if
we reduce our waste now, it could hurt us later if EPA issued
required goals for percentage waste reductions." On the other hand, .
42% disagreed with this statement, including 16% who disagreed
strongly. (See Table 35.)
Moreover, seven in ten (72%) agreed (27% strongly) that "we manage
some non-hazardous wastes as hazardous to avoid future liability
risks." Of Ae 28% who disagreed with this statement, 14% disagreed
strongly. (See Table 36.) | .'._.
In addition, one in three (35%) disagreed stroragly with the statement
that "Unless required by regulations, it!is hard to persuade
management to invest in waste-minimizing injnovations." Less than
one in ten (8%) agreed strongly with this statement. (See Table 37.)
' ... ' . I ' *• . V ' ' '
The surve-' also questioned facility representatives about their general
toxic substance and pollution reduction management practices,
(Survey section IV, Q. 6). Eight in ten (79%) said their facility
almost always considers worker health risks prior to the purchase
or use of new materials. The rest either said just "sometimes" (18%),
"hardly ever" (3%), or "never." (See Table J39.)
i ' -. . • ... -' i ' '
Three out of four (73%) said their facility almost always measures
annually its reductions in hazardous waste generation and toxic
releases. Sixteen percent said "sometimes," while 10% said "hardly
ever" and 1% said "never." (See Table! 40.) However, this
information is not routinely or actively distributed to the public, as
Tables 51-57 demonstrate. Since toxic release information is required
to be reported and the sample was drawn from TRI reporters, one
can only speculate on the response to this question. However, the
"hardly ever" responses are nearly all from small facilities.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 42
-------
Sixty-three percent said their facility almost always includes
hazardous waste and toxic release reduction considerations in the
design of new or modified products or processes. (See Table 38.)
Pollution Reduction Index
In order to test further the possibility that communication factors
may be affecting decisions on pollution reduction, an index of
pollution reduction was created, and that index was then measured
against the communication activities of each respondent. The
"pollution reduction index" was created by counting the number of
positive responses (indicating pollution has been reduced) of each
respondent on the following five factors:
reductions in hazardous wastes per unit of production,
reductions in TRI releases per unit of production,
elimination of any hazardous wastes,
elimination of any TRI substances and
reduction in stored chemicals.
Figure 13 shows how the facilities responding to the survey fare on
this index. Ninety-four percent of all those surveyed indicated that
their facilities had reduced pollution by at least one of these
measures, and 16% said their facilities had reduced pollution on all
five of these measures.
Table 118 shows how positions on the pollution reduction index are
related to communication activities, which may add insight into the
potential motivations for pollution reduction among industrial
facilities. Those facilities mat report the largest number of pollution
reduction/prevention activities tend to be the larger facilities. In
addition, those facilities which report most pollution
reduction/prevention activities are also those which have publicized
their reduction goals and those which report increases in their public
communication activities during the past five years. They also are
the facilities most likely to offer employee communication training.
The differences reported are statistically significant, though some
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 43
-------
may not be dramatic differences. Most of the differences among
facilities are more pronounced at the lower end of the scale
(differentiating those who have reduced none, one or more than one)
than at the top end of the scale.
Reduced:
At Least i
At Least 2
At Least 3
At Least 4
All 5
100%
Figure 13: Pollution Reduction Index
Industry. There were no substantial differences among industry
groupings on this index. ;
Increased Communications. Among those who have increased
community communications, just 2% report no reductions on the
index and 38% report four or more. For the facilities which have
not increased communications, 10% report no reductions and 29%
report four or more. ;
Employee Communication Training. Aniong those who report
providing employee communication training, just 9% report no or
one reduction measure and 42% report four or more, Among those
who say their facilities do not provide employee communication
training, 22% report no or one reduction measure and 29% report
four or more.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 44
-------
Communication Program. Among those facilities which have an
active community communication program, 41% have reduced
pollution on four or five of the measures, compared to 30% of those
who do not have community communication programs.
Size. The smaller facilities (with fewer than fifty employees) were
less likely to report reduced pollution on four or five measures (30%)
than were the larger facilities (44%).
Summary
During the five-year period evaluated in this survey, two out of three
(64%) said their facilities have reduced the absolute amount of
hazardous wastes they produce, and three in four (75%) reduced the
amount per unit of product. Similarly, three out of five (59%) said
they have reduced the absolute amount of their TRI releases and two
in three (67%) have reduced TRI releases per unit of product.
Moreover, more than half (53%) said they have completely
eliminated at least one type of hazardous waste they once produced,
and 40% said they have completely eliminated at least one TRI
substance.
A key objective of this research project was to identify and evaluate
motivations for pollution prevention and risk reduction activities.
Looking at individual measures of pollution reduction •.—such as
reductions in hazardous wastes, reductions in TRI releases, or
reductions in stored chemicals — employee health ranks at the top
of the list in stated importance in these decisions, with meeting state
and federal regulations and fear of liability close behind.' The
differences in pollution reduction by industry type are minor. The
factor that predicts pollution reduction more often than any other
is the size of the facility, measured in terms of number of employees.
Taken at face value, these responses would seem to indicate that
public perceptions are not a major contributor to facility decisions
to undertake pollution reduction activities. When an index of
pollution reduction activities is compared with communication
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 4
-------
activities, it shows that communication activities are related to
pollution reduction, but not in a dramatic fashion. There is a trend
that suggests that more openness and a public orientation is associated
with pollution reduction. Based on this survey, the Kanawha Valley10
risk communication evaluation and the six-community study,11 the
lack of demand for information by the comrduraty reduces this as
an incentive for pollution reduction or a marketable company
attribute. i
; J '"'!,.-• • - i
The importance of the size of the facility .in predicting pollution
reduction and prevention activities might suggest that more pollution
prevention effort should be focused on small businesses and/or
facilities. Small firms have been the focus of j attention in a number
of state pollution prevention programs. State studies suggest that
small firms account for only a small propoijtion of the hazardous
wastes generated.12 While many of these states have concluded that
small firms will not lead in developing innovative technologies, these
firms can be helped to adopt new methods of production as they are.
developed. :
• , ' . ' ' ' .
Chapter 3 evaluates the results of the survey with regard to
community communications—how public communication activities
have changed over the past five years, and what demands tiV: public
has made on industrial facilities for environmental information.
Chapter 4 contains the explicit evaluation jby respondents of the
effects of recent environmental and community right-to-know laws.
10 Susan L. Santos and David B. McCallum, "Kariawha Valley Health Effects
Study," Risk Communication Research Project, Focus; Group and Key Interviews,
April 1993. j
11 David B. McCallum, Ph.D. and Susan L. Santos, M.S., "Public Knowledge
and Attitudes of Chemical Risks in Six Communities: A Report of a Follow-up
Survey," Discussion Draft, Columbia University Center for Risk Communication,
September 1993. : /
12 For example, in Wisconsin, studies by the Department of Natural Resources
show that 93% of the wastes are generated by the top fifty companies.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication i Page 46
-------
3. Community Outreach
and Communication
Recent environmental laws have not only required industry to monitor
and reduce the amount of pollution it produces — they have also
required that industry provide information to the public about
industrial pollutants released into the environment A substantial
portion of this survey (sections V-VII) was dedicated to assessing
how and to what extent these requirements may have affected
facilities' community outreach and public communication activities.
Once again, the questionnaire was designed to first assess what these
facilities do (and why) in the way of public communication, and then
look more specifically at how that is related to recent legislation and
overall environmental management practices.
Communication Program
Nearly half of those surveyed (47%) said their facility's efforts to
communicate with the community have increased over the past five
years; just 1% said they have decreased. Yet, as Figure 14 illustrates,
barely more than one in three (36%) said their facilities have a
program for providing information to the community about their
operations and environmental issues, and just 19% said their facilities
have any staff dedicated to public affairs as their primary function.
(See also Tables 41,42 and 83; Q. V: 1-2; VII: 3.)
The three industry categories included in this study do not differ
substantially on their reported community outreach and
communication activities. The larger facilities, however, reported
much more activity in this area man did the smaller ones, as did those
facilities that have public affairs staffs and those that have increased
their communication efforts. As maybe expected, those that reported
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 47
-------
visible aspects of production and environmental problems that
stimulated media interest also reported more community outreach
than did others. These differences were reported on the first question
about communications—whether the facility* had an active program
of community information —- and held throughout all the communica-
tion issues. The importance of these visible cues suggests that
industry communication efforts are reactive, aid probably short-lived,
rather than proactive and sustained.
Increased
Communications
Have Community
Relations Program
Public Affairs
Programs
0%
10% - 20% 30% 40% 50%
Figure .14: Community Outreach and Communication
: ' 'I
Industry. While 36% of all those surveyed reported that their
facilities have community information prpgraims., there was no strong
variation among the three industry groups surveyed. The responses
only varied between 33% in the chemical industry, 36% in pulp and
paper and 44% in the refinery and petroleum industry. (See Table
'
Number cf employees. Nearly six in ten (59%) of those at larger
facilities (with more than 200 employees) said their facilities have
community information programs, compared to just 18% of those
at facilities with fewer than 50 employees.'
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 48
-------
Visible Aspects of Production. Among those reporting visible
aspects of production from their facilities, 44% said they have
community information programs, compared with 22% of those not
reporting visible aspects of production.
Recent Environmental Problems. Forty-seven percent of those
in facilities that have had environmental problems receiving media
attention said their facilities have community information programs,
compared with 28% of those not reporting such "high-profile
environmental problems. Again, proximal events or visual cues
appear to be major factors motivating communication.
Public Affairs Staff. Community information programs are more
than twice as prevalent at facilities with a public affairs staff (62%
have them) as at those without a public affairs staff (just 30%).
Increases in Communication Efforts: There is a strong relationship
between having a communication program and increasing
communication efforts. Of those who say their communication
efforts have increased during the past five years, 63% have
communication programs, compared with just 12% of those who
have not increased their communication efforts. Clearly having an
established plan and communication program serves to facilitate
communication and outreach.
What means of communication are used most often, and who are
the primary audiences for targeted communications on pollution
reduction issues? A variety of communication activities were listed
on the questionnaire, and all those surveyed13 were asked to indicate
which, if any, of these methods their firm had used within the past
year to communicate with the public (Q. V: 3.). It is to be noted that
nearly half (43%) said their firms had not communicated with the
public by any of these means during the past year. Some, of course,
had utilized multiple methods of public communication.
13 This question was asked of all respondents, including those who said their
facilities did not have an active public communications program.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication ; Page 49
-------
Figure 15 shows the proportion of respondents who said their
facilities had utilized each means of public, communication. The
most common means of communication included holding meetings
with community leaders (cited by 36%) aind inviting the public to
open houses or plant tours (32%). One in five (19%) said their
facilities had run advertisements, 17% have njiaintained a telephone
"hotline," 12% have circulated newsletters, 12% have formed
community advisory groups, and 11% have 'held "town meetings."
Fewer man one in ten have utilized opinion research techniques such
as focus groups (8%) or a public opinion survey (7%) to determine
community needs and attitudes. (See also Table 43.)"-',
Meet w/Cmty. Leaders
Public Tours
Advertisements
Telephone "Hotline"
;. Newsletters
Formed Crnty. Groups
Town Meetings
F:ocus Groups
> Public Opin. Survey
None of the Above
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Figure 15: Methods of Community Outreach
Among those facilities which do utilize some regular means of
communicating with the public, the focus is pirimarily on community
leaders and activists, rather than on the general public. It is much
more common to communicate with those w^ho are the most active
—i.e., community leaders or those who have or will take the time
to come to a plant open house — than to conduct research to find
out what the community as a whole thinks about the plant and other
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 50
-------
local issues. Moreover, only 19% have run advertisements, 12%
have circulated newsletters, and 11% have held town meetings, all
activities that could be designed to expand the information available
to a broader cross-section of the general public.
Industry. There are not, for the most part, substantial differences
in outreach activities based on industry type.14
Number of Employees. The one factor that consistently predicts
whether facilities use any or all of these means of public
communication is the size of the facility as measured by the number
of employees. Among those facilities with more than 200
employees, nearly nine out of ten (89%) have utilized at least one
of these communication means; among those with fewer than 50
employees, just 29% have utilized at least one. For each single
means of communication, the differences in utilization based on the
number of employees is dramatic and statistically significant.
Whether the type of communication activities reported by those
surveyed is most effective depends on what the overall goal of public
communication is. If the goal is primarily to allay the concerns of
those who are active and attentive, then it may make sense to focus
communications on community leaders and activists. If, however,
the goal is to ensure that the broader public understands (a) the risks,
(b) what industry is (or is not) doing to minimize them and (c) what
the public itself needs to do to ensure its own health and safety, then
a more active public communication program would be in order.
The survey did not evaluate the goals of communication activities
or whether facilities have explicit goals for communication activities.
Additional research such as followup focus groups with respondents
might shed some light on this question.
14 Trie Responsible Care® program of die Chemical Manufacturers Association
(CMA) has a code practice requiring CMA member companies to engage in
community outreach. However, not all of the respondent chemical facilities are
necessarily affiliated with CMA member companies.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 51
-------
While the focus on community leaders is important, the effectiveness
of only targeting this group is questionable, kesults from a survey
of six communities15 indicate that trusted intermediaries (educators,
health professionals, non-management employees) may be important _
targets for information dissemination. Moreover, while a small cadre
of "opinion leaders" may dominate public discussion on most
occasions, experience has shown that when controversy erupts, the
circle of those who are interested and/or affected may be enlarged
dramatically. | '
Motivations for Public Communication. All those surveyed were
next provided with a list of possible reasons: for having a program
of public communications, and asked to rate the importance of each
of these reasons in their own firm's, decisioti on whether or not to
have such a program (Q. V: 5). Figure 16'illustrates the relative
importance given to each of these motivations.
Increasing credibility with the community,' a good cost-benefit ratio
and turning around perceptions about past problems in the community
were rated as "very important" or "somewhat important" factors by
more respondents (about seven out of ten) than any other motivations
for having a public outreach or cornmunication program (each seen
as "very important" or "somewhat important" by two to four in ten).
Yet, as Figure 16 demonstrates, none of these factors is seen as "very
important" by more than one in three of those responding to the
survey. . • "'- •[- ' •' • ' ' •: . • ''
1 , ' ' ""'•[* ". • '• • ••' •'.•
. 1. ,. ': '"- • ,
Seventy-six percent said increasing credibility was either very
important (33%) or somewhat important (43^0). Sixty-eight percent
said that the small cost of public communication given the benefit
in improved relations is either very important (31%) or somewhat
important (37%). (Tables 44 and 47.) I
, 15 David B. McCallum, Ph.D. and Susan L. Santos, M.S., "Public Knowledge
and Attitudes of Chemical Risks in Six Communities. A Report of a Follow-up
Survey," Discussion Draft, Columbia University Cenjter for Risk Communication,
September 1993. >.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication ~ Page 52
-------
Increase Credibility
Cost/Benefit
Turn Around Image
Frightened Public
Inr.' Public Scrutiny
Deer. Demand for Reg
TRI Release Reports
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very H Somewhat D Not H No Answer
Figure 16: Importance of Factors Driving Decisions
on Community Outreach & Communication
Seven in ten (70%) said that helping to turn around perceptions about
past problems in the community is either very important (26%) or
somewhat impjrtant (44%) as a reason for having a public
communication program, (See Table 48.) Other findings cited
previously indicated that 36% of the respondents said that improving
community relations was a "very important" factor (with 38% saying
"somewhat important") in reducing hazardous wastes or TRI releases.
(See table 12.) ;
Increased public scrutiny, risk communications that have frightened
the public, and the desire to lessen the public demand for more
stringent regulations were each cited by 40-44% as either very (12-
15%) or somewhat (28-31%) important. Just 22% said publicity
about past environmental problems was either very (5%) or somewhat
(17%) important as a reason for having a public communication
program. (See Tables 45, 46, 49 and 50.) These findings are in
seeming contrast to the survey findings which show that those
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 53
-------
facilities with previous problems and/or visibly cues were more likely
man others to have an active communicatic|n program,
!
Some of those surveyed volunteered that either they or their corporate
management believed in the importance of good community relations.
Said one, "Senior management recognizes the political value of public
image." .Another said the facility wanted to "build trust and
understanding between the facility and the community." One stated
that the company "had to have community approval and acceptance
to move into a new location for our headquarters and manufacturing
plant." Finally, one environmental manage^ with a clear vision of
the importance of community relations to His facility said, "[It is
important to .have a community relations Iprogram] to keep the
neighbors informed on what goes on at rae facility. Often the
neighbors suspect the worst and are relieve'd when they view our
process and safety procedures." ;
- . ,. '.!-•' ' ••
Thus, general concerns about the need to increase public credibility
and the low perceived cost relative to the potential benefits are
apparently equally important as rationales for public communication,
as are concerns about correcting misconceptions about past
e ivironmental problems. These findings raisie a question about why
cnly one in three of these facilities have programs of public
communication — the same proportion whcj say these motivations
are "very important." The explanation based on the quantitative
findings could be simply that a factor that is only "somewhat
important" is not important enough to merit action.
- " 'i - .
j- , . • *
However, some further exploration of this question qualitatively
could be extremely helpful in understanding the dynamics of
coiporate communication efforts in communities. Even those without
"active" communication efforts may be communicating or perceive
the need to do so. Lack of skills in mounting effective
communication efforts and low public demand for information could
also be influencing the decisions of a largely technical staff for whom
communication efforts are an added responsibility.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication | Page 54
-------
The most likely explanation is that, though these respondents perceive
that the benefits of public .communication are high relative to the
costs, those responsible for communication are mostly technical plant
personnel whose activities are driven by responding to technical or
regulatory environmental situations rather than by the needs of long-
term communication planning. Since most firms have not allocated
the resources for plants to have a public affairs staff, the public
communication function, at least in terms of routine communication
and long-term planning, takes second place to the more technical
responsibilities of plant personnel.
Additionally, those personnel are not given the necessary training
in communication or community outreach as documented later in
this chapter. The low percentage of facilities that provide
communication training to staff is another indication that
communication does not receive enough attention in plants' strategic
planning processes and that the plant personnel's communication
skills may not be sufficiently honed. Communication with the public
may not be perceived as a part of the environmental manager's facility
responsibilities. Without specific performance objectives and
responsibilities tied to communication efforts, it is easy to see why
these acti Cities may languish. ;. ,' ',
Providing Information on a Voluntary Basis — What and to
Whom. The next question raised relates to how frequently, and for
what purpose, these facilities provide information to the public
without having received specific requests (Q. V: 6). The type of
information most frequently provided to the public without specific
requests consists of the type of general chemical toxicity
information included in the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)
— and the primary target for this information consists of
emergency responders (police, fire-fighters, emergency medical
personnel, for example), and not the general public,
Twenty-eight percent said they frequently provide general
chemical toxicity information to the, public without being asked.
About one in five said their facility frequently provides information
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 55
-------
about what to do in an emergency (20%), general plant operations
(19%), or SARA Title HI reporting forms (18%). Just 13% said they
frequently provide reports on efforts to reduce risks to the public,
11% frequently provide accident/incidenii histories, and 8%
frequently provide reports on environmental problems or risks at
the plant without any specific requests. (See Tables 51-57.) Other
research, including work done with the Nationjil Institute of Chemical
Studies in the Kanawha Valley16 suggest that a primary information
concern of me public is emergency response information. The public,
though apathetic, also wants to know what a facility emits, but is
not aware mat they have access to this information under Title III.
'•''.'' ,
Once again, the evidence is that communication is aimed at those
who are active and involved in plant issues, 'rather than a broader
cross-section of the general public. The most frequently cited
targets for public communication programs are emergency
responders, cited by 62% of all those surveyed, followed by
government officials (49%) and community' leaders (48%). Just
34% cited the general public, 30% health professionals and 25%
the media as targets for their communication efforts. Sixteen
percent said they target educators and j 11% environmental
activists — while 20% s?;d their communication efforts are not
targeted. (See Table 58, 0. V: 7.) i
These findings certainly help to explain! the low levels of
information found among the public in surveys conducted by the
Center for Risk Communication during 1988 and 1992.17
Awareness and self-rated knowledge about: chemical risks were
minimal in 1988, and they did not increase over that four-year
period. Information about environmental issues at industrial
facilities is not reaching the public at large' because community
' David B. McCallum, Ph.D., Susan L. Santos, M.S. and Sharon Hammond,
Ph.D., "Kanawha Valley Health Effects Project: Results of a Telephone Survey,"
in preparation, April 1994. !
17 McCallum and Santos, "Public Knowledge and Ajttitudes of Chemical Risks
in Six Communities," 1993.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 56
-------
outreach activities are not as a general rule targeted to that
audience; nor is it targeted to those seen by the public as trusted
sources.
Information dissemination to the public has been ineffective Because
it has been passive in nature. If people are not motivated to ask
questions by the proper authorities, they remain unaware of what
is happening on environmental issues at these facilities. The lack .
of active outreach or two-way communication efforts by industry
evidenced by this survey, along with the 1988 and 1992 general
public survey results indicate that passive provision of information
is ineffective in increasing community, awareness or changing
perceptions and knowledge levels.18
The reasons for the lack of active communication to the public
are probably varied. One possible reason cited in the pre-survey
focus groups is the fear that information on chemicals or releases,
might heighten public concern. This is certainly a valid concern
on the part of industry in many cases, particularly if spokespersons
have not been trained in the principles of risk communication.
However, the potential for public backlash can increase if community
residents believe information is being deliberately withheld.
Frustration over the lack of accessibility of information may also
be tied to public perceptions of trust and credibility, as indicated by
the 1988 and 1992 general public surveys cited .above.19
Alternatively, if an industrial facility has developed a reputation for
providing information to the community on a routine basis, then,
at least in the absence of a crisis, it should be possible to provide
information without creating undue public concern.
Outside Assistance with Public Communication* Industry
representatives were also asked whether they receive aid and
18 McCallum and Santos, "Public Knowledge and Attitudes of Chemical Risks
in Six Communities," 1993.
19 Ibid., McCallum and Santos.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication age
-------
encouragement from their trade associations where public
communication is concerned (Survey Section V, Q. 9-10). Most
said that they do receive such aid, and of those who do, the most
common form of aid received consists of communication training
materials for their employees. !
Three out of four (76%) said their indusjtry trade association
encourages or supports their efforts to communicate with the
public, and 48% of all those surveyed cite training materials for
their employees as a form of support they receive from this source.
(See Tables 59 and 60.) ;
Other aids received from trade associations include an information
clearinghouse with other companies, (cited by 39% of all those
surveyed), materials for the public (35%), aridi media support (28%).
Thirty percent of those surveyed said that programs or materials
provided through their trade associations have: helped in developing
and maintaining a community outreach program at their facility.
(See table 60.) - - '
••'''!'•
Industry. Those in the chemical industry were substantially more
likely to report trade association assistance with public
communication activities. Nearly nine out of ter (86%) of the
chemical industry representatives surveyed said their trade
association20 encourages their public communication efforts,
compared with 73% in the refinery and petroleum industry and
just 56% in the pulp and paper industry. (See Table 59.) In
addition, 60% in the chemical industry said Itheir trade association
provides employee training materials for public communication,
compared with 38% in the refinery and petroleum industry and
26% of those in pulp and paper. (See Table 60.)
Many of these respondents may be referring to tljie Chemical Manufacturers
Association (CMA). However, not all facilities necessarily represent CMA member
companies. i
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication . " Page 58
-------
Increases in Communication Efforts. The importance of trade
association assistance can be seen in the correlation of such
assistance with increases in communication activities. Of those
who said they had increased their communication activities within
the past five years, 85% said their trade associations encouraged
such communication efforts, compared with 65% of those who
have not increased their communication efforts. (See Table 59.)
The impact of CMA's Responsible Care® community outreach
code on communication activities may account for some of this
increase.
Communication Staff and their Training
Asked what types of employees have responsibility for communicat-
ing with the public (Q. VII: 3), fewer than one in five (19%) said
their facility had its own public affairs staff., Eight in ten (82%)
named the plant manager as being responsible for public
communications, followed by corporate communications
(cited by 53%), facility environmental affairs staff (53%) and
other technical staff at the facility (26%). (See Table 83.)
Most public communications at these industrial facilities is being
carried out, not by public affairs professionals, but by the plant
manager or more technical plant staff- except when coiporate
public affairs officials step in to help direct local facility
communication efforts. Further, most are not given training in
communication with the public.
Even though more than half of those surveyed said they had
received employee training materials from their trade association,
only 34% said their facilities have conducted one or more
communication training sessions for their employees. Moreover,
only 10% said more than 60% of their employees who are
responsible for communicating with the public have had formal
training, and 5% said that between 30 and 60% have had
training. .The vast majority, then, either said that fewer than 30%
of their employees responsible for communicating with the public
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
-------
have had any formal communication training (19%) or none have
had any training (66%). This finding illustrates the importance
of providing communication .training for technical-staff that ties
community relations to their environmental activities and makes
communication a part of their performance objectives. (See
Tables 81 and 82, Q. VII: 1-2.)
The Public's Response ;
' • * - - I '.-•-•
Having focused thus far on public communication as a proactive
function — communications undertaken by industrial facilities
on their initiative — this section turns now to look at the external
demand for information from industrial facilities. The survey
asked a series of questions to determine i the extent to which
industrial facilities are subject to demands for information from
the public, and to what extent, if at all, have those demands
changed over the past few years since community right-to-know
laws have been in effect? (See Survey Section VI.)
. , ' ". . . ' i , '
This series of questions began by asking whether there are any
objective conditions which might warraint increased public
attention. In response, two out of five (42%) of those surveyed
said that their facilities have experienced enwronmental problems
or incidents during the past five years that have received public
or media attention, and 39% expressed; the sentiment that
publicity about the substances used in normal production
processes at their facility would cause undue community alarm.
(See Tables 63 and 64.) ' . " ], '. '
Public Interest. Only 27% said that publici or media interest has
increased during the past five years. Moist (64%) said public
interest has stayed the same, and 8% .said it has declined.
Twenty-one percent said some community or activist group has
publicly targeted their facility for perceived environmental
problems — but 81% said their facility has been publicly
commended by some community or activist group during the past
five years. (See Tables 62, 65 and 66.)
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication . u Page 60
-------
Asked to specify the type of public commendation they had
received, many respondents cited EPA or other governmental
awards. For example, "the EPA Administrator's award for
recycling leadership was cited by one facility environmental
manager and the EPA Region VI Environmental Excellence
Award by another, there were a few citations to environmental
groups such as the Sierra Club and Audubon Society. One
respondent reached back nearly ten years to cite a Rachel Carson
award from the Lake Michigan Foundation. One respondent said
the Sierra Club had supported the facility's pilot wetlands project,
while another said their efforts to re-use effluent were supported
by the local Audubon Society and Conservation League. It seems
unlikely that such groups would be supporting these facilities
without active outreach by the facility. However, not all
81% represent true environmental groups (some represent
governmental authorities), and not all occurred within the
previous five years.
Finally, just 17% said that requests for information from the
public have increased in recent years, while 73% said the number
of such requests has remained the same and 11% said they have
decreased. (See Table 67.)
The resurvey of six baseline communities in 1992 confirms the
public's apathy for environmental information. Only 17% said
they had encouraged businesses to provide information on toxic
substances and only 31% said they had encouraged businesses
to take a stronger role in cleaning up the community.21
Source of Public Inquiries. Respondents were then asked how
often during the past year they had received requests from
different sources. Emergency responders, cited by 60%, far
exceeded all other sources of requests, as Figure 17 illustrates.
Most of those (49%) said they have had requests from emergency
* 21 Op. Cit., McCalhim and Santos, "Public Knowledge and Attitudes of Chemical
Risks in Six Communities," 1993.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 61
-------
responders 1-3 times during the past year,
have had such requests 4-8 times and 3%
(See Tables 68-74.)
while 8% said they
nine or more times.
and
and
These data suggest that SARA Title III
Local Emergency Planning Committees
groups are increasing levels of communication
emergency response. Yet the public's awareness
plans has not increased, according to the results
study. This finding suggests that more active
be needed. This finding has implications
implementation of Title III, and perhaps even
for the implementation of the new Clean Air
facilities to develop "worst case" consequence
both
Groups requesting information in past year:
Emerg. Responders
Iqdiv. Citizens
: Cmty. Leaders
Media
Health Prof.
Envir. Activists
Educators
0% 20%
other activities by
other community
with regard to
of emergency
of the six-community
communication may
for the continued
more significantly,
Act requirement for
analyses.
40% 60% 80% 100%
Over 3 times II 1-3 times D Never
Figure 17: Sources of Public Inquiries
The media, community leaders, and individual citizens were cited
by 31-32% as having requested information during the past year
and 27% cited health professionals. Just 22% said environmental
activists had requested information and 19% cited educators.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 62
-------
Information Requested. The type of information most frequently
requested by the public, according to these respondents, is once
again general chemical toxicity information such as that found
in the MSDS. Yet only 11% of all those surveyed said that the
public has requested such information "frequently" over the past
five years; 28% said the public seldom requested such information,
and 61% said the public had never asked for this type of information.
(See Figure 18 and Table 77.)
As for other types of information, emergency response plans were
said to be requested "frequently" by 7% of those surveyed,
followed by "what to do in an emergency" (5%), SARA Title III
reports (3%), reports on facility's efforts to reduce risk;to public
health or environment (3%) and facility accident/incident history
(2%). (See Table 75, 76, 78-80.)
Information requested about in past 5 years:
Gen. Toxicity
Emerg. Resp. Plans
What to Do in Emerg.
SARA Title III Forms
Risk Reduction Act.
Incident History
0%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequently & Seldom D Never,
Figure 18: Types of Information Requested
Once again, these findings parallel those of the six-community
public opinion survey, which indicates that few citizens were
aware of SARA Title III information, even after the law had been
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication .
Page 63
-------
in effect for four years.22 In community focus groups, however,
participants claim that the information they want is what facilities
.'are ..emitting, the potential health effects apd what to do in an
emergency.23 , ; ;
• , ; •• ' .• .' ' • ' ' i ••-••.
' • • ' • ' 'I • ••'• •
J • •• '• .'••)•. •••--'•.•'•
Summary i
, , ' N • . | -.,'-.
Numerous factors covered throughout mis survey report would
seem to provide more than ample impetus;for an active public
communication program on the part of these industrial facilities.
Community right-to-knpw requirements cjertainly provide the
foundation (in terms of incentives to explain the information that
has to be made public), and most of those surveyed acknowledged
that public communication provides good value for what it costs.
Focus groups with industry representatives support the good
neighbor rationale as an impetus for communication.24 This is
not surprising given that in this survey, three out of five facilities
are located within 5.00 feet of some residential, business,
educational, medical or recreational facility,'three out of five said
their facilities have visible releases or emissions, and two out of
five said their facilities have experienced!some environmental
problem that has received media attention hi the past few years.
However, in spite of all these reasons to communicate with the
public, only one in three of those surveyed said their facilities have
"a program.for providing information to the conimunity about plant
operations aind environmental issues at the facility," and one in three
22
Ibid., McCallum and Santos, Six-community Survey, 1993.
3 Susan L. Santos & David B. McCallum, "Kanziwha Valley Health Effects
Study," Risk Communication Research Project, Focus'Group and Key Interviews
Evaluation Report, April 1993. -.,'.'' :, .
24 Susan Santos, focus groups with UNOCAL Coirporation, September 1993;
Susan L. Santos and David B. McCallum, six focus groups, NASA Langley Research
Center, June 1993.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication 1 . Page 64
-------
said their personnel responsible for public communication receive
any formal training.
Part of the explanation for this seeming lack of public communication
efforts may be related to the fact that only one in five said their
facilities have staff specifically designated as public affairs staff,
thus placing the burden for communication on technical or
management staff. While the lack of a public affairs staff and
training may indicate communications have been given low priority
at some facilities, it is most'likely a result of lack of resources at
others.
•._•'•. '» ' -
Whatever the reason, in most cases, the plant manager or
technical plant staff are carrying out the plant's public communication
activities — and most of those individuals have not had any formal
training for that communication function. In addition, these same
staff carry the responsibility for environmental compliance. The
absence of specific criteria or communication objectives as part of
a facility's environmental management program fosters the perception
that communication efforts may be considered as separate from
facility environmental management efforts, or not part of the staffs
job function;
1 - ' * <"'
The lack of clear communication objectives along with the absence
of training suggests that technical staff may feel ill equipped or
not organizationally supported to deal with public communication.
Proactive public outreach may be perceived as just one more
drain on overtaxed and understaffed environmental staffs. In
the absence of specific requests or a crisis, and with communication
not seen as part of an individual's job responsibilities or of overall
strategic planning, it is reasonable to speculate that technical staff
may not see the need for active community outreach. Case studies
done by other researchers suggest that, in cases where communication
by technical staff has worked, there was a.tremendous amount of
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 65
-------
I - ' . ' -
coordination between those technical staff! and public affairs.25
Organization theory suggests that activities, such as communication,
not included as a specific item in a strategic plan will not receive
appropriate attention. !
The survey found that the presence of a public affairs staff is an
important factor in predicting whether ori not a facility has a
discrete community outreach program for environmental issues.
Larger companies are also more likely to engage in community
outreach, as are those with visible aspects of production and those
that have experienced recent environniental problems that
resulted in public or media attention. Further, those that have
increased their communication efforts in recent years are more
likely than others to have received sissistance in public
communication, particularly communication training, from their
trade associations.
In addition, however, the perception on the part of facility staff
mat the public is largely apathetic likely plays a major role: Only
17% say the number of requests from the!public has increased
over the past five years, and as the next chapter shows, industrial
%cility representatives see the public as largely apathetic to their
SARA Title III reports. If the public is not interested, many
environmental managers may believe it beist not to "stir up" the
public in the absence of a controversy. j
These findings are consistent with the findings of the Center for
Risk Communication's six-community study of public knowledge
and attitudes about chemical risks. During the period 1988-1992,.
there have been some changes in reported activities, such as
contributing to environmental causes and drinking bottled water.
25 Caron Chess, Alex Saville, Michael Tamuz and flifichael R. Greenberg, "The
Organizational Links between Risk Communication and Risk Management: The Case
of Sybron Chemicals Inc". Risk Analysis, Vol. XII, No. 3,1992, pp. 431-438; Caron
Chess, Mich'al Tamuz and Michael R. Greenberg, "Organizational Learning about
Environmental Risk Communication: The Case of Rotjm and Haas' Bristol Plant,"-
in press, Journal of Social and Natural Resources. '
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
-------
Yet awareness and self-rated knowledge about chemical risks
have not increased, and recall of information about the environment
from the media and other sources has actually decreased.
Respondents who felt positively about environmental activities tended
to give better job performance ratings overall.26
In summary, lack of public demand for information may make
it more difficult to establish communication as a high priority
even though plant personnel say they believe it is cost effective.
Unless communication is written into individual performance
responsibilities or facility environmental plans, and personnel
are given appropriate support and resources, including training,
communication is likely to receive attention only when the public
demands it, usually in response to a crisis. This scenario,
perpetuates the status quo in focusing community discussions
about environmental issues on problems rather than solutions.
It also impedes the possibility that government, industry and
environmental groups can forge effective partnerships to reduce
community risks. In the resurvey of the baseline communities
in 1992, the job performance ratings by the respondents for all
the. responsible parties (e.g., government, industry, LEPCs) were
highly correlated. These data suggest that the public is interested
in seebg problems solved. When problems are solved, all
responsible parties benefit. This provides an incentive for joint
problem solving not only to manage risk more effectively
but also to enhance public image and reduce the perception of
risk.
^ Op. Cit.., McCallum and Santos, "Public Knowledge and Attitudes of Chemical
Risks in Six Communities," 1993.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 67
-------
4. Effects of Environmental Laws
The foregoing chapters of this report have foqused on the objective
conditions in which industrial facilities fuul themselves, as well
as how and why their pollution reduction amd communication
activities may have changed over the past five years. The
questionnaire was designed to permit an assessment of how SARA
Title III and other recent environmental jlaws rank against a
range of other motivations for increasing industry efforts in both
these areas. ;
- --'!.•'_
This chapter turns to the series of questions that specifically askeS
those surveyed for their own assessment of both the effects and
the effectiveness of recent environmental laws, particularly the
SARA Title in community right-to-know provisions (Section VIII
of the questionnaire). Though the evidence throughout the survey
is that these laws have hid a great deal of impact on changes in
industry practices, the responses to these particular questions
were more negative than positive. j
Perceived Effects of Environmental Laws and Regulations.
11 1 • -
The survey questionnaire (included in Appendix B of this report)
provided a list of potential effects of "recent trends in environmental
laws" and asked respondents to agree or disagree with each statement.
Of all the potential effects cited, the one that was most heartily
endorsed by the largest number of respondents was that these laws
have increased industry's production costs. j(See Figure 19.)
Nine out of ten of those surveyed (91%) agreed that the environ-
mental laws and regulations their facilities1 have had to respond
to over the past several years have increased their production
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication : Page 68
-------
costs. Half (50%) agreed strongly and 41% agreed somewhat
with this statement. (See Table 87.)
Agree/Disagree That Laws:
Increase Prod. Costs
Incr. Public Concern
Hurt Env. Priorities
Reduce Cmty. Risks
Improve Cmty. Image
Make Pub. Feel Safer
Improve Environment
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
• Agree Strongly M Agree Somewhat
D Disagree Somewhat M Disagree Strongly
Figure 19: Effects of Environmental Laws
Moreover, eight in ten (81%) agr ed strongly (26%) or somewhat
(55%) that these laws and reflations cause needless public
concern, and a majority agreed strongly (24%) or somewhat
(35%) that they cause more important environmental priorities
to be downgraded. (See Tables 85 and 88.)
Sixty-four percent said that these laws have reduced community
risks — but only 12% agreed strongly with this statement and
52% just somewhat. Of the 51% who agreed that the laws have
improved the facility's community image, only 6% agreed
strongly. (See Tables 86 and 90.)
Finally, just 36% agreed (6% strongly) that the laws have made
the public feel safer, and 31% agreed (4% strongly) that the new
laws and regulations have allowed facilities to improve environmental
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 69
-------
protection without hurting their competitive position. (See Tables
84 and 89.) I
I. , •'
Industry. The attitudes expressed toward environmental laws
in general are quite similar, for the most part, in all three of the
industries included in this study. (See Tables 84-90.)
Effectiveness of Specific Environmental Laws.
: ' • '• ; I,.-'-
Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of several
environmental requirements "taking into consideration both the
costs and benefits to your facility of meeting environmental
requirements" (Q. VIII: 2). No more thanipne in five rated any
of these laws as "very effective." The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act — RCRA — was rated above all the other laws
specified, followed by the Clean Water Act, then the Clean Air
Act, and then SARA Title III. The Supeiftmd law (CERCLA)
was at the bottom of the list according to these industry
representatives. (See Figure 20.) j
RCRA
Clean Waiter Act
Clean Air Act
SARA Title III
CERCLA
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very HI Somewhat D Not
Figure 20: Effectiveness of Enviro|nmental Laws
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 70
-------
Since CERCLA pertains to the cleanup of abandoned hazardous
waste facilities, it may be that CERCLA requirements did not
apply to most of the facilities responding to this survey. (Eight
respondents - 3% - said their facility had been named as a
Superfund site.) However, assuming the facility manager or
environmental compliance staff completed the survey would imply
some degree of knowledge of most of these statutes.
Nearly eight in ten (77%) said RCRA—the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act — was either "very" (19%) or "somewhat
effective" (58%). Seven in ten rated the Clean Water Act either
"very" (13%) or "somewhat effective" (57%) as well as the Clean
Air Act (8% "very" and 60% "somewhat" effective). Sixty-four
percent rated SARA Title III as either "very" (17%) or "somewhat
effective" (48%). (See Tables 92-95.)
At the bottom of the list in effectiveness according to this industry
audience is the Superfund law (CERCLA). This survey concerned
operational facilities, so that the Superfund law regarding
hazardous waste facilities was not its primary interest. Though
it is indeed possible that some respondents are involved in
Superfund issues involving their companies, the survey did not
ascertain how many respondents that might be. Nevertheless, just
5% said this law had been "very effective" and another 35% said
"somewhat effective." (See Table 91.)
Industry. Once again, attitudes were quite similar throughout
all the industries surveyed where these issues are concerned. (See
Tables 91-95.) ,"...'
' . , • • -!
Public Affairs Staff. On the other hand, respondents in facilities
with a local public affairs staff were more likely than; others to
see CERCLA and the Clean Air Act as being at least somewhat
effective. (See Tables 91 and 94.)
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication i Page 71
-------
Effects of Community Right-to-Know. Filially, all respondents
were asked to agree or disagree with a series of statements about
the effects of SARA Title III, and in particular Section 313 of the
community right-to-know law (Q. VIII: 3). Figure 21 shows
responses on this item.
Results of SARA Title III:,
More Attentive
Worker Safety
Public Apathy
Reduced Use of Chem.
Him. UseofChem.
Production Processes
Media Interest Up
Activists' Interest
Incr. Cmty. Info.
0% ,20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
• Agree Strongly
D Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Disagree Strongly
Figure 21: Industry Changes as a Result of Laws
A significant majority reported that their facilities have made
changes as a result of these requirements, as'Figure 10 illustrates.
More than eight in ten (84%) agreed that thejy pay more attention
to the hazardous and toxic substances they use and (78%) agreed
that worker safety in handling hazardous substances has become
more important. Two out of three (66%) ajgreed that they have
reduced the use of a specific chemical or hazardous substance
as a result of these laws, while 55% agreed that they have changed
their production processes as a result. (See Tsibles 97-99 and 101.)
, . - ••" ' ' !'•'•:• ••./ -.'"•'• • •' "' .
In contrast to the findings noted above, just half (50%) agreed
strongly (5%) or somewhat (45%) that their facility had increased
its community information activities as a result of these laws.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 72
-------
Under 30% agreed that either media interest or the environmental
activists' interest in their facility had increased since the passage of
these requirements. (See Tables 96, 102 and 103.)
Moreover, these industry representatives see the public as being
basically apathetic in the face of increased community right-to-know
requirements. Eight out often either strongly (33%) or somewhat
(46%) agreed that the public has been generally apathetic about
SARA Title El reports. (See Table 104.) Focus groups and surveys
of the general public on these issues bear out their assessment.27
Industry. There was little difference in reported responses to
SARA Title III by industry. (See Tables 96-104;)
Size. Those companies with more than 200 employees were more
likely to report having increased their communication activities
as a result of SARA Title III, and also to report increased interest
in their facilities on the part of the media and environmental
activists. (See Tables 96, 102 and 103.)
Public Affairs Staff. Those with public affairs staff were more
likely than those without such a staff to say they have increased
their community communications and experienced increased
attention from the media and environmental activists. (See Tables
96, 102 and 103.)
Increases, in Communication Efforts. Those in facilities that have
increased their communication activities were also more likely
than others to report that their facility had increased its community
relations activities and its focus on worker safety and health, and
to have received increased attention from the media and
environmental activists as a direct result of SARA Title III
—but there were no significant differences in the degree to which
27 Santos & McCallum, public survey, 1993; Santos & McCallum, "Kanawha
Valley Health Effects Study," Risk Communication Research Project, Focus; Group
and Key Interviews Evaluation Report, April 1993.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Pafe
-------
they reported having reduced or eliminated toxic substances or
wastes.
Environmental Problems. Finally, those who said their facilities
have experienced high-profile environmental! problems were more
likely to say they have increased community;communications and
have been increasingly subject to attention from media and
environmental activists because of Title IH.i (See Tables 96, 102
and 103.) ;
Costs of Public Communication '
Finally,~all those surveyed were asked to estimate how much of
their facilities'operating budgets were spent o|n public communica-
tions during the past year (Q. VDI; 4). Ninetyi-six percent said they
spent less than 1% of their operating costs on public communications,
including 87% estimating the cost at less thiin 1/2 of one percent.
Only 1% of those surveyed said their facilities spent more than 2%
of operating costs on public communications, |and an additional 2%
estimated the cost at from 1-2%. hi me absence of specific operating
expenses and overall profit information, it is | difficult to assess the
significance of these amounts. i
*'}'•' '• ' •-''"• - ' !i '
•-'•'. ". "".--- ''"'"I
Summary
In sum, the evidence throughout me survey is that recent
environmental legislation has had a great deal of impact on
changes in industry practices, in spite pf the reluctance of
respondents to credit the laws as being effective. Most respondents
seem to believe recent environmental laws have cost them more than
they are worth,^have caused more important environmental priorities
to be ignored, and have not made the public feel any safer.
In spite of me above, most respondents report reductions in their
hazardous wastes and TRI releases over th!e past five years, and
most cite state and federal regulations as just about as important
as employee health and safety as reasons) for those reductions.
.- • ' ' !"'• . . •".!"" ' '
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication I Page 74
-------
Moreover, nearly all acknowledge having changed their behavior
in response to SARA Title III. However, most of those changes
were operational (related to pollution reduction) rather than
public outreach or communications oriented. ;
Though most industry officials surveyed do not tie specific
pollution activities to their community relations' goals, they do
acknowledge the impact of the right-to-know laws on their
pollution activities when asked. This is particularly true of those
in facilities that have actually increased their communication
activities within the past five years. Without information on
actual facility risk reduction measures or other indicators of
environmental benefit, it is difficult to assess whether the changes
reportedly instituted over the past five years are beneficial in
reducing pollution and wastes. In the pretest focus group (prior
to implementation of this survey), industry representatives
suggested mat environmental requirements may act as a good
motivator, but that many requirements do not result in cost-effective
environmental gains. : '
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 75
-------
5. Implications and Recommendations
Ov£r the last five years, the industries represented in this survey
have taken a variety of measures designed to reduce either
hazardous wastes or TRI releases. Those surveyed cited factors
such as employee health as being very important in their pollution
prevention or reduction decisions, more: so than community
perceptions or improving community relations. The survey was
designed to assess the impact mat SAR^k title III and other
environmental laws have had on pollution prevention, risk
reduction and community outreach. Industry representatives
gave repeated evidence that meeting state and environmental
requirements is a major reason for the vyidespread efforts to
reduce wastes and toxic releases — but j they seemed to see
the costs of the legislation as exceeding its environmental benefits.
' /''".' i ', .
Virtually all respondents said their facilities have taken a variety
of measures designed to reduce hazardous! wastes, TRI releases
or both. A significant majority said they have managed to reduce
their absolute volume of hazardous wastes and TRI releases
despite increases in their business volume. |
Moreover, nine out of ten ranked meeting environmental
standards as one of the top factors (either very important or
somewhat important) in their firms' decisions to make reductions
in hazardous wastes generated and in TRI releases — equivalent
to protecting employee health, and more important than
improving community relations. '
'..,"-'•' -' ' '• . .-••]•:.'. :/'
The purpose of this survey is not to measure reductions in
hazardous wastes and TRI releases; EPA has other more precise
means of measuring pollution reduction in [industry. Rather, this
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication ! -Page 76
-------
survey was undertaken to find out why firms engaged in pollution
prevention activities, including a close look at the role of the
availability of information and the effect that recent environmental
laws with community right-to-know provisions have had oh those
actions.
The questionnaire was designed to assess the relative importance
of various factors in industry decisions — both environmental
decisions and communication decisions. Company policies on
pollution reduction are an important factor in determining what
happens at these individual facilities. Most of those responding
— typical of those handling community affairs at industrial
facilities—have primary responsibilities in the area of environmental
safety and health. The survey was in fact targeted to these
individuals.
' i . ,
Most firms are not providing routine information about their
pollution reduction problems or progress without being asked
—but many also said they seldom have inquiries from the general
public about these activities. This finding is consistent with the
findings of the Center for Risk Communication's 1988 and 1992
six-community study of public knowledge and attitudes about
chemical risks. Public awareness, demand for information and
self-rated knowledge about chemical risks have not increased.28
The fact that nearly all facilities claim to have reduced pollution
in some way, and that half have increased their community
relations activities in recent years is a powerful statement about
the impact of SARA Title III. Though most firms see the public
as showing widespread apathy about SARA Title III reports, they
also see public information as an important facet of their jobs,
along with pollution control. Most do not have a public affairs
staff to handle that function for them.
28 Op. Cit., McCallum and Santos, "Public Knowledge and Attitudes of Chemical
Risks in Six Communities," 1993. .'•-..
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 77
-------
SARA Title III has been accompanied by a ^vide variety of waste
and pollution reduction activities virtually; across the board in
the three industries surveyed. Some of the, reductions cited may
be paper or "phantom" reductions, and some may be attributed
to incentives other than the legislation. | Nevertheless, even
industry representatives who are not entirely happy with mis
legislation give it substantial credit for mpving them to action;
and some of the other factors they cite!, such as improving
community relations and improving their own credibility, can
be traced indirectly to the new legislative environment.
Moreover, among nearly half those surveyed, communication
activities have increased as well, in spite jof the fact mat most
facilities have no public affairs or technically trained staff in risk
communication, few have experienced any recent increase in
public inquiries and only one third of tho|se surveyed say they
have a program for providing information tojthe community about
plant operations and environmental issues. This suggests that
the laws are serving as an impetus for coiinmunication to some
extent. ,
This survey findings indicate that indusny sees the public as
largely apathetic about SARA Title III information, and the
findings of the six-community survey of the general public suggest
that they are correct in that assessment. Given the overall lack
of public awareness and general apathy, access to information
as a motivational factor may still be an untapped non-regulatory
incentive. Clearly, the passive access to industry information
alone is not sufficient to engage the public in tapping the
information or environmental management1 potential of Title III.
However, concern over the public reaction to information may
in fact be an important motivator in furthering company emission
reduction and pollution prevention in spite of industry claims that
public opinion is not an important motivating factor. This finding
suggests mat public access to information Idas the potential to be
more of an incentive for pollution reduction than it has been in
the past, as well as a more marketable industry attribute.
Columbia University Center for Risk. Communication ,1 . Page 78
-------
Passive access to information alone, especially information on
chemicals and emissions, may not be meaningful to the public.
The general lack of awareness and knowledge experienced by
the general public since the passage of Title III suggests that
information without some context is not effective, particularly
when dealing with people who often find themselves suffering from
information overload. However, the answer is not necessarily
just more right-to-know. This approach may just add to me
paperwork burdens which industry and government so abhors
without doing much to educate the public. Attention needs to be
focused on the communities' right to understand. This requires
active dissemination of information that speaks to issues relevant
to the target audiences so as to motivate risk reduction or
behavior change.
On the other hand, focus groups and intervention programs within
communities experiencing environmental problems suggest that
people want and need information on what chemicals are being
released, their health effects, and what to do in the event of an
emergency. The public wants information on routine and
catastrophic risk — not just emissions data.29 Risk assessment
and ri<;.i management information, including messages on risk
reduction and pollution prevention, may be the most important
and appropriate information to communicate. Unfortunately,
the results of this survey suggest that in the absence of a crisis
or demand for such information, industry does not routinely
provide this information to their local publics. Likewise, in the
absence of a crisis, most of the public will not attend to information
that is not clearly focused on issues that are priorities in their lives.
29 Op. Cit., Santos and McCallum, Kanawha Valley Study, 1993.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication , Page 79
-------
Recommendations i
1 Active community outreach and communication programs
will be required to obtain the maximum impact of SARA Title
III as aw incentive for pollution prevention and risk reduction
by industry. |
There is little evidence that the community right-to-know laws
have brought about a substantial increase in public awareness
of industry pollution or pollution reduction activities. The
dissemination of information by industry or EPA has been
primarily passive up to now. However, the possibility remains
that a more active program of community information could
raise mat awareness. The public has to be made aware that
community right-to-know information "j exists and why it is
relevant to them, in order to create a demand for it. Access
to information is heeded to increase awareness and knowledge
and to potentially create an environment for behavior change.
This would increase the role of the public as a motivational
factor for pollution reduction and make pollution prevention a
more marketable industryattribute. t
';' ' • ' '
2. Identifying the T.H chemicals or mixtures that pose the
greatest risk among those in the TRI lisit could be an effective
way to reduce the cognitive overload for both industry and
the public, making it more likely thait the public will both
attend to and understand the risks. .
Though EPA efforts to use data generated by the Title III
database look at volumes of releases as well as toxicity
potential, this information is often not communicated to the
public. The apathy and lack of interest on the part of the
public may be in part a response to th|e sheer volume of the
information contained in the TRI repbrts. It is likely that
industry has trouble focusing on priorities for the same
reason. If the riskiest chemicals (defined by dose and
exposure as well as toxicity) could be identified and targeted
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication ! . Page 80
-------
sequentially, not only would the communication task be
simplified immensely (for both the EPA and industry), but
the probability of engaging the public in a meaningful
dialogue about risks could be enhanced as well.
3. Industry should find that it is cost-effective to invest in more
communication planning and communication training for
technical staff who deal with the public. ; ' '
' r - l
The survey results demonstrate that most of those who are
dealing with the public at these industrial facilities are not
trained in communication. While they often rely on their
plant manager or corporate communication staff for public
relations, most facilities also have technical staff who are
called on to explain the facility's production and pollution
reduction activities to the public, These technical staff
members may not be receiving organizational recognition
or support for their communication activities - indeed, most
have not received any formal communication training. It is
likely that these individuals may also be uncomfortable in
the role of communicating wiih the public on potentially
sensitive issues. These conuitions are reflected in their lower
level of public communication activity. Communication
objectives should be made an integral part of technical
employees'job responsibilities and environmental management
activities. They should be provided with the training and support
that would enable them to perform these communication
responsibilities effectively, and then rewarded for their efforts.
The survey results suggest that separating risk communication
from risk or environmental management decisions impedes and
reduces communication efforts.
4. Industry may want to take a more active role 5n outreach to
the community, rather than seeing its communications filtered
through the eyes of community leaders, activists and the
media.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Pa8e 81
-------
Industry views of the public as apatheticimay be discouraging
efforts at communication. However, in the absence of direct
communication froni industry, other sources will fill the void.
Active dissemination of information on! efforts to effectively
reduce community risks may also increase credibility.
Communication planning and an organizational strategic plan
that includes communication as ah objective of the facility's
environmental management plan may| encourage the shift
from crisis or passive communication to more proactive
communication.
5. Both EPA and industry should consider the benefits of public
opinion research in their efforts to increase awareness and
enhance the effectiveness of their communication efforts.
Given the lack of public awareness and active two-way
communication efforts by industry, more information may
be needed to understand the concerns; of target audiences.
Community surveys can provide a tremendous amount of
information about the priorities of a bjoad cross-section of
the community (rather than just those who take the time to
become involved), what concerns resident have about the
environmental impact of industry, and, hov> aware they are
of what industry has done to reduce any adverse environmental
impacts on the community. Both commuinity surveys and focus
groups can be utilized with great effectiveness to help to
formulate and test messages that will liel]i the facility to explain
its activities to the public and to provide the public with
information that addresses their concerns; With this information,
effective communication strategies can be developed. Through
communication planning, a variety of activities may be utilized
to disseminate those messages to the general public, rather than
having them filtered solely through the' media or community
activists who may have their own messages.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication : Page 82
-------
6. EPA should consider providing smaller facilities with
additional support in both their communication efforts and
their pollution prevention activities.
The survey results indicate that smaller facilities are less
active than larger ones in pollution reduction and prevention
as well as in their communication efforts. This suggests that
more effort should be focused on small businesses, both in
providing incentives and in helping them to find the necessary
resources. Few of these facilities have public affairs staffs,
so even if they actively reduce pollution, they may not have
the time or the resources to publicize that information.
Because of their numbers, these smaller facilities serve as
the front-line of industry in communities across the country.
Moreover, because they do not have the resources to
undertake the kinds of safety and pollution prevention
measures taken by larger firms, they may be responsible for
a much larger share of public exposure to pollution than their
volume would suggest. Thus, even if they are not responsible
for the bulk of the total pollution generated by industry, it
may be worthwhile to expend some resources in helping them
develop their resources for both pollution prevention and
public communication.
7. Additional research is needed to focus on:
• What organizational factors, if any, may encourage
or impede pollution prevention or communication;
• How do the pollution prevention and public communication
practices of small firms affect the level of exposure of the
public to toxic substances from those firms;
• How does public access to information compare to
traditional compliance and enforcement as an incentive to
pollution reduction and prevention;
• What are the roles that a public affairs staff and a
technical staff play in communications about risk or pollution
reduction activities;
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 83
-------
• Amiore complete investigation is needed into.the relationship
between business activity and pollution prevention; facilities
whose business has declined are not as likely to pursue
prevention actively as those whose business has increased;
• What effect do visual cues have as an indicator of community
interest and communication activities;
• What is the relationship between increasing public anxiety
about the environment in general, and the lack of awareness
and interest in specific community risk information;
• What kinds of messages and information would engage
the public's attention, and through what media; in
particular, whether developing messages on pollution
prevention efforts decreases perceptions of risk; and
• What is the relative effectiveness of traditional compliance
and enforcement provisions compared with public access
to information as incentives for pollution reduction and
prevention; also, what is the relative effectiveness of
requiring active communication land notification and
specifying communication channel^ (as required in the
California Air Toxics Hot Spots"Bill; AB2588) rather than
relying on passive availability of information as in SARA
Title III. !
' - . • *
In sum, it is apparent from these survey findings (from both the
industry and public opinion surveys), that while environmental
regulations, including SARA Title III, have brought about
widespread efforts at pollution reduction! there are questions
about both the significance of those reductions in terms of risk
reduction or pollution prevention, and the degree to which public
information serves as an incentive. If EPA wants to use public
information as an incentive for pollution Deduction, active and
effective communication — communication that takes into
consideration accurate information about what a broad cross-section
of the public wants and needs to knov/ - will be required
both from the EPA and from industry. To date, the potential for
information to act as a motivation for encouraging pollution
prevention and risk reduction remains relatively untapped.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 84
-------
Appendix A: Bibliography
Chess, Caron, Alex Saville, Michael Tamuz and Michael R. Greenberg.
"The Organizational Links between Risk Communication and
Risk Management: The.Case of Sybron Chemicals Inc." Risk
Analysis, Vol. XII, No; 3, 1992, pp. 431-438.
Chess, Caron, Michael Tamuz and Michael R. Greenberg.
"Organizational Learning about Environmental Risk
Communication: The Case of Rohm and Haas' Bristol Plant,"
in press, Journal of Social and Natural Resources.
"Current Developments," Environment Reporter, Vol. 24, No, 37,
January 14, 1994, p. 1619. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
National Affairs* Inc., 1994.
Dillman, D.A. Mail and Telephone Surveys — The Total Design
Method. New York: Wiley, 1978.
McCallum, David B., Susan L. Santos and Sharon Hammond,
"Kanawha Valley Health Effects Project: Results of a Telephone
Survey," in preparation, April 1994.
McCallum, David B. and Susan L. Santos. "Public Knowledge and
Attitudes of Chemical Risks in Six Communities: A Report of
a Follow-up Survey," Discussion Draft. Columbia University
Center for Risk Communication, September 1993. ,
Roper Organization. Public Attitudes and Individual Behavior. July
199Q.
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication Page 85
-------
Santos, Susan L. Focus groups with UNOCAL Corporation. September
1993.
Santos, Susan L. and David B. McCallum. Six
Langley Research Center, June 1993.
focus groups. NASA
Santos, Susan L. and David B. McCallum. '
Effects Study." Risk Communication
Group and Key Interviews Project,
Kanawha Valley Health
Research Project, Focus
April 1993.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Reducing Hazardous Waste in Wisconsin,
I (PUBL-MB-003 (91), January 1991);
(91), March 1991); Report ID (PUBL-MB-
Report IV (PUBL-MB-006 (92), August 1992
007 (92), August 1992).
Bureau of Research,
Madison, Wisconsin, Report
II (PUBL-MB-004
(92), August 1992);
; Report V (PUBL-MB-
Report
(05
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 86
-------
-------
Appendix B; Tables
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 87
-------
-------
Table 1: . ; ' .
GENERATING MORE OR LESS WASTES IN 1991 THAN 5 YEARS AGO
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same .
Down
HOMES/BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. /PROS.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased .
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
More/Less Hazardous Wastes
More
16%
10%
20%
13%
18%
15%
13%
22% .
9% •
9%
15%
16%
12%
21%
15%.
15%
17%
16%
5%
15%
16%
14%
17%
Same
20%
21%
16%
31%
23%
19% !
13% . 1
19%
23% '
16%
19% i
20%
22% I
15%
23%
17%
20%
20% , .,
16%
17%
20%
17%
21%
Less
64%
69%
65%
56%
, 59%
66%
75%
59%
68%
75%
66%
65%
66%
64%
62%
68%
63%
64%
79%
68%
64%
69%
62%
Sec.I. Q.#l: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 2:
GENERATING MORE OR LESS WASTES PER UNIT
IN 1991 THAN 5 YEARS AGO
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES/BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Hazardous Wastes Per Unit
More
4%
2%
5%
5%
6%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Ml%
4%
5%
• •• 5%
2%
4%
4%
2%
4%
11%
5%
4%
t \
2%
6%
Same
21%
20%
23%
18%
26%
23%
11%
18%
21%
26%
19%
23%
21%
20%
22%
, 20%
20%
23%
5%
10%
24%
17%
24%
Less
75%
78%
72%
77%
68%
74%'
86%
80%
77%
63%
78%
72%
74%
78%
74%
76%
78%
73%
84%
85%
72%
81%
70%
Sec.I, Q.#2: A.Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on .all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 3:
MORE OR LESS TRI RELEASES IN 1991 THAN 5 YEARS AGO
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within y500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased.
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
More/Less TRI Release's
More
15%
17%
18%
3%
15%
14%
v 14%
23%
6%
5%
18%
9%
14%
14%
14%
14%
10%
16%
11%
17%
.14%
16%
13%
Same
27%
21%
26%
36%
30%
31%
17%
30%
20%
27%
25% !
32%
, 28%
26%
27%
27%
27% ,
29%
11%
19%
29%
27%
27% ,
Less
59%
62%
56%
62%
55%
55%
69%
47%
74%
67%
58%
60% ,
58%
60%
59%
59%
63%
54%
79%
64%
56%
57%
60%
Sec.I, Q.#3: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title ill
A survey of facility environmental and publjic affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed (respondents.
-------
Table 4:
MORE,OR LESS TRI RELEASES PER UNIT IN 1991 THAN BEFORE
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
PP
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
TRI Releases Per Unit
More
1%
0%
2%
0%
1%
0%
3%
2%
2%
0%
2%
0%
1%
0%
2%
1%
0%
2%
0%
5%
1% "
2%
1%
Same
32%
28%
32%
36%
31%
43%
19%
33%
20%
38%
30Tfc
35%
31%
33%
32%
31%
25%
; 35%
26%
19%
36%
26%
36%
Less
67%
72%
66%
64%
68%
57%
78%
65%
78%
62%
68%
65%
68%
67%
66%
68%
75%
63%
74%
76%
64%
72%
63%
Sec.I, Q.#4: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
. Percentages based on all surveyed respondents:
-------
Table 5:
REDUCTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TRI RELEASES
•
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB . AFF . STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Methoc
Changed
Products
25%
. 12%
30%
27%
30%
20%
21%
!•
28%
23%
17%
30%
14%
21%
29%
20%
27%
i
22%
25%
26%
,19%
25%
23%
25%
Is Used to
Changed
Processes-
58%
56%
63%
46%
49%
57%
74%
61%
58%
54%
58%
60%
61%
54%
65%
54%
72%
56%
37%
69%
55%
66%
51%
Reduce Was
Changed
Materials
65%
85%
55%
, 70%
50%-
67%
84%
64%
74%
62%
70%
58%
67%
• 62%
67%
63%
72%
61%
74% ,
81%
62%
67%
63%
;tes & Relc
| House-'
| keeping
77%
1 65%
' 80%
86%
! 78%,
':' 80%
! 74%
79%
•'-.' 81%
\ 71%
78%i
76%
' 77%
79%
82%
75%
88%
74%
74%
74%
78%
82%
75%
jases
Have Not
Reduced
4%
6%
.3%
5%
8%
1%
3%
3%
4%
8%
3%
6%
5%
2%
6%
3%
2%
4%
.11%
2%
5%
2%
6% ,
Rows sum to more than 100% due to multipl
Sec.I, Q.#5: A Study of Industry Response
A survey of facility environmental and public
Percentages based on all surveyed
e responses.
to SARA Title III
affairs officers.
respondents.,
-------
Table 6 : ' • ',
EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND REDUCTION OF WASTES AND RELEASES
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Employee Health as a Reason
Very
Important
68%
67%
69%
68%
69%
68%
65%
67%
67%
69%
71%
61%
64%
72%
63%
70%
59%
72%
61%
65%
68%
65%
69%
Somewhat
Important
24%
27%
23%
24%
23%
26%
27%
25%
23%
25%
23%
28%
27%
20%
29%
22% • •
31%
22%
-22%
26%
.. 24%
25%
25%
Hot Very
Important
6%
6%
6%
5%
6%
5%
6%
7%
8%
2%
5%
8%
7%
5%
• -
7%
. 6%
10%
4%
11% ,
7%
6%
8%
4%
Not at
all
Important
2%
0%
2%.
3% ~
3%
1%
2%
1%
2%
4%
1%
4%
1%
•. . 2%
2%
2%
; 0%
2%
6%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Sec.I, Q.#6: A'Study of Industry Response to SARA Title ill
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 7 : •;
REGULATIONS AND REDUCTION OF WASTES AND RELEASES
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro ;
# OF. EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up J
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No .
PUB . ENV . "?ROB .
Yes
No .;•••
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB . AFF . STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Government Regulations ;as a Reason
Very
Important
62%
62%
60%
70%
59%
66%
62%
61%
58% .
70%
64%
61%
60%
66%
. 59%
65%
48%
68%
72%
67%
62%
57%
68%
Somewhat
Important
26%
31%
27%
16%
31%
20%
27%
27%
30%
21%
26%
25%
26%
26%
27%
25%
38%
22%
17%
21%
27%
30%
23% ,
Not Very
Important
i
7% ' .
1
4% ' '
7%
11% '
, 1
5%
' 11%
5%
«' %
6%
; «f%
• .. 7%
«;%
. . S!V <
• 4%- . -
-------
Table 8:
REDUCING LIABILITY AND REDUCTION OF WASTES AND RELEASES
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OP EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Reduce Liability as a Reason
Very
Important
54%
55%
52%
59%
54%
51%
56%
52%
54%
58%
56%
49%
55%
52%
46%
59%
52%
54%
61%
49%
54%
• 47%
59%
Somewhat
Important
33%
32%
35%
30%
33%
41%
25%
35%
31%
32%
32%
36%
33%
35%
35%
33%
40%
32%
22%
23%
37%
37%
31%
Not Very
Important
11%
11% '
12%
8%
12%
5%
16%
13%
12%
6%
11%
11%
10%
12%
16%
7%
7%
14%
6%
23%
8%
13%
9%
Not at
all
Important
2%
2%
2%
3%"
0%
3%
3%
0%
4%
4%
1%
4%
2% "
1%
2%
2%
2%
1% .
11%
5%
.1% •
3%
1%
Sec.I, Q.#6: A-Study of Industry Response'to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 9': ;
REDUCING COMMUNITY RISK AND REDUCTION OF WASTES AND RELEASES
Total Sample _
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less' than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES/BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Reducing Community Risk as a Reason
Very
Important
54% '
57%
56%
46%
56%
52%
56%
59%
44%
55%
59%
48%
56%
54%
55%
54%
52%
57%
44%
60%
53%
58%
52%
Somewhat
Important
33%
34%
30%
41%
3.0%
38%
32%
30%
40%
32%
31% '
35%
33%
33%
34%
33%
41%
29%
39%
26%
35%
33%
33%
Not Very
Important
10%
!?% '.
ii%
' • |S% - •
11%
8%
10%
10%
lj)%
9%
9%
10%
1
1 V
'9%
11%
|9%
110%
i ' ' .
..-. 3%
12%
11%
9%
10%
i
6%
33%
Not at
all
Important
3%
0%
3%
5%
4%
,1% .
3%
1%
6%
4%
1%
6%
3%
2%
2%
3%
3%
2%
6% ;
5%
2%
4% ,
2%
Sec.I, Q.#6: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed [respondents.
-------
Table 10:
COMPANY POLICY AND REDUCTION OF WASTES AND RELEASES
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp £ Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Company Policy as a Reason
Very
Important
48%
45%
48%
54%
47%
48%
51%
54%
38%
49%
49%
49%
48%
49%
' 47%
50%
53%
48%
44%
56%
'46%
53%
45%
Somewhat
Important
39%
47%
37%
.35%
37%
44%
37%
33%
51%,
40%
40%
38%
42%
34%
37.%
39%
34%
40%
44%
30%
42%
37%
41%
Not Very
Important
10%
8%
12%
5%
11%
7%
11%
11%
8%
8%
9%
10%
8%
12%
11%
9%
10%
10%
0%
12%
9%
9%
10%
Nat at
al-1
Important
3%
0%
3%
5%
5%
1%
2%
2%
4%
4%
2%
4%
1%
5%
4%
2%
2%
2%
11%
2%
3%
2%
3%
Sec.I, Q.#6: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 11: :
PROFITABILITY AND REDUCTION OF WASTES AND RELEASES
"
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes ;
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Profitability as a Reason
Very'
Important
42%
32%
47%
39%
50%
39%
35%
41%
41%
45%
40%
45%
41%
43%
39%
43%
34%
45%
39%
40%
42%
36%
48%
Somewhat
Important
40%
38%
40%
44%
, 35%
46%
41%
44%
33%
40%
41%
39%
40%
41%
42%
40%
53%
36%
33%
35%
42%
44%
37%
Not Very
Important
12%
1!5%
11%
11%
13%
!?%
13%
10%
113%
9% .• '
C . '
.' 13%
liD%
1
i • t
13%
10%
•i
•I =
15%
ib%
i
10%
12%
17%
14%
12%
14%
£%
Not at
all
Important
6%
15%
2%
6%
3%
5%
11%
5%
. 8%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
4%
6%
2%
7% ,
11%
12%
5%
6% .
6%
Sec.I, Q.#6: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 12:
COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND REDUCTION OF WASTES AND RELEASES
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Improving Community Relations as a
! Reason
Very
Important
36%
34%
35%
41%
33%
41%
35%
38%
31%
38%
37%
34%
39%
31%
38%
34%
41%
32%,
53%
44%
33%
44%
29%
Somewhat
Important
38%
40%
39%
32%
37%
38%
38%
40%
37%' '
35%
•38%
39%
36%
41%
38%
- 38%
36%
40%
29%
28%
41%
38%
39%
Not Very
Important
20%
23%
20%
19%
21%
16%
22%
17%
27%
19%
19%
20%
22%
16%,
15%
23%
21%
20%
12%
23%
19%
15%
24%
Not at
all
Important
6%
'4% •
7%
8%
9% .
4%
.5%
5%
6%
; 8%
6% . '""•
6%
2%
12% : .
, 8%
5%
2%
8%
6%
5%
'6%
4% "
8%
Sec.I, Q.#6: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 13: i .
PAPERWORK REDUCTION'AND REDUCTION OF WASTES'AND RELEASES
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF 'EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No ,
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes ' . •
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Paperwork Reduction sis a Reason
Very
Important
1,6%
21%
12%
25%
21%
12%
13%
16%
15%
17%
17%
14%
15%
18%
13%
18%
5%
22%
11%
17%
14%
12%
20%
Somewhat
Important
29%
30%
30%
22%
• 32%
23%
31%
30%
27%
27%
. 31%
24%
25%
33%
26%
29%
33%
25%
22%
19%
31%
26%
30%
'f , „
Not Very'
Important
42%
34%
44%
44%
Is
40%
51%
35%
t. . '
4dl%
48%
3fl%
3SI%
48%
44%
, 3£l%
. |
46%
4CI%
\.
46%
42%
3SJ%
1
,1
40%
43%
,1
4Ei%
40%
Not at
all
Important
13%
15%
14%
8%
7%
14%
"21%
13%
10%
17%
13%
15%
16%
ii%
16%
12%
16%
11%
28%
24%
,12%
17%
10%
Sec.I, Q.#6: A 'Study of Industry Response | to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 14:
ELIMINATED ANY HAZARDOUS WASTES COMPLETELY
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Eliminated Any
Wastes?
Yes
53%
51%
54%
51%
49%
50%
60%
53%
45%
58%
49%
59%
50%
56%
48%
56%
60%
48% ,
56%
55%
52%
55%
50%
No
47%
49%
46% ,
49%
. 51%
50%
40%
47%
55%
42%
51%
41%
50%
44%
52%
44%
40%
52%
44%
45%
48%
45%
50%
Sec.II, Q.#l: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of 'facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 15:
ELIMINATED ANY TRI SUBSTANCES COMPLETELY
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200 ,
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down ' ' "-
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATI ONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Eliminated Any TRIs
Yes
40%
41%
37%
46%
35%
36%
49%
40%
37%
40%
35%
47%
39%
40%
36%
43%
48%
35%
44%
48%
37%
40%
39%
No1
f
60%
59%
63%
54%
65%
64%
'51ft
• r. . .
60%
63%
eo;%
65%
53l%
I
6li%
60%
1
64:%
57%
i.
' 52j% .
- 65'%
56%"
52!%
63%
i
60%
63|%
Sec.II, Q.#2: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table .16:
REASONS FOR ELIMINATING HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TRI RELEASES:
TO REDUCE EMPLOYEE HEALTH RISKS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
To Reduce Health Risks
Very
Important
35%
39%
37%
23%
28%
38%
40%
36%
31%
34%
35%
35%
35%
35%
32%
37%
42%
32%
37%
40%
34%
35%
35%
Somewhat
Important
18% .
20%
15%
23%
16%
11%
26%
11%
20%
27%
16%
19%
18%
15%
25%
12%
27%
13%
16%
23%
15%
17%
17%
Not Very
Important
5%
7%
2%
10%
0%
7%
9%
4%
7%
4% . ..
5%
5%
6%
2%
6%
4%
3%
6%
5%
9%
4%
6%
4%
Not at
all
Important
6%
2%
8%
5%
5%
8%
6% '
6%
2%
11%
6%
7%
6%
7%
8%
5%
5%
6%
5%
5%
6%
8%
5%
None
Elim./
No Answer
..37%
31%
38%
40%
51% .:
37%
18% ; *
42%
39%
25%
39%
34%
; 35%'
. 42%
29%
43%
23%
43%
37%.
23%
41%
35%
39%
Sec.II. Q.#3: A. Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
. Table 17:
REASONS FOR ELIMINATING HAZARDOUS WASTES. XJHD TRI RELEASES:
TO MEET GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS
Total , Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES/BUS . /REG
Within 50 0\ feet
Not Near ,
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No ,
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB . AFF . STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
To Meet Government Regulations
Very
Important
29%
30%
30%
28%
29%
26%
•34%
28%
28%
34%.
29%
31%
30%
29%
25%
32%
28%
29%
37%
33%
28%
28%
31%
Somewhat
Important
17%'
22%
, 15%
15%
13%
17%'
20%
14%
19%
20%
15%
18% .
17%
16%\
23%
12%
23%
. 14%
11%
16%
17%
17%
16%
Not Very
Important
10%
9%
9%
10%
6%
8%
15%
10%
7%
9%
8%
12*
10%
8%
10%
9%
10%
10%
. 0%
14%
8%
9%
9%
Not at
all
important
8%
f. -
1 7%
9%
8%
i 2%
12%'
I 12%
7%
7%
13%
10%
6%
1 9% , .
- 7%
14%
5%
I ' 15%
5%
16%
14%
7%
10%
7%
None
Elim./
Mo Answer
36%
31%
37%
40%
, v 50%
37%
... 18%
42%
39%
25%
38%
34%
35%
40%
29%
42% ...
23%
43%
. 37%
23%
41%
35%
38%
Sec II Q.#3: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents,.
-------
, Table 18:
REASONS FOR ELIMINATING HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TRI RELEASES;
TO REDUCE LIABILITY
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
To Reduce Liability
Very
Important
27%
26%
28%
25%
21%
26%
35%
31%
22%
23%
29%
22%
29%
24%
23%
29%
33%
23%
32%
33%
25%
26%
26%
Somewhat
Important
23%
31%
18%
28%
22%
16%
31%
13%
28%
38%
22%
25%
22%
24%
29%
19%
28% _-
21%
21%
28%
21%
25%
21%
Not Very
Important
8%
6%
11%
3%
5% ,
11%
9%
10%
7%
4%
7%
9%
9%
7%
12%
5%
8% '
.8%
0%
12%
7%
8%
8%
Not at
all
Important
6%
6%
6%
5%
2%
11%
6%
5%
4%
11%
4%
9%
6%
6%
8%
5%
7%
5%
11%
,5%
6%
7%
6%
None ;
Elim./
No Answer
36%
31%
37%
40%
50%
37%
18%
42%
39%
25%
38%
, 34%
35%
40%
29%
42%
23%
43%
' 37%
23%
41%
'. 35%
38%
Sec.II, Q.#3: A' Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
• Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 19:
REASONS FOR ELIMINATING HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TRI RELEASES:
COMPANY POLICY
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES/BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Company Polic^ , .
Very
Important
28%
28%
31%
18%
21%
29%
37%
31%
28%
21%
26%
32%
. . 27%
28%
27%
28%
33%
24%
37%
42%
24%
33%
23%
Somewhat
Important
22%
33%
16%
28%
19%
20%
28%
14%
26%
32%
21%
24%
24%
19%
23%
21%
30%
20%
11%
, 19%
22%
23%
21%
Not Very
Important
9%
7%
9%
10%
6%
7%
14%
8%
6%
11%
10%
6%
9%
7%
13%
5%
10%
8%
5%
12%
7%
6%
11%
Not at
all
Important
5%
0% ,
8%
5%
6%
8%
. 3%
4%
4%
11%
; 6%
6%
6%
/ 6% .
' 9%
I 4%
5%
6%
11%
5%
6%
5%
7%
None
Elim./
No .Answer
36%
31%
36%
. 40%
49%
37%
18%
42%
37%
25%
38%
33%
34%
40%
29%
41%
22%
43%
37%
23%
40%
34%
38%
Sec.II, Q.#3: A Study of Industry Response
A survey of facility environmental and publ:
Percentages based on all surveyed res
e to SARA Title III
:LC affairs officers,
ipondents.
-------
Table 20: ,
REASONS FOR ELIMINATING HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TRI RELEASES:
TO REDUCE .TREATMENT COSTS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down ,
HOMES /BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No,
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
To Reduce Treatment Costs
Very
Important
13%
13%
13% ,
13%
15%
11%
12%
.11%
15%
14%
13%
13%
12%
15%
16%
11%
18%
9%
26%
12%
13%
11%
14%
Somewhat
Important
20%
20%
21%
15%
9%
24%
29%
18%
22%
21%
20%
20%
22%
18%
23%
18%
30%
17%
5%
23%
19%
24%
17%
Not Very
Important
13%
19%
9%
15%
12%
9%
17%
13%
11%
13%
12%
13%
14%
9%
13%
12%
12%
13%
11%
16%
11%
13%
11%
Not at
all
Important
18%
17%
18%
18%
14%
18%
23%
16%
13%
27%
17%
20%
17%
18%
18%
17%
17% .
17%
21%
26%
16%
17%
19%
None
;Elim./
No Answer
37%
31%
38%
40%
50%
38%
18%
42% ,
39%
25%
; 39%
; 34%
35% ,
40%
30% ,
42%
23%
43%
37%
23%
: 41%
35%
39%
Sec.II, Q.#3: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table.21:
REASONS FOR ELIMINATING HAZARDOUS WASTES
TO IMPROVE COMMUNITY
RELATIONS
AND TRI RELEASES;
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No,
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
1 . - ' T
Very
Important
16% '
6%
19%
20%
14%
16%
20%
18%
19%
11%
17%
15% ;
. i7%
16%
17 %
16%
25%
12%
26% '
21%
15%
19%
14%
o Improve
Somewhat
Important
26%
35%
23%
25%
20%
'" 25%
34%
24%
24% ,
30%
25%
26%
26% .
25%
31%
21%
35%
22%
21%
30%
24%
28%
23%
Community
Not Very
Important
12%
20%
9%
;8%
7%
11%
'- 18% •
9%
15%
13%
11%
12%
14%
6%
13%
11%
12%'
13%
. 0%
19%
9%
9%
13%
Relations
Not at
all
Important
10%
7%
11%
8%
9%
11%
9%
7%
4%
21%
,-• 8%
.13%
7%
13%
9%
10%
5%
10%
16%
7%
11%
8%
11%
None
Elim./
No Answer
37%
31%
38%
40%
50%
38%
. 18%
42%
39% ,
25%
39%
34% ,
35%
40%
30%
42%
23%
. 43%
37%
• 23%
41%
.. 35%
39% .
Sec.II, Q.#3: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 22:
REASONS FOR ELIMINATING HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TRI RELEASES:
TO REDUCE PAPER WORK
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES/BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. 'PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
To Reduce Paper Work
Very
Important
7%
6%
8%
8% '
12%
4%
5%
6%
9%
7%
8%
5%
4%
11%
6%
8%
2%
8%
16%
5%
7%
6%
7%
Somewhat
Important
19%
20%
18%
18%
16%
/ 16%
23% •
19%
9%
25%
17%
20%
17%
20%
18%
18%
27%
13%
26%
16%
18%
17%
19%
Not Very
Important
22%
28%
21%
15%
14%
25%
29%
18%
33%
20%
21%
25%
26%
17%
25%
21%
28%
22%
5%
23%
22%
24%
21%
Not at
all
Important
15%
13%
15%
18%
8%
17%
22%
15%
9%
20%
15%
15%
- 17%
11%
19%
, 11%
18%
13%
16%
28%
12%
17%
13%
None
Elim./
No Answer
38%
33%
38%
43%
50%
; 38%
.22%
42%
39%
29%
40%
35%
37%
40%
31%
, 43%
25%
44%
37%
28%
41%
37%
39%
Sec.II, Q.#3: A Study of .Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 23: :
REASONS FOR ELIMINATING HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TRI RELEASES
, USING DIFFERENT FORMULA :
Total Sample
*
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC 'INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes ,
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Using a Different Formula -
Very
Important
21%
22%
,24%
10%
22%
' 21%
17%
21%
22%
16%
18%
24%
20%
20%
18%
22%
18%
22%
11%
12%
22%
16%
23%
Somewhat
Important
10%
13%
9%
8%
5% .
13%
- 11%
8%
11%
9%
11%
6%
' 7%
12%
8%
11%
12%
9%
5%
5%
10%
7%
12%
Not Very
Important
5%
7%
5%
5%
2%
7%
9%
6%
6%
5%
"6%
7%
9%
2%
9% ,
4%
10%
5%
0%
7%
6%
8%
4%
Not at
all
Important
26%
26%
24%
35%
17%
22%
'43%
21%
20%
43%
26%
27%
29%
21%
34%
20%
35%
19%
47%
51%
21%
33%
21%
None
Elim./
No Answer
38%
31%
39%
43%
53%
37%
20%
43%
41%
27%
40%
36%
35%
44%
31%
44%
25%
45%
37%
26%
42%
36%
40%
Sec.II, Q.#3: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 24:
REASONS FOR ELIMINATING HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TRI RELEASES
DROPPED PRODUCTS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
jess than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Dropped Product
Very
mportant
17%
4% '
24%
13%
21%
17%
11%
14%
9%
30%
19%
13%
13%
21%
19%
15%
18%
14%
32%
12%
17%
13%
20%
omewhat
mportant
7%
2%
8%
13%
8%
9%
3%
7%
9%
5%
10%
2%
7%
7%
6%
8%
12%
6%
5%
5%
8% .
6%
8%
Not Very
mportant
7%
4%
8%
8%
7%
7%
6%
6%
7%
7%
6%
8%
8%
6%
9%
6%
8%
8%
.0%
5%
7%
8%
5%
Not at
all
mportant
32%
56%
24%
28%
15%
26%
62%
30%
'33%
36%
25%
44%
35%
27%
35%
28%
40%
27%
37%
56%
26%
37%
28%
None
Elim./
No Answer
37%
35%
37%
40%
49%
, 41%
18%
44%
' 41%
21%
40%
33%
37%
39%
30%
43%
22%
45%
26%
23%
42%
36%
39%
Sec.II. Q.#3: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental-and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
table 25: |
REASONS FOR NOT ELIMINATING HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TRI RELEASES:
NO SUBSTITUTES AVAILABLE! -
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Pet ro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less' than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL:
Yes
No . • '
PUB . ENV . PROB ,
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
No Substitutes Available
Very
Important
70%
77%
69%
58%
72%
77%
60%
69%
61%
81%
69%
.71%
69%
70%
70%
69%
61%
73%
75%
62%
72%
62%
76%
Somewhat
Important
23%
15% ;
26%
28%
21%
18%
32%
23%
31%
15%
24%
21% v
24%
22%
24%
23%
29%.
21%
19%
29%
\,21%
32%
15%
Not Very
Important
5%
4%,
4%
'.8J%.''
5,% , '
4 %
5%
4l%
81% '
4%
5%
5%
5%
6%
4%
(>%
8%
4%
0%
!>%
!5%
4%
15%
Not at
all
Important
2%
4%
1%
6%
3%
1%
3%
4%
0%
0%
2%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
6%
5%
2%
2%
3%
Sec.II, Q.,#4: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title -III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 26: .
REASONS FOR NOT ELIMINATING HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TRI RELEASES:
SUBSTITUTES TOO COSTLY
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Substitutes too Costly
Very
Important
24%
17%
26%
29%
29%
20%
22%
23%
26%
24%
27%
19%
26%
21%
26%
22%
28%
22%
25%
29%
23%
23%
25%
Somewhat
Important
40%
42%
42%
31% .
35% ,
43%
44%
33%
44%
51%
38%
44%
41%
39%
39%
40%
36%
42%
31%
39%
40%
42%
38% .
Not Very
Important
24%
29%
23%
23%
21%
29%
25%
28%
26%
16%
27%
22%
23%
26%
27%
24%
28%
24%
31%
22%
26%
29%
21%
Not at
;. all
Important
12%
.12%
10%
: 17%
15%
9%
9%
15%
4%
10%
9%
15%
10%
' 14% , \
8%
13%
9%
12%
13%
10%
11%
r
6%
16%
Sec.II, Q.#4: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 27: !
REASONS FOR NOT ELIMINATING HAZARDOUS WASTES; AND TRI RELEASES:
PRODUCT QUALITY MAY SUFFER
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
jess than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAF*
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Product Quality may |Suff er
Very
Important
50%
53%
52%
39%
53%
53%
43%
53%
36%
57%
53%
. 45%
52%
47%
51%
50%
47%
52%
41%
45%
52%
50%
51%
Somewhat
Important
29%
26%
31% '
22%
33%
28%
25%
24%
38%
31% ,
26%
34%
27%
31%
29%
28%
29%
28%
29%
24%
29%
27%
29%
Not Vesry "
Important
r '
10*s
8%
9%
19%
10%
8%
14%
12%
14%
4%
i
lOJk
11%
..';<
10^
, 11%
, 1
12%
10%
• 15|%
7i%
24!%
• 14'%' •'
,10i%
'[
15%
,. ,7%
Not at
all
Important
11%
13%
7%
19%
4%
11%
18%
11%
12% '
8%
11%
10%
10%
11%
8%
12%
8%
12%
6%
17%
9%
9%
13%
Sec.II, Q.#4: A Study of industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of vfacility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed arespondents.
-------
Table 28
REASONS FOR NOT ELIMINATING HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TRI RELEASES:
FEAR OTHERS' METHODS WON'T WORK HERE
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF -EMPLOYEES
jess than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Fear Others' Methods Won't Work Here
Very
Important
15%
15% ,
15%
11%
13%
17%
14%
14%
10%
22%
17%
13%
17%
135
14%
16%
12%
17%
13%
21%
14%
16%
15%
Somewhat
Important
33%
35%
28%
46%
35%
- 31%
32%
33%
34%
32%
39%
22%
37%
27%
34%
33%
40%
30%
38%
26%
33%
32%
34%
Not Very
mportant
34%
27%
39%
26%
37%
34%
28%
37%
34%
24%
32%
35%
27%
42%
38%
30%
32%
33%
38%
24%
.36%
37%
, 29%
Not at
all
Important
19% _
23%
'18% i
17% '
15%
17%
26%
16%
22%
22% \ •
12%
31%
19%
19%
;
14%
22%
16%
20%
13%
29%
17%
16%
22%
Sec.II, Q.#4: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 29: i
REASONS FOR NOT ELIMINATING HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TRI RELEASES:
SAVINGS ,TOO SMALL ;
-
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF 'EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV, PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF: STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Savings too Small
Very
Important
12%
15% ,
8%
19%
8%
10%
18%
9%
14%
16%
12%
10%
16%
5%
18%
7%
12%
10%
19%
14%
11%
12% „
12%
Somewhat
Important
39%
31%
43%
39%
38%
41%
37%
39%
43%
33%
39%
38%
40%
37%
39%
39%
51%
35%
31%
50%
36%
41%
37%
Not Very
Important
I
. 31% " ,
i
37%
30% ,
25,%
t
29%
37%
26%
i
35;%
; 3'!%' ' •
32% •
29i%
r
31%
i
33i%
3CI%
22!%
34%
44%
32% v
30%
32%
"
Not at
all
Important
18%
17%
19% '
17%
24%
13%
18%
17%
22%
' 20%
17%
22%
14%
27%
10%
24%
15%
21%
6%
10%
21%
17%
20%
-
• . . , - i , _
Sec.ll, Q.#4: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 30:
REASONS FOR NOT ELIMINATING HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TRI RELEASES:
WAITING TO RETIRE EXISTING EQUIPMENT
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less' than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB . AFF . STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Waiting to Retire Existing Equipment
Very
mportant
3%
6%
3%
0%
3%
1%
6%
2%
6%
4%
3%
4%
4%
3%
1%
5%
3%
4%
0%
2%
4%
4%
3%
Somewhat
Important
19%
22%
16%
28%
13%
17%
30%
12%
,27%
28%
20%
19%
23%
14%
25%
16%
29%
17%
6%
32%
16%
27%
12%
Not Very ,
Important
36%
29%
40%
31%
35%
44%
27%
44% ' ,
27%
24%
36%
34%
37%
32%
. 38%
34%
36%
'33%
56%
29%
38%
'38%
33%
Not at
all
Important
42%
43%
41% :
42%
50%
38%
38% .
43%
39%
44%
41%
44%
37% -..
52%
36%
46%
32%
46%
38%
37%
43%
31%
52%
Sec.II, Q.#4: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 31: '
REDUCE CHANCE OF SPILLS BY ADDING CONTAINMENT MEASURES
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to, 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased •
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
New Containment Measures
Yes
78%
78%
81%
71%
77%
77%
83%
75% ,
83%
.83%
82%
75%
82%
74%
82%
76%
82%
79%
74%
88%
76%
81%
77%
No-Don 't :
Need Any
5%
i
4%
6% :
3%
-
7% ;
4% . |
2%
1
j
6%
0% |V
6% |
5% -
4% :
1% . :
9% :
2% ;
6% !
I
'• 3%'- -']
3% !
16% ;
0% >
6% _ 1
2% ;
7%
' • 1
No- Already
Adequate'
,17%
19%
13% -
26%
16%
19%
15%
19%
17%
11%
13%.
21%
16%
17%
-15%
18%
,- 15%
19%
11% -
12%
18%
17%
16%
- • • •
Sec.IV, Q.#l: A Study of Industry Responsfe to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 32:
REDUCE CHANCE OF SPILLS BY ADDING MONITORING DEVICES
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200 •
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
New Monitoring Devices
Yes
29%
26%
27%
39%
23%,
19%
45%
i
27%
25%
33%
30%
24%
34%
19%
33%
25%
41%
22%
37%
5.5%
22%
38%
20%
No -
No Need
63%
67%
65%
47%
72%
72%
43%
65%
67%
57%
62%
65%
57%
74%
56%
69%
52%
68%
63%
33%
70%
53%
72%
No -
Adequate
9%
7%
8%
13%
5%
9%
12%
9%
8%
9%
7%
11%
10%
7%
11%
6%
7%
10%
0%
12%
8%
10%
8%
Sec.IV, Q.#2: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
N Table 33:
REDUCE CHANCE OF SPILLS BY ADDING PROCESS CONTROLS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY ..
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF, EMPLOYEES
Less than' 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES/BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same /Dec r ea s ed
New Pi
Conti
Yes
70%
70%
72%
63%
63%
70%
78%
71%
67%
69%
71%
67%
75%
61%
76%
65%
73%
68%
68% .
81%
67%
79%
62%
•ocess
•ols
No
30%
3&%
28%
37%
37i%
30'%
22%
' 1 ,
29'%
3i%
31%
2SJ% '-
' 33,% , , -
'1
25%
39%
.1 ...
i '
24!%
- 35%
27%
,32!%
32%
• 1
l£l%
33%
i -
- 21-%'
3£t%
Sec. IV, Q.#3: A Study of Industry Responses to SARA Title III
A" survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed irespondents.
-------
Table 34:
REDUCE CHANCE OF SPILLS BY REDUCING AMOUNT OF CHEMICALS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Reduced Stored
Chemicals
Yes
56%
52%
60%
49%
54%
61%
55%
*54%
58%
61%
62%.
49%
56%
59%
60%
56%
67%
54%
58%
47%
59%,
58%
56%
No
44%
48%
40%
51%
46%
" 39%
45%
46%
42%
39%
38%
51%
44%
41%
40%
44%
33%
46%
42%
53%
41%
42%
44%
Sec.IV, Q.#4: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs qfficers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 35: j
STATEMENTS ON TOXIC'AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE MANAGEMENT
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery/Petfo.
# OF EMPLOYEES
jess than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes •
No
PUB. ENV; PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
If Reduce Now, May Increase Future
Requirements '.. •
Agree
Strongly
10%
11%
10%
5%
• 7%
7%
17%
11%
8%
9%
10%
8%
10%
9%
11%
9%
12%
10%
5%
16%
8%
8%
11%
Agree
Somewhat
48%
50%
46%
53%
52%
46%
46%
42%
53%
60%
48%
50%
49%
47%
45%
50%
45%
48%
53%
51%
47%
53%
45%
Disagree
Somewhat
26%
• j • " .
28%
25%
28%
29%
25%
- 25 1s
29%
26%
20%
: i| • ' ,-
soi
20*
•| • «
28%
24%
- 1"
27%
26%
30%
26%
21%
26%
26%
' 23%
30!%
Disagree
Strongly
16% .
11%
18%
' 15%
12%
22%
12%
19%
13%
•11%
12%
21%
' 13%
20%
17%
15%
13% .
,16%
21%
7%
18%
16%
15%
Sec.IV, Q.#5: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 36: '
STATEMENTS ON TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE MANAGEMENT
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF "EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No ;
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Treat Some Non-Hazardous Materials as
Hazardous
Agree
Strongly
27%
23%
30%
25%
29%
27%
26%
24%
33%
29%
28%
26%
27%
29%
32%
24%
35%
24%
32%
23%
, 29%
31%
24%
Agree
Somewhat
45%
51%
45%
35%
43%
41%
52%
47%
44%
.42%
42%
1 . 49%
48%
39%
42%
47%
37%
50%
42%
58%
42%
48%
42%
Disagree
Somewhat
14%
17%
.9%
28%
12%
20%
11%
'14%
13%
15%
15%
12%
17%
9%
18%
11%
23%
11%
5%
12%
15%
11%
17% ,
Disagree
Strongly
14%
9%
16%
13%
17%
12%
11%
'15% ,
10%'
15%
14%
13% .
8%
23%
8%
18% •/'
.*•
5%
15%
21%
7%
15%
10%
17%
Sec.IV, Q.#5: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents. ..
-------
Table 37: ;"
STATEMENTS ON TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTipJCE MANAGEMENT
- \. ...
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes .
No v
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB . AFF . STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Management Won ' t Innovate unless
Required
Agree
Strongly
, 8%
4%
6%
20%
11%
5%
8%
5%
15%
7%
8%
7%
11%
3%
11%
5% ..
8%
6% ,
16%
2%
9%
6%
10%
Agree
Somewhat
25%
31%
24%
18%
24%
. 29%
22%
26%
25%
22%
28%
19%
27%
21%
22%
26%
22%
24%
32%
28%
25%
23%
.26%
Disagree
Somewhat
33%
37%
33%
28%
29%
37%'
.. •• 34%'.
32%
30%
38%
33%
35%
27%
44%
37%
32%
30|%
38%
11%
1
33;%
34%
37%
33|% ..'•
Disagree
Strongly
35%
28%
37%
35%
37%
29%
37%
36%
30%
3-3%.
31%
39%
35%
32%
31%
37%
40%
32%
42%
37%
33%
35%
33%
Sec.IV. Q.#5: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 38:
CONSIDER WASTE REDUCTION IN PROCESS/PRODUCT MODIFICATIONS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp .& Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
N6t Near
VISIBLE POL.
Y s
X'o
PUB. ENV. PROS.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Consider Waste Reduction for New
Processes
Almost
Always
63%
59%
64%
63%
54%
70%
66%
64%
67%
56%
62%
65%
68%
55% ;
68%
61%
.
73%
60%
63%
70%
61%
70%
57%
Sometimes
33%
39%
30%
.33%
37%
28%
32%
31%
29%
38%
35%
29%
29%
• 38%
27%
35%
27%
34%
26%
30%,
33%
28%
36%
Hardly
Ever
2%
2%
3%
0%
4%
1%
••2%
3%
2%
0%
2%
2%
. 1%
4%
2%
2%
0%
3%
. 5%
0%
3%
1%
3%
Never
2%
0%
2%
5%
5%
1% '
0%
1% .
2%
: 5%
1%
4%
1%
4%
3%
2%
"
0%
3%
5%
0%
3%
1%
3%
Sec.IV, Q.#6: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 39: i ,
EVALUATE WORKER HEALTH RISKS OF NEW1 MATERIALS
--
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF. EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES/BUS ./REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near .
VISIBLE POL,
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB;
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No .
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
. '>
Consider Health Risks of iNew Materials
Almost
Always
79%
69%
81%
85% '
77%
75%
86%
81%
81%
75%
80%
77%
80%
78%
81%
78%
83%
77%
89%
91%
77%
85%
74%
Sometimes
18%
28%
14%
15%
15%
, 25%
11%
14%
19%
22%
16%
19%
16%
20%
16%
18%
1.5%
18%
11%
7%
19%
•11%
23%
Hardily
Eveir
3%
- '"• 4%
4%
• 'oi% -
6%
". Q% .•
' 3% ,'
. 4l%
Ci%'
4%
j _'_
. 4A '
" 2%
'i ' ,
4% ,
2!% '•
''- . 2% • '•
' .4%
2%
.. 4% ' . •
0%
:i%
, :?i%
.-•4% '
3%
Never
'• °% , ;
0%
i%
0% ••••
. • • 1%
0%
0% .
1% .
0% .x
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
. 0%
1%
Sec.IV, Q.#6: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
'Table 40:
MEASURE ANNUAL REDUCTIONS IN WASTE GENERATION AND RELEASES
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200.
BUSINESS CHANGE
UP
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFP. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Measure Reductions Annually
Almost
Always
73%
74%
72%
., 75%
62%
83%
78%
72%
74%
78%
72%
77%
76%
73%
76%
73%
85%'
71%
68%
84%
71%
78%
70%
Sometimes
16%
19%
16%
13%
19%
11%
17%
16%
21%
9%
16%
14% -'
15%
: 16%
16%
15%
10%
,16%
26% «
14%
16%
14%
17%
Hardly
Ever
10%
7% •
11%
10%
17%
?%•
5%
12%
4%
11%
11%
8%
8%
13%
5% "
,''12%
5% '
11%
5%
2%
, ,12%
8%
12%
Never
1%
0%
1%
3%
•* , , 2%
0% ,
0% ;
o%
2%
2%
1%
0%
1% .,:
0%
2%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1% ,
0%
2%
Sec.IV, Q.#6: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of - facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 41:
PROGRAM FOR PROVIDING COMMUNITY INFORMATION
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Program for Giving
Community :
Information;
'Yes
36%
36%
33%
44%
18%
36%
59%
34%
40%
36%
34%
39%
44%
22%
47%
28%
54%
28%
42%
62%
30%
63%
12%
No i
64%
1 •
64%
67%
56%
i
82%
64%
41%'
1
66%
60%
644
1 '
66% ,
61%
1;
56%
78%
534
72%
46%
72%
58%
!
38%
70%
37%
88^
Sec.V, Q.#l: A 'Study of Industry Response jto SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 42:
FREQUENCY OF COMMUNICATION EFFORTS IN PAST 5 YEARS
Total Sample •*
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
jess than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes '
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes '•:'
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
Communications
ncreased
47%
50%
45%
48%
30%
46%
71%
47%
51%
42%
45%
49%
53%
36%
57%
39%
72%
39%
32%
72%
41%
Stayed
the Same
52%
50%
52%
53%
67%
54%
29%
51% .
49%
• 56%
52%
51%
46%
62%
43%
58%
27%
60%
68%
28%
58%
Decreased
"1% ,
0%
2%
0%
4%
0%
0%
2%
0% •
2%
2%
0%
'1%
2%
0%
2%
.2%
1%
0%
0%
2%
Sec V, Q.#2: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs .officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
.-..--' Table 43: t , '
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES FOR 'PAST YEAR
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
UP
Same ,
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near , ,
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No ,
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
Wo
COMMUNI CATI ONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Kinds of Communication 'Activities
, -. ... • • r • •- • •
Meet with
Cmty Ldrs
36%
40%
34%
38%
18%
28%
67%
33%
38%
37%
38%
31%
. 45%
.19%
55%
22%
58%
28%
24%
71%
27%
63%
11%
Open
House
32%
34%
27%
46%
11%
35%
54%
31% ,
33%
,31%
34%
28% >:
37% -
23%
48%
20%
49%
26%
24%
60%
25%
47%
19%
Adver-
t i sements
19%
28%
16%
19%
: 1%
17%
44%
20%
25%
12%
21%
16%
22%
13%
28%
12%
33%
14% "
:. 12%
45%
, 12%
32%
8%
Telephone
JHotline
| 17%
[.14%
1 13%
32%
8%
19%
! 25%
15%
1 17%
!: 18%
!• • '
\ 16%
: 19%
J ;19% '
r • . 13%
1 20%'
: 14%
\ 23%
1 13%
i ' 24%
\ 21% '
''i'.., 16% '-'
- 1 .- '
! 25%
' 10%
News-
letters
12%
22%
6%
'• 22%
4%
7% ;
30%,
8%
21%
12%
15%
7%
: 15%
7%
20%
6%
25%
7%
6%
33%
7%
24%
2%
Rows sum to more than 100% due to multiple responses.
Sec.V, Q.#3: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
i (continued)
-------
Table 43:
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES FOR PAST YEAR
Total Sample
INDUSTRY e
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than' 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near " ,
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Kinds of Communication Activities
Advisory
Groups
1*2%
8%
16%
5%
3,%
11%
25%
13%
10%
10%
10%
14%
14%
7%
17%
8%
18%
10%
• 6%
26%
8%
20%
4%
Town
Meetings
11%
,10%
11%
14%
4%
11%
20%
'9% ,
13%
12%
12%
9%
13%
6%
17%
6%
23%
7%
6%
19%
9%
18%
4%
Focus
Groups
8%
6%
9%
8%
1%
7%
,18%
9%
6%
8%
7% .-
• 10%
/
8%
7%,
13%
5%
9%
8%
, 6%
21%
5%
13%
; 4%
Opinion
Surveys
7%
6%
7%
. 8%
0%
5%
20%
9%
4%
8%
7%
7%
11%
2%
: 15%
2%
12%
5%
12%
21%
4%
1.6%
0%
None of
These
43%
38%
/ 47%
38%
71%
40%
11%
45% '
40%
43%
-41%
! 46% :
35%
56%
24%
57%
23%
'• 49%
59%
12%
50%
19%
64%
Rows sum to more than 100% due to multiple responses.
Sec.V, Q.#3: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
,, Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 44: , ,
REASONS FOR HAVING COMMUNICATION PROGRAMS
-
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near.
VISIBLE POL. .
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Cost-Benefit;
Very
Important
31%
28% •
35%
25%
22%
33%
40%
35%
30%
.23%
33%
27%
32%
27%
40%
25%
40%
26%
47% "
37%
30%
44%
19%
Somewhat
Important
37%
43%
32%
45%
' 30%
43%
42%
36%
39%
39%
38%
; 38%
42%
31%
42%
35%
40%
39%
26%
51%
35%
37%
40%
Not Very
Important
17%
13%
18%
18%
24%
14%
8%
18%
17%
13%
17%
14%
13%
21%
12%
19%
10%
20%
5%
7%
18%
8%
22%
: Not at
all
important
4%
: 4%
5%
0%
i 6%
4%
! , 0%
! 1%
. 2%
11%
1%
i 7%
i 2%
6%
! 2%
j • ; 5%
f 2%
4%
•; , 5% . '
; o%
4%
; 2%
,.5%
No Answer
/DK
11%
13%
10%
13%
17%
5%
11%
10%
13%
14% .
10%
14%
10%
15%
4%
16% ,
8%
11%
16%
5%
13%
8%
14%
Sec.V, Q.#5:" A-Study of Industry Response ;to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public "affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 45: .
REASONS FOR HAVING COMMUNICATION PROGRAMS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near,
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Increased Public Scrutiny
Very
Important
12%
15%
12%
8%
6%
11%
20%
13%
13%
7%
12%
11%
15%
6%
20%
5%
27%
6%
11%
21%
9%
20%
4%
Somewhat
Important
28%
20%
28%
35%
19%
34%
31%
27%
31%
23%
29%
24%
29%
., 25% ,
33%
22%
43%
22%
16%
33%
27%
39%
17%
Not Very
Impprtant
31%
37%
29%
,30%
35%
33%
28%
31%"
33%
32%
33%
32%
, 32%
33%
28%
36%
17%
41%
26%
33%
32%
25%
39%
Not at
all
Important
15%
11%-
18%
13%
20%
14%
' 9%
16%
6%
21%
13%
19%
12%
19%.
12%
18%
5%
17%
32%
5%
17%
7%
22%
No Answer
/DK
14%
17%
is%
15%
21%
8%
12% •
13%
17%
16%
14%
15%
12%
18%
6%
, 19%
8%
15%
16%-
9%
15%
10%
17%
Sec.V. Q.#5: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs .officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 46:
REASONS FOR HAVING COMMUNICATION PROGRAMS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical .
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. EN\ . PROB.
Yes
No -'-••
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased '
Same/Decreased
TRI Release Reports
Very
Important
,5%
.4%
. .' 6% .
. 5%
2%
3%
11%
4%
9%
2%,
5% .
5% -
6%
3%
10%
2%
15%
1%
..:. 0%
9%
3% V
"'6%.
4%
Somewhat
Important
17% ,
24%
14%
15%
13%
i?%
23%
15% ;
28%
11%
18%
16%
23%
9%
25%
11%
25%
13%
26%
26%
16%
22%
14%
Not Very
Important
29%
26%
33%
v 18%
27%
32%
29%
28%
31%
29%
30%
27%
30% ,
27%
39%
22%
32%
28%
32%
30%
:. 28%
31%
26%
Not at
all
Important
35%
. 33%
33%
i 45%
': 35%
41%
26%
37%
19%
43%
' 33%
• 35%
!
29%
42%
20% '
45%
' 20%
43%
21%
28%
36%
32%
36%
No Answer
/DK
14% '
13%
• 14%
18%
23%
8%
11%
15%
13%
16% '
14%
16%
12% ,
i'9%
- S6%
20%
8%
15%
21%
7%
16%
9%
19%
Sec.V, Q.#5: A -Study, of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 47:
REASONS FOR HAVING COMMUNICATION PROGRAMS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROS.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes ,
No
COMMUNI CATI ONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Increase our Credibility
Very
Important
33%
33%
35%
28%
22%
32%
48%
36%
31%
25%
• 34%
31%
37%
26%
35%
31%
43%
29%
32%
58%
28%
53%
16%,
Somewhat
Important
43%
41%
43%
45%
43%
51%-
32%
.45%
46%
34%
42%
42%
43%
42%
47%
39%
40%
45%
37%
28%
46%
34%
50%
Not Very
Important
8%
11%
6%
10%
8%
8%
8%
6%
4%
16%
9%
6%
6%
11%
8%
"-8%
5% •
. 9%
11%
9%
7%
4%
12%
Not at
all
Important
4%
2%
6%
3%
7%
•'• 4%
0%
,2%
2%
11%
2%
7%
3%
6%
3%
5%
2% ,
5%
5%
0%
4%
1%
7%
No Answer
/DK
13%
13%
12%
15%
20%
5%
12%
11%
17%
14%
13%
14%
12%
16%
6%
17%
10%
12%
16% ,
5%
14%
8%
17%
Sec.V, Q.#5: A-Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 48: :
REASONS FOR HAVING COMMUNICATION PROGRAMS
1
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same ,
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Very
Important
26%
22%
26%
30%
17%
33%
28%
31%
22%
18%
25%
27%
29%
21%
31%
22%
40%
20%
32%
33%
25%
36%
17%
Turn
Somewhat
Important
44%
50%
43%
40%
44%
43%
48%
42%
54%
. 43%
46%
42%
46%
43%
!
51%
40%
38%
48%
47%
56%
42%
46%
43%
i Around In
Not Very
Important
11%
13%
12%
8%
10%
12%
11%
\
10%
4%
20%
11%
11%
7%
16%
- 9%
13%
12%
12%
5%
7%
12%
6%
16%
vage
' Not at
all
Important
•i. 4% ,
I ^
: 2%
' 6%
3%
1-
1 -'
! 6%
4%
2%
i 3%
| 4%
: 5%
. ,|
i " ' 4%
' " • 4%
i
1
4%
3%
4%
4% .
2%
6%
°*
0%
5%
1%
7%
No Answer
/DK
14%
13%
13%
20%
22%
8%
12%
14%
17%
14%
14%
16%
14%
17%
5%
21%
8%,
15%
16%
5%
, 17%
11%
17%
Sec.V, Q.#5: A -Study of Industry Response
A survey of facility environmental and public
Percentages based on all surveyed
to SARA Title III
affairs officers,
respondents.
-------
Table 49: ,
REASONS FOR HAVING COMMUNICATION PROGRAMS
, -
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within. 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Decrease Demand for Regulations .
Very
Important
12%
9%
13%
13%
10% '
17%
6%
14%
11%
5%
12%
11%
12%
11%
13%
11%
13%
12%
5%
7%
12%
15%
8%
Somewhat
Important
31%
44% •
26%
28%
27%
29%
38%
36%
22%
29%
32%
29%
32% ,
30%
31%
31%
35%
31%
26%
40%
29%
37%
26%
Not Very
Important
33%
26%
38%
25% ,
31%
34%
32%
25%
41%
39%
33%
32%
31%
34%
34%
31%
30%
34%
26%
40%
31%
32%
32%
Not at
all
Important
12%
7%
12%
20%
12%
13%
12% •
13%
11%
13%
12%
13%
14%
10% .
15%
11%
12%
11%
26%
9%
13%
7%
17%
No Answer
/DK
13%
13%
12%
15%
20%
7%
.11%'
12%
15%
14%
12% .
15%
12%
15%
6%
17%
10%
13%
16%
5%
14%
.' ', . 9%
16% ,
Sec.V, Q.#5: A-Study of Industry Response, to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 50:
REASONS FOR HAVING COMMUNICATION PROGRAMS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200 •
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB~
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST:
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB . , AFF . STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
.Frightened Public
, [ • •
Very
Important
15%
11%
17%
18%
19%
14%
12%
14%
17%
,16%
15%
16%
15%
16%
- 15% ^
16%
15%
15%
. 21%
16%
. 14% .
13%
17%
Somewhat,
Important
29%
30%
31%
18%
30%
30%
25%
29%
28%
29%
)
28%
29%
28%
29%
'. 27%
30%
30%
28%
26%
ie%.
31%
29%
27%
Not Very
Important
32%
37%
27%
40%
24%
36%
37%
34%
26%
.. 32%.
34%
28%
32%
31%
3.8%
27%
33%
32%
26%
40%
31%
33%
31%
; Not at
r|- ' all.
Important
| 13%
9%
: . 15%
i 10%
f
,:' 8%
14%
-; 15%
I - • • .
'!' ' 12%
! 15%
11%
.' . 13%.
].' 12%
!'• 13% ./•
10%
! 15%
; 11%
|.. '"-"13%
; 12%
,! 16%
1 23%
i 10%
i
; 17%
\ 8%
No Answer
/DK
12%
: 13%
10%
15%
:'- 19%
5%
11%
'11%
15%
13%
11%
14%
12%
13%
5%
16% "
8%
13%
11%
5%
13%
8%
16%
Sec.V, Q.#5: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 5.1:
FREQUENCY OF VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING INFORMATION
Total Sample
INDUSTRY '
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
jess than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /EEC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Info, about Plant. Operations-
Frequently
19% .
30%
is%
26%
6%
13%
42%
18%
19%
20%
20%
16%
-27%
5%
30%
10%
33%
10%
37%
43%
13%
31%
8%
Seldom
40%
41%
44%
24%
28%
53%
42%
. 41%
41%
38%
42%
36%
43%
36%
40%
40%
42%
44%
16%
48%
39%
45%
36%
Never
41%
30%
43%
50%
66%
34%
17% .
41% ..
41%
42%
37%
48%
'30%
59%
29%
50%
25%
46%
47%
10%
48%
24%
57%
Sec V Q #6: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 52: j: .
FREQUENCY OF VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING 'INFORMATION
Total Sample
INDUSTRY '
Pulp & Paper1
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro.
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes : ,
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same ,
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
SARA Title, III Forms
Frequently
18%
15%
18%
18%
18%
12%
25%
17%
17%
22%
18%
19%
20%
14%
23%
15%
25%
12%
42%
31%
15%
28%
10%
Seldom
24%
24%
26%
18%
18%
27%
28%
)
23%
25%
24%
26%
19%
27%
19%
25%
22%
28%
22%
21%
19%
25%
28%
20%
Never
59%
61%
56%
63%
63%
i 61%
48%
i 60%
j 58%
55%
56%
!j £1% :". .
j 53%.
67%
; 52%
64%
47%
66%
: 37%
; 50%
60%
, 45%
[' 69%
Sec.V, Q.#6: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public: affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 53: , •
FREQUENCY OF VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING INFORMATION
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
.# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES/BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB . AFF . STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Facility Accident /Incident
History
Frequently
11%
15%
9%
8%
5%
8%
21%
9%
15%
9%
11%
104
13%
7%
12%
9%
17%
9%
6%
22%
7%
18%
3%
Seldom
25%
27% '
21% '
35%
18%
32%
31%
28%
19%
28%
24%
, 29%
31%
17%
27%
24%
27%
24%
33%
34%
25%
34%
19%
Never
64%
58%
69%
57%
77%
61%
48%
63%
65% '
63%
65%
62%
56%
76%
61%
66%
57%
67%
61%
44%
68%
48%
78%
Sec.V, Q.#6: A .Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
r - " .'• Table 54: ^
FREQUENCY OF VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING INFORMATION
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
•Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up .
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS, /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No<
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB . AFF . STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Chemical Toxicity; (MSDS)
Frequently
28%
22%
32%
^25%
34%
26%
25%
31%
.18%
33%
29%
28%
26%
31%
26%
31%
28%
- 27%
47%
34%
28%
35%
22%
Seldom |
30% |
30% -
31% !
' 28% - j
16% |
42% I
33% :
i
28% I
32% i
" 31% ' .:;
-. |
'I
30% i
28%
32% !
27% i
33%
28%
- - t
, 33% '!
28% i
29% ;
27% .;
30% i
•i
33%
26% 1
. '1
Never
42%
48%
37%
47%
50%
32%
41%
41%
50%
35%
41%
44%
42%
42%
42%
42%
39%
45%
24%
39%
42%
31%
51%
Sec.V, Q.#6: A Study of industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs.officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 55:
FREQUENCY OF VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING INFORMATION
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Dp
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
!What to Do' in Emergencies
Frequently
20%
23%
18%
22%
16%
22%
23%
17%
19%
28%
16% '
27%
2i%
18%
22%.
18%
28%
15%
33%
27%
19%
29%
12%
~ Seldom
34%
30%
38%
25%
26% ;
37%
42%
38%
37%
23%
41%
23%
39%
27%"
38%
31%
36%
35%
17%
44%
32%
42%
27%
Never
46%
47%
44%
53%
58%
41%
35% .
45% . ,.
44%
49%
43%
. 51%-
40%
55%
,40%
50% :
36%
50%
50%
29%
49%
30%
61%
Sec.V. Q.#6: A Study of Industry Response to SARA
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 56: ;
FREQUENCY OF VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING INFORMATION
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
UP
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE1 POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No ' '
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Environmental Problems /Risks
Frequently
8%
13%
6%
8%
4%
8%
16%
9%
11%
6%
. 6%
12%
10%
6%
11%
6%
15%
6%
0%
15%
7%
17%
1%
Seldom
34%
34%
31%
41%
23% !
34%
49%
, 35%
36%
30%
38%
27%
42%
22%
43%
27%
43%
29%
44%
51%
30%
45%
24%
Never
58%
53%
62%
51%
73%
58%
35%
56%
53%
65%
56%
61%
49%
72%
46%
67%
42%
65%
56%
34%
62%
38% ,
75%
Sec.V, Q.#6: A Study ,of Industry Response to SARA Title
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 57:
FREQUENCY OF VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING INFORMATION
-
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES/BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Efforts to Reduce Health Threats
Frequently
13%
19%
10%
11%
4%
7%
30%
14%
13%
7%
10%
15%
16%
5%
20%
7%
20%
9%
17%
32% .
7%
25%
1%
Seldom
35%
31%
36%
38%
25%
47%
38%
37%
37%
33%
40%
29%
39%
31%
39% '
32%
45%
32%
28%
37% !
37%
42%
31%
Never
52%
50%
54%
51%
71%
47%
32%
49%
50%
59%
50%
56%
44%
64%
41%
61%
35%
60%
56%
32%
56%
33%
68%
Sec.V, Q.#6: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents. >
-------
Table 58:
TARGETS FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAMS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes .
No
PUB. EKV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Groups Targeted For Comtaunications
Emergency
Respndrs .
62% v
56%
65%
60%
50%
64%
74%
64%
57%
59%
61% -
, -61%
68%
51%
72%
54%
72%
59%
53%
72%
: 59%
79%
46%
Gov't.
Officials
49%
50%
47%
53%
37%
46%
68%
; 53%
50%
39%
50%
46%
55%
38%
68%
34%
68%
41%
47%
65%
46%
64%
36%
Community
Leaders
48%
46%
46%
55%
23%
47%
78%
47%
48%
,46%
50%
41%
56%
31%
63,%
36%
78%
35%
47%
77%
41%
"7-4%"
24%
i General
' Public
34%
35%
i 33%
38%
i
i 10%
i 34%
j 65%
I;'': 35%
; r 39%
27% ,
',-'-34%
; 33%
i 40%
| -'22%.' '
i 44%
I 26%
! . 58%
i 24%
i 26%
,| , .
! 70%
1 26%
J 58%
12%
Health
Profs .
30%
22%
34%
28%
20%
36%
37% ..
36%
26%
20%
,31%
28%
35%
21%
37%
- 26% -
37%
29%
26%
33%
29%
41%
21%
Rows sum to more than 100% due to multiple! responses.
Sec.V, JQ.#7: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents. ;
•'.-.•• I (continued)
-------
Table 58:
TARGETS FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAMS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200'
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Groups .Targeted For Communications
Media
25%
33%
23%
23%
6%
21%
57%
26%
30%
20%
28%
21%
33%
12%
41%
14%
50%
15%
26%
65%
16%
48%
6%
Educators
16%
13%
14%
25%
6%
11%
34%
14%
22%
13%
15%
16%
21%
6%
24%
9%
25%
10%
, 26%
35%
11%
29%
3%
Envir.
Activists
,11%
15%
8%
.18%
2%
7%
29%
13%
13%
7%
13%
8% ,
16% ,
3%
22%
5%:,.
27%
..'. 4%
21%
33%
6%
23%
2%
Not
Targeted
20%
20%
19%
23%
' \
29%
22%
5%
19%
20%
23%
21%
20%
15%
29%
13% ;
26%
8%
23%
42%
5%
25%
5%
34%
No Answer
7%
: 9%
6%
10%
15%,
4%
3%
7%
9%
'9% . . '
7%
9%
6%
10%
4%
' 10%
.7%
7%
5%
5%,
7%
2%
- 12%
Rows sum to more than 100% due to. multiple responses.
Sec.V, Q.#7: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title^III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
- Table 59: ; '
INDUSTRY TRADE ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS COMMUNICATION EFFORTS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
,Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PrOB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Trade As soc. !
Encourage Efforts
•' . ' i
Yes
76%
56%
,86% .
73%
70%
77%
81% ,
79%
71%
71%
80%
64% .
78%
69%
83%
69%
82%
70%
88%
85%
73%
85%
65%
No
24% .'
44%
14%
28%
30%
23%
19%
21%
29%
29%
20%
36%
22%
31%
i
17%
31%
isi
30%
13%
15%
27%
t\
15%
35%
Sec.V. Q.#9: A Study of Industry Response to. SARA Title III
A,survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 60:
FORMS OF TRADE ASSOCIATION SUPPORT
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 20 0.
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Form of Support
Training
Mater .
48%
26%
60%
38%
43%
56%
43%
52%
41%
43%
52%
39%
47%
47%
51%
47%
59%
.. 45%
42%
47%
48%
53%
43%
Info.
Clearing
-house
39%
28%
42%
45%
33%
36%
51%
43%
30%
39%
42%
34%
40%
36%
1
49%
34%
49%
36%
47%
60%
35%
54%
27%
Public
Mater.
35%
19%
46%
25%
30%
37%
38%
40%
37%
21%
37%
. 31%
39%
27%
42%
. 31%
46%
31%
37%
> 49%
' 32%
42%,
29%
Media
Support
28%
22%
35%
15%
24%
25%
35% ,
33%
26%
18%
29%
25%
34%
17%
34%
24%
39%
25%
21%
42%
25%
36%
21%
No Help
24%
41% <
13%
28%
28%
21%
18%
21%
28%
25%
20%
31%
21%
28%
16%
29%
19%
28%
11%
14%
25%
., 14%
33%
No
Answer
14%
17%
13%
15%
14%
16%
s 14%
'15%
11%
18%
13%
16%
14%
15%
14%
12%
Y%
13%
26%
9%
16%
11% '
17%
Rows sum to more than 100% due to multiple responses.
Sec.V, Q.#10: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 61:
HAVE TRADE ASSOCIATION MATERIALS
DEVELOPING/IMPLEMENTING A COMMUNITY
BEEN
OU1REACH
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than. 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL. ,
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST.
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Trade Assoc. Programs Helped?
Yes
30%
20%
35%
25%
16%
33%
43%
34%
28%
21%
33%
24%
35%
21%
,44%
21%
47%
24% . _
26%
51%
25%
44%
17%
No
46%
41%
46%
50%
52%
43%
37%
41%
48%
50%
45%
44%
44%
46%
39%
50%
42%
47%
47%
35%
47%
39%
50%
No Help .
24%
39%
19%
25%
31%
24%
20%
i 25%
24%
,,29%',.
; 22%
33%
22%
33%,
17%
;29%: .,
12%
29%
26%
. 14%
28%
17%
33%
Sec.V, Q.#ll: A Study of Industry Response
A survey of facility environmental and publi<
Percentages based on all surveyed r<
HELPFUL
PROGRAM
to SARA Title III
affairs officers.
spondents.
-------
Table 62:
LEVEL OF -PUBLIC/MEDIA INTEREST IN FACILITY
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES/BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUR. ENV. PROB.
Yet
No •'',•'
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes ..'. '
No,
COMMUNI CATI ONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
27%
27%
24%
38% ,
13% '
28%
44%
23%
40%
23%
30%
22%
38%
11%
45%
14%
43%
23%
, 41%
15%
Same
64%
69%
65%
55%
73%
67%
49%
70% •
57%
60%
62%
69%
55%
79%
45% •
78%
50%
68%
53%
74%
Decreased
9%
1
'-' /
- 4%
10%
8%
13%
5%
6%
,7%
4%
17%
9%
9%
7%
11%
10%
8%
7%
9%
6%
11%
Sec.VI, Q.#l: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey'of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 63: ! - ' •; '
EXPERIENCED PUBLICIZED ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS OR INCIDENTS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper-
Chemical
Refinery /Petro.
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
42%
44%
40%
45%
27%
45%
56%
40%
44%
43%
48%
30%
52%
24%
70%
29%
47%
64%
36%
51% ;
34%
No
58% ,
56%
60%
55%
73*s
55%
' 44%
i
60%
56%
57%
52%
70%
i ' .'
' 48%
765fe
, 30%
71%
53%
36% -
64%
49%
66%
Sec.VI, Q.#2: A Study of Industry Response.to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 64:
WOULD PUBLICITY ABOUT CHEMICALS USED CAUSE UNDUE ALARM
Total Sample ;
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than- 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES/BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Publicity About
Chems . Cause Alarm?
Yes
39%
31%
43%
• 36%
36%
49%
33%
39%
41%
38%
• 41%
36%
41%
• 37%
.48%
33%
51%
35%
32%
33%
41%
42%
37%
No
61%
69%
57%
64%
64%
51%
67%
61%
59%
62%
/•
59%
64%
59%
63%
52%
67%
49%
65%
68%
67%
59%
58%
63%
Sec.VI, Q.#4: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 65: '
ADMIRATION OF COMMUNITY OR ACTIVIST' GROUP
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down ' * '
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Environmentalj
Practices Admire(d?
Yes
81%
73%
85%
80%
93%
86%
60%
"81%
87%
.78%
81%
81%
' 75%
92%
76%
85%
69%
86%
84%
64%.
86%
71%
91%
No 1 -
19%i
27%
15%;
20%|
7%
14%!
40.%!
19%
13%: ,
22%[
i
19%i
- • 19%!
"I- . "' •
25%!' *
8%
24%
15%i
31%
14%'
16%
1
36%
149i ; .
.. • i
29%'
9%
I.
Sec.VI, Q.#5: A Study of Industry Responsejto SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 66:
PUBLICLY TARGETED BY COMMUNITY OR ACTIVIST GROUP
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper-
Chemical
Refinery/Petro,
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
.No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Environmental
Problems Targeted?
Yes
21%
32%
17%
20%
11% ,'
19%
41%
16%
28%
29%
23%
19%
30%
8%
42%
7%
42%
12%-
32%
43%
17%
32%
13%
No
79%
68%
83%
80%
89%
81%
59%
84%
72%
71%,
77%
81%
70% '
92%
58%
93%
58%
88%
.68%.
57%
83%
68%
88%
Sec.VI. Q.#6: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title -III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 67 :
CHANGES IN PUBLIC REQUESTS FOR-INFORMATION IN LAST FIVE YEARS.
.,
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less' than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL. -
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROS.
Yes
No .:.
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFE. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Changes in Requests for Information
Increased
17%
24%
11%
26%
4% '
14%
35%
12%
21%
21%
18%
13%
23%
5%
30%
6%
44%
6%
6%
37%
11%
29%
5%
Stayed Same
73%
" 64%: !
76% !
72%
80%
77% i
59% ;
79%
69%
63%
71%
76%
67%
82%
56%
86%
49%
88%
29%
- 56%
77%
64%
. 80%
Decreased
11%
12%
13%
3%
16%
9%
6%
9%
10%
15%
10%
12%
10%
13%
14%
8%
7%
6%
65%
7%
12%
7%
14%
Sec.VI, Q.#7: A Study of Industry Response
-------
Table 68: ' -
FREQUENCY OF REQUESTS FROM THE MEDIA
IN THE PAST YEAR
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF- EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Media
Never
69%
68%
73% ,
55%
86%
74%
40%
71%
60%
72%
70%
66%
60%
82%
46%
84%
48%
77%
67%
34%
76%
50%
84%
1-3 Times
22%
>
19%
21%
32%
.14%
20%
35%
19%
29%
22%
21%
26%
28%
15%
37%
12%
• 33%
20%
17%
37%
20%
32%
14% ..
3-8 Times
6%
8%
6%
3%
0%
3%
16%
6%
6%
4%
6%
5% '
6%
! 3%
10%
2%
7%
4%
17%
20%
2%
10%
2%
9 or More
Times
4%
6%
1%
11%
0%
3%
10%
3%
6%
2%
4%
.4%
6%
0%
7%
1%
12% v
0%
0%
10%
2%
. 8%
0%
Sec.VI, Q.#8: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
, Table 69:
FREQUENCY OF REQUESTS FROM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
IN THE PAST YEAR ,
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF. EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
N-^
P:TB. ENV. PROB,.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Health Professionals
Never
73%
75%
74%
66%
76% ,
78%
63%
73%
72%
76%
76%
68%
69%
80%
74%
74%
58% ...
79%
78%
66%
75%
63%
82%
1-3 Times
21%
21%
21%
24%
21%
16%
, 25%
20%
21%
22%
19%
24%
25%
, 14%
21%
20%
31%
17%
17%
27%
20%
28%
15%
3-8 Times
' 5*. '
r . •
4%
4%~
8%
2%
5*i
61
~
5%
6%
.2%
' .4% ' •-
' • -5%- '
5% . .
-; 3* ''
44
• • ' • 5%
10>b
•• 3i"
0%
. i
2%
5%
1
6%
3%
9 or More
Times
1% .
0%
2%
3%
0%
0%
5%
2%
2%
0%
1%
2% ,
1%
2%
1%
2%
•2%
'1% .
6%
' 5%
1%
3%
0%
Sec.VI, Q.#8: A Study of Industry Response,to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers..
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 70:
FREQUENCY OF REQUESTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS
IN THE PAST YEAR /, ,
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF- EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROS.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Environmental Activists
Never
78%
70% .
83%
74%
95%
85%
49%
80%
77%
78%
79%
79%
72%
91%
65%
89%
56%
89% ,
72%
49%
85%
63%
92%
1-3 Times
14%
17%
13%
16%
4%
8%
35%
15%
11%
15%
15%
12%
18%
7%
22%
9%
24%
r '»*
28%
34%
10%
24%,
5%
3-8 Times
6%
9%
4%
5%
1%
5%
. 11%
4%
8%
6%
5%
6%
7%
2%
10%
2%
15%
2%
0%
15%
3%
9%
3%
9 or More
Times
2%
4%
0%
5% •
0%
1%
5%
1%
4%
2% ,
. ,1%
2%
3%
0%
3%
0%
5%
0%
0%
2%
2%
4%
0%
Sec.VI. Q.#8: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 71: U
FREQUENCY OF REQUESTS FROM COMMUNITY LEADERS
. IN THE PAST YEAR !
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF 'EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No ,
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Community Leaders
Never
68%
60%
7.2%
66%
• . 83%
71%
46%
71%
57%
76%
68%
. 71%
60%
83 s
60%
75%
'
53%
74%
78%
46%
74%
54%
82%
1-3 Times
25%
32%
23%
24%
14%
26%
38%
23%
34%
20%
26%
. 23%
31%
15%
29%
22%
34%
23%
11%
34%
23%/
33%
18%
3-8 Ti!mes
i,
• 4%l
,i
i
4%
2%
11%
1
; . I.
2%l
1,% . .
10%
4%
-. 6%
2%;
i -
5%
2%l
6%
1%
1
• 8%|- , .
2%
8%
'!%'..
i il%l ••
i
10%;
3%; '.
i •
9%
0%
9 or More
Times
2%
4%
2%
0%
0%
1%
6%
2%
4%
2%
.1%
4%
3%
1%
3%
> 2%
5% •
1%
0%
10%
1%
5%
0%
Sec.VI. Q.#8: A Study of Industry Response jto SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 72:
FREQUENCY OF REQUESTS FROM EDUCATORS
IN THE PAST YEAR
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery/Petro.
U OF. EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
•BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Never :
81%
75%
84%
79%
96%
85%
57%
84%'
72%
85%
81%
82% .
73%
95%
76%
86%
69%
88% .
72%
59%
86%
75%
87%
Educal
L-3 Times
14%-
19%
13%
, 11%
4%
8%
35%
11%
19%
15%
, 14%
13%
19%
5%
16%
12%
20%
11%
17%
37%
9%
18%
10%
tors
3-8 Times
3%
.•-H -
2%
2%
8%
0%
4%
5%.
4%
4%
0%
3%
2%
4%
0%
4%
.2%
5%
1%
11%
2%
3%
4%
2%
J or .More
Times
2%
4%
1%
• 3%
0%
3%
3%
..
1%
6%
0%
1%
2%
3%
0%
3%
1%
5%
1%
0%
2%
':;.»
3%
1%
qec VI O #8- A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A sSrvIy'o.lacility environmental and public affairs^offacers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
i ,
-------
Table 73: ;
FREQUENCY OF REQUESTS FROM EMERGENCY RESPONDERS
, IN THE PAST YEAR
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF. EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up ,
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes .
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB . , AFF . STAFF
Yes .
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased '
Same/Decreased
Emergency Responders
Never
40%
45% ,
37%
42%
45%
41%
33%
33%
53%
43%
38%
45%
3.8%
45%
35%
45%
32%
42%
56%
29%
43%
30%
50%
1-3 Times
- 49%
45%
52%
47%
51%
47%
49%
54%
32% '
56%
50%
48%
49%
49%
48%
49%
49%
51%
33%
49%
49%
54%
45%
3-8 Timess
8%
' •• i .
8%|
8%
8%
" •«!' •
8%
13%;
.' M';-
13%
2%
'' 9%,'
s%'
i • , -
i . ' ~ 'i '
io%!
,?•*! '
i3%;
. • 4%; .
t1 ' -1
i •"
12%
6%
ll%i -.'.
't
' !,' -
17*1
6%
isi
3%! .-
9 or More
Times
. 3%
2%
3%
, 3% -
0%
4%
5%
4%
2%
0%
3%
2%
3%
2%
' • • "3% ' •
2%
7%
1%
0%
5%
2%
: 4%
2V
Sec.VI, Q.#8: A Study of Industry Response |to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 74:
FREQUENCY OF REQUESTS FROM INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS
IN THE PAST YEAR
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petrp .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Individual Citizens
i
Never
68%
-
58%
71%
71%
85%
74%
38%
70%
66%
65%
63%
77%
57%
85%
52%
80%
46%
76%
78%
39%
75%
52%
82%
1-3 Times
22%
25%
24%
11%
14%
22%
32%
21%
21%
24%
26%
15%
27%
13%
30%
16%
27%
22%
6%
27%
20%
28%
16%
3-8 Times
6%
9%
2%
13%
f
• 1%
3%
16%
3%
9%
9%
6%
6%
10%
. 0%
11%
2%
„
14%
2% ,
6%
20%
3%
i_j
13%
0%
9 or More
Times
5% ,
.' •"
8%
3%
5%
,0% !
1%
14%
6%
4%
2%
6%
2%
6%
2%
8%
2% -
14%
6%
11%
15%
2%
8%
2%
Sec.VI. Q.#8: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey'of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 75: >
FREQUENCY OF REQUESTS FOR SARA TITLE: III FORMS
IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS ;
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near,
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
.Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB . AFF . STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATI ONS
Increased
Same/Decreased'
SARA Title III Forms
i
Frequently
3%,,,
0%
4%
5%
1%
4%
5%
1%
4%
7%
2%
5%
4%
2%
.3%
3%
2%
3%
11%
5%
3%
. 5%
2%
Seldom
19%
17%
20%
18%
£ ' >
18% ,
15%
24%
14%
32%
15%
22%
12%
19%
19%
25%
13%
31%
11%
33%
27%
17%
20%
18%
j Never
l
i 78%
83%
76%
i 76%
i 81%
81%
; 71%
' ,85%
! 64%
• 78%
75%
j 83%
!. 78%
; 79%
)'
•1 , - • .
•i 71%
84%
,1 .
68%
\ 86%
56%
i
1 68%
\ 80%
75%
I 81%
Sec.VI. Q.#9: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and publici affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
-------
Table 77: |
FREQUENCY OF REQUESTS FOR GENERAL TOXICITYf INFORMATION
IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS
(MSDS)
Total Sample"
INDUSTRY ;
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro.
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down. — • .
HOMES/BUS ./REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes , -
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC .INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
General Toxicity (MSDS)
Frequently
11% .' -.' -
, 0% ,
15% ,
16%
15%
10%
6%
11%
6%
17%
12%
-' 10% ,
8%
15%
9%
.13%
1 - ' f
10%
10%
22%
10%
11%
8%
14%
Seldom
28%
,26%
30%
24%
24%
28% ,
34%
27%
36%
23%
31% !
23%
30%
26%
33%
25% , [..
41% •
' 24%
22%
32%
27%
35%
22%
Never
61%
, 74%
55%
61%
' 61%'
62%
60%
63%
58%
60%
57%
67%
62%
59%
58%
63_%
49%
66%
56%
59%
61%^
57%
64%
Sec.VI, Q..#9: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
. Percentages based on all surveyed [respondents.
-------
Table 78:
FREQUENCY OF REQUESTS FOR 'WHAT TO 1)6' IN EMERGENCIES
IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
,,ess than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB «
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
'What to do' in Emergencies
frequently
5%
0%
7%
3%
1%
10%
3%
5%
2%
8%
5%
4%
3*
7%
5%
5%
3% , - '
5%
6%
5%
• 5%
6%
3%
Seldom
24%
23%
21%
34%
18%
18%
37%
20%
34% ' ,
21% ';
29%
14%
\ •••-. ,
28%
17%
.- 33%
17% .
47%
16%
. 12%
41%
20%
33%
16%
Never
71%
77,%
71%
63%
80%
72%
60%
76%
64%
71%
66%
82%
69%
76%
63%
.78%
50%
79%
82%
54%
76%
61%
81%
Sec.VI, Q.#9: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
, Table 79: !
FREQUENCY OF REQUESTS FOR EFFORTS TO REDUCE RISKS
IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS!
'
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro i
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No ,'•'•'.
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
- ' ' !' •
Reports on Efforts; to Reduce
Risks
Frequently
3%
4%
2%
5%
0%
3%
8%
3%
6%
2%
2%
5%
4% ,
2%
6%
2%
7%
1%
6%
12%
1%
5%
2%
Seldom
. -15% ;
i
13% !
13% i.
24% :
6% !
13%
31%
14% i
17%
15% I
I '
/.
18% •
10% |
17% i
12%' ,;
19% f
13% ]
- . " !
34% [
- 9% - ,!•
6% ;
24% ;
13% :
1
23%
8% ;,
Never
82%
83%
85%
71%
94%
85%
61%
83%
77%
83%
79%.
86%
79%
8( 6
75%
•86%
. 59%
9,0%
, 89%
63%
86%
72%
90%
Sec.VI, Q.#9: A Study of Industry Response to SARA,Title III
A survey of facility environmental and publtic affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyedjrespondents.
-------
Table 80:
FREQUENCY OF REQUESTS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS
IN TJHE LAST FIVE YEARS :
Total Sample •
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes -
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Emergency Response Plans
Frequently
7%
0%
9%
8%
1%
11%
8%
6%
4%
9% '
7%
5%
6%
7%
9%
5%
10%
5%
6%
12%
5%
10%
3%
Seldom
32%
32%
32%
29%
25%
27%
45%
30%
42%
24%.
. 35%
26%
36%
25%
36%
28%
49% ,
24%
28%
39% v
30%
38%
26%
Never
62%
68%
59%
63% " :
73"%
62%
, 47%
64%
54%
67%
58%
70%
58%
68% :
55%
68%
41%
71%
67%
49%
65%
52%
71%
Sec.VI, Q.#9: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 81: . |
CONDUCTED EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATION TRAINING SESSIONS
IN THE PAST YEAR
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES .
Less than 50
51 to ^200 •
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased.
Employee :
Communication
Training !
Yes
34%
38%
35%
.28%
21%
28%
58%
36%
31%
33%
35%
33%
37%
28%
38%
31%
54%
24%
47%
58%
29%
48%
22%
•No'j.
66%j
L '
62%!
65%
72%
j '
79%
72%
42%
"t.
64%
69%
67%
1 . ' j
65%
67%
63%
72% '
' . -1
j
62^s
69%
464 • .
76%
53%
'• " -i
,- 42%
71*'
•52%; ', -
78%
Sec.VII, Q.#l: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 82:
PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC
WHO HAVE HAD COMMUNICATION TRAINING
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF, STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Percentage who have had Communication
Training
No
Training
66%
63%
66%
73%
79%
74%
43%
65%
70%
68%
67%
67%
63%
73%
62%
70%
47%
77%
53%
42%
72%
53%
79%
Less than
30%
19%
26%
20%
8%
16%
17%
25%
19%
17%
21%
21%
16%
22%
16%
17%
20%
30%
14%
21%
16%
21%
27%
12%
30% to
60%
5%
. .
4%
5%
5%
0%
3%
12%
3%
6%
5%
5%
4%
5%
...3%
8%
2%
12%
2%
0%
16%
2%.
6% •-.
3%
More than
60%
10%
7%
9%
15%
, -
5%
7%
20%
13%:
7% , .
.5%
8%
13%
10%
8%
13%
8%
12%
7%
26%,
\ 26%
6%
14%
6%
Sec.VII, Q.#2: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title Til
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on those whose facility has conducted
communication training sessions in the past year.
-------
.Table 83: !
TYPES OF EMPLOYEES COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC.
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper '
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes.
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Types of Employeses
Plant
Manager
82%
88%
80%
82%
78%
78%
92%
82%
83%
81%
79%
87%
85%
75%
87%
77%
88%
80%
68%
90%
75%.
Environ-
mental
Affairs
Staff
53%
54%
53%
54%
34%
58%
71%
51%
52%
57%
55% "
48%
ei%
38%
73%
38%
74%
45%
47%
66%
41% , '
Corporate
Communi-
cations
53%
50%
51%
62%
44%
46%
75%
55%
54%
49%
56%
49%
57%
47%
56%
51%
55%
52%
58% '
58%
49% ,
Public
Affairs
Staff
19%
. 33%
11%
28%
.i;
5%
, 4% •
57%
i 18%
23%
19%
21%
16%
27%
: 6%
30%
12%
31%
- 15% ;
16%
30%
10%
Other
Technical
Facility
Staff
26%
25%
26%
28%
27%
25%
30%
31%
23%
23%
32%
18%
27%-
27%
24%
28%
40%
23%
16%
36,% ,
'19%
Rows sum to more than 100% due to multiple! responses. '
Sec.VII, Q.#3: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.'.
-------
Table 84: ' ;
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS HAVE MADE PUBLIC FEEL SAFER
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp &. Paper'
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF- EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Made Public Feel Safer
Agree
Strongly
6%
2%
6%
8%
6%
7%
.3%
9%
0%
4%
7%
2% '
4%
7%
3%
7%
7%
4%
11%
2%
6%
4%
7%
Agree
Somewhat
30%
41%
24%
33%
24%
36%
32%
29%
34%
30%
30%
32%
29%
33%
31%
30%
37% ,
29%
26%
30%
30%
33%
28%
Disagree
Somewhat
43% .
43%
48%
28%
49%
. 37%
42%
39%
- 45%
50%
43%
43%
43% :
42%
41%
44%
' 32%
47%
37%
49%
42%
44%
41%
Disagree
Strongly
22%
15%
21%
33%
21%
20%
23%
,23%
21% ''
17%
20%
23%
23%
18%
25%
19%
25%
19%
26%
19%
22%
19%
23%
Sec.VIII, Q.#l: -A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 85: ,. ]..
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS HAVE CAUSED NEEDLEiSS CONCERN
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF 'EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
UP • .
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Caused Needless Public Concern
Agree
Strongly
26%
30% '
23%
28%'
26%
24%
29%
23%
24%
' 34%
25%
29%
- 29%
22%
27%
26%
23%
26%
42%
30%
25%
24%
28%
Agree
Somewhat
55%
50%
61%
45%
55%
57%
52%
57%
52%
54%
56%
;- 54%
50%
62%
51% '
57%
58%
.54%
37%
49%
57%
58%
52%
Disagree
Somewhat
16%
t
17%
13%:
25%
14%
18%
15%
16%
20%
11%
17%
14%!
I .
19%
12%: ,
20%:
i3%r •
17%!
17%' ,
11%
21S
15%
14%
18%
Disagree
Strongly
3%
4%
3%
3%
5%
1%
' ' 3%'
3% .'
4%
2%
3%
4%
\ 2%
5%
2%
4%
2%
3%
11%
0%
3%
4%
3%
Sec.VIII, Q.#l: -A Study of Industry Response to SARA.Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 86:
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS HAVE REDUCED COMMUNITY RISKS
. .
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less' than. 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near ,
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Reduced Community Risks
Agree
Strongly
12%
11%
14%
8%
10%
15%
11%
14%
8%
11%
12%
11%
12%
11%
8%
14%
15%
9%
21%
7%
13%
13%
10%
Agree
Somewhat
52%
50%
54%
50%
53%
50%
54%
57%
. 43%
51%
56%
45%
53%
51%
53%
51%
48%
56%
32%
,49%
52%
50%
54%
Disagree
Somewhat
29%
35%
25%
35%
- 34%
, 26%"
28%
2.3%
42%
33%
26%
•'.•- 35%
30%
29%
33%
28%
30%
29%
37%
35%
28%
30%
28%
Disagree
Strongly
7% (
4% ;
8%
8%
4%
9%
8%
7%
8%
5% ...
6%
9%
5%
10%
6%
7%
7%
6%
11%
9%
6%
6%
8%
Sec.VIII, Q.#l: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed, respondents.
-------
Table 87: . !
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS HAVE INCREASED PRODUCTION COSTS
.
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF. EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI C ATI ONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
-Increased Production; Costs
Agree
Strongly
50%
46%
51%
55%
59%
42%
48%
45%
50%
61%
46%
57%
52%
46%
58%
43%
55%
46%
58%
45%
51%
47%
53%
Agree
Somewhat
41%
39%
44%
34% .
32%
49%
43%
45%
43%
3,1%
46%
33%
40%
43%
32%
48%
38%
42%
42%
40%
42%
43%
38%
Disagree
Somewhat
8%i
13%;
6%'
11%!
1
7%
9%
9%
10%
7%
: 7%;' • .
ss! • •'
10*1
. - !•'
89i /
10%
10%
8.% ' . '
)-' '
t
'?%•
114
°*.
14%
7% ,
;i
8%
' : 9% -
Disagree
Strongly
0%
2%
0%
0%
1%
6%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
> 1%
1%
0%
Sec.VIII. Q.#l: .A Study of Industry Response
A survey of facility environmental and public
Percentages based on all surveyed
to ,SARA Title III
affairs officers.
respondents.
-------
Table 88:
ENVIKONMENTAL LAWS HAVE DOWNGRADED MORE IMPORTANT
ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down'
HOMES/BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Downgraded Other Environmental
Priorities
Agree
Strongly
24%
31%
20%
28%
23% •
13%
35%
20%
25%
28%
26%
20%
28%
17%
32%
17%
27%
20%
37%
35%
20%
25%
22%
Agree
Somewhat
35%
26% -
40%
.33%
35%
36%
34% ,
31%
39%
•41%
35%
37%
'3%
39%
1 35%
36%
43%
35%
11%
30%
37%
36%
35%
Disagree
Somewhat
35%
35%
33%
38%
32% ,
47%
26%
42%
30%
26%
37% .
32%
33%
38%
28%
39%
22%
40%
37%
28% ,
36%
30% •
39%
Disagree
Strongly
6%
7%
7%
3%
10%
4%
5%
7%
6%
6%,
3%
12%
7%
6%
5%
7%
8%
4%
16%
7%
6%
9%
3%
Sec.VIII. Q.ttl: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 89: j
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS HAVE ALLOWED FACILITY TO, IMPROVE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WHILE REMAINING COMPETITIVE
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
'Same
Down
HOMES /BUS, /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes .
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB . AFF . STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Improved without Hurting
Competitiveness?
Agree
Strongly
4%
2%
• 5%
3%
6%
5%
0%
8%
0%
0%
4%
5% :
1%
8%
2%
5%
F
5%
4%
0%
2%
4%
3%
5%
Agree
Somewhat
27%
26%
26%
.30%
23%
34%
25%
26%
35%
22%
27%
28%
23%
34%
21% , •
33%
24%
28%
42%
17%
30%
27%
28%
Disagree
Somewhat
50%
49%
49%
53%
51%
: 47%
50%
\ ,
51% ..
46%
50%
52%
46%
1
i
'55%
41%
1 r , '
50%
49%
49%
52%
26%
55%
48%
52%
'47%: -
Disagree
Strongly
20%
23%
20%
15%
20%
13% v
25%
16%
19%'
2'8%
18%
22%
20%
' 16%
27%
13% '
22%
16%
32%
26%
17%
18%
20%
Sec.;VIII, Q.#l: A Study of Industry Response; to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 90:
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS HAVE IMPROVED FACILITY'S COMMUNITY IMAGE
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro.
# OF "EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS .CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Improved Community Image
Agree
Strongly
6%
4%
7%
8%
7%
8%
3%
11%
0%
2%
6%
6%
5%
8%
2%
9%
10%
6%
0%
5%
7%
'• 6%
7%
Agree
Somewhat
45%
48%
44%
. 45%
46%
. 49%
43%.
50%
43%
40%
49%
40%
43%
49%
51%
41%
52%
41%
63%
44%
46%
49%
43%
Disagree
Somewhat
35%
35%
37%
28%
35%
29%
38%
31%
33%
42%
33%
36%
35% ,
34%
34%
35%
23%
41%
21%
37%
34%
30%-
37%
Disagree'.
Strongly
14%
13%
12%
20%
12%
14%
15%
8%,
24%
16%
11%
18%
" 17%
8%
13%
14%
15%
13%
16%
14%
13%
15% •
13%
Sec VIII Q.#l: -A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 91: ;
EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPERFUND (CERCLA)
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery /Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less thcin 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
UP
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE .POL.
Ye ;
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Superfund (CERCLA) .
Very
Effective
5%
2%
6%
5%
2%
5%
8%
5%
4%
6%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%.
9%
3%
5%
10%
3%
6%
4%
Somewhat
Effective
35%
41%
32%
38%
33%
36%
34%
38%
33%
30%
37%
31%
29%
43%
30%
38%
38%
35%
26%
43%
33%
37%
32%
Not Very
Effective!
39%'
35%
42%i
31%j
39%
38%
39%,
39%
41%
34%;
, 38%
39%
42%i
34%
41% ,
37%
34%
40%
42%
36%
40%
38%
39%
Not
Effective
at All
21%
22%
20%-
26%
26%
20%
19%
18% ,
22%
30%
20%
25%
24%
18%
23%
22%
19%
22%
26%
12%
24%
19%
24%
Sec.VIII, Q.#2: A Study of Industry Responses to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public: affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 92:
EFFECTIVENESS OF SARA TITLE III
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
jess than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
SARA Title III
Very
Effective
17%
13%
15%
26%
11%
19%
22%
19%
13%
15% .
17%
16%
17%
15% :
13%
19%
27%
12%
21%
19%
16%
18%
15%
Somewhat
Effective
48%
53%
50%
36%
49%
53%
38%
51%
50%
38%
49%
46%
44%
54%
43%
51%
39%
53%
42%
44%
48%
43% -.
51%
Not Very
Effective
25%
25%
26%
26%
25%
20%
32%
21%
31%
29%
27%
23%
29%
19%
35%
18%
31%
23%
26%
28%
26%
28%
24%
Not
Effective
at All
10%
9%
10%
13%
14%
8%
8%
9%
6%
18%
8%
15%
9%
12%
9%
12%
3%.
13%
11%
9%
11%
11%
10%
Sec.VIII, Q.#2: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 93: <
EFFECTIVENESS OF RCRA (HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL LAW)
'•''•-. ' •
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petrol
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES / BUS ./REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ^ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
RCRA (Hazardous Waste Coiitrol Law) '
Very
Effective
19%
17%
20%
. 21%
16%
19%
- 25%
24%
19%
11% '
20%
18%
17$
22*
17%
20%
22%
19%
11%
26%
18%
18%
21%
Somewhat
Effective
.58%
58%
59%
.54% ,
60%
57%
55%
59%
, 55%
58%.
56%
60%
57%
60%
56%
59%
61%
57%
47%
56%
58%
58%
57%
Not Very
Effective
17%
21%!
15%
1 21%
16%
19%
.••17%
12%
23%
, 22%
18%
15%
21%
11% ;
19% ''".
16% •
12%
17%
37%
14%. ~
18% v
[
16%
18%;
Not
Effective
at All
6% ,
4%
.' 6%'; •
5%
9%
5%
3%.
5%
4%
9%
. ; 5%
8%
5%
7%
8%
5%
5%
7%
5%
5% "
- ' 6% .
8%
4%
Sec.VIII, Q.#2: A Study of Industry Response! to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public; affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 94:
EFFECTIVENESS OF CLEAN AIR ACT
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper'
Chemical
Refinery /Petro.
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Clean "Air Act
Very
Effective
8%
10%
8%
8%
6%
4%
16%
6%
6%
15%
9%
7%
9%
6%
9%
7%-
7%
6%
21%
14%
6%
10%
7%
Somewhat
Effective
60%
58%
56%
77%
53%
70%
59%
60%
69%
56%
60%
63%
60%
63%
61%
61%
66%
60%
53%
74%
59%
62%
60%
Not Very
Effective
25%
31%
27%
10%
30%
19%
23%
27%
20%
22%
26%
22%
'27%
20%
23%
25%
~. 24%
25%
21%
10%
27'%
23%
25%
•-, Not
Effective
at. All
6%
2% ,
9%
5%
.11%
7%
••' 2%
7%
6%
7%
6%
7%
4%
11%
8%
6%
3%
8%
•5%
2%
8%
5%
8%
Sec.VIII. Q.#2: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 95: |
EFFECTIVENESS OF CLEAN %WATER ACT
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro.
# OF 'EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF/ STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
• Clean Water Act
Very
Effective
13%
20%
11% .
' 13%
11%
8%
22%
11%
13%
19%
15%
10%
13%
13%
14%
12%
16%
11%
21%
19%
11%
16% ,,
11%
Somewhat
Effective
57%
51%
57%
67%
52%
, 64%
56%
61%
57%
50%
58%
56%
59%
54%
58%
57%
59,%
58%
47%
67%
56%
57%
. 57%
Not Very
Effective
23%
' |
24%
25%'
15% i
29%
18%
20%
22%'
22%' -
24%;
21%'
25%
22%
-245.:
21%
25%
21%
23%*
26%
- ; 124
25*
2-2% •.
23%
Not
Effective
at All
7%
6%
7%
5%
8%
10%
2%
6%
7%
7%,
6%
9%
6%
8%
' ' ! - •
8%
6% .
5% ,
8%
5%
2%
8%
5%
9%
Sec.VIII, Q.#2: 'A Study of industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental arid public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
: Table 96:
INCREASED OUR COMMUNITY INFORMATION ACTIVITIES
BECAUSE OF SARA TITLE III
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV, PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATI ONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Increased Community Information
Activities :
Agree
Strongly
5%
2%
5%
8%
0%
4%
11%
3%
4%
7%
5%
4%
7%
1%
8%
2%
9%
3%
5%
12%
3%
9%
1%
Agree
Somewhat
45%
43%
49%
34%
38%
47%
53%.
43%
50% ,
45%
51%
36%
47%
41%
52%
39%
64%
38%
. 37%
45%
45%
56%
35%
Disagree
Somewhat
33%
41%
27%
39%
34%
- 35%
25%
41%
20%
25%
29%
38%
31%
33%
26%
37%
22%
38%
26%
I
33%
32%
27%
37%
Disagree ,
Strongly
18%
15%
19%
18%
28%
14%
11%
13%
26%
22%
16%
23%
15%
24%
14%
22%
5%
21%
32%
10%
. , 20%
8%
28%
Sec.VIII, Q.#3: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 97 : I
FOCUS ON WORKER SAFETY BECAUSE OF SARA TITLE III
-•
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less' than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROS.
Yes
No'
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Worker Safety is More Important
Agree
Strongly
41%
43%
45%
29%
47%
45%
'30%
42%
43%
38%
41%
41%
38%
47%
30%
48% .
31%
43%
47%
, 27%
45%
35%
46%
Agree
Somewhat
37%
46%
30%
47%
37%
39%
38%
39% ."•
41%
36%
40%
36%
40%
35%
39%
38%
38%
40%
32% .
39%
37%
34%
42%
Disagree
Somewhat
12%
!
9% '
12%'
18*i
!
1 7% ' -
11%
21%
10%
11%
18%
12%
13%
" , 1
14%'
' 9* '•
20%!
7%
/•[
21%;
9%
ii%!
i i
• 20%
11%
1 ' ,
1
19%'
6%
Disagree
Strongly
9%
2%
13%
5%
9%
5%
11%
10%
6%
9% .
8%
9% . '
8%
9%
10%
8%
10%
8%
11%
15%
7%
12%
, '6%
Sec.VIII, Q.#3: A Study; of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 98: " . ' ,
CHANGED PRODUCTION PROCESSES BECAUSE OF,SARA TITLE III
Total Sample •
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less' than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Changed Production Processes
Agree
Strongly
14% ,-
19%
13%
13%
8%
22%
16%
16%
13%
14%
13%
18%
12%
19%
10%
18%
9%
17%
16%
5%
17%
14%
16%
Agree
Somewhat
41%
37%
46%
29%
50%
35%
38% .
41%
48%
38%
43%
40%
40%
44%
38%
45% '
45%
43%
32%
40%
42%
39%
43%
Disagree
Somewhat
27%
31%
22%
37%
20%
31%
30%
28%
24%
25%
29%
21%
30%
20%
36%
20% ,.
29%
26%
21%
43%
23%
29%
, 24%
_ — —
Disagree
Strongly
18%
13%
19% ,
. 21%
22%
12%
17%
16%
15%
23%
15%
21%
18%
16%
v 17%
18%
17%
.. 15%
32%
12%
19%
18%
17%
. . : —
Sec VIII Q #3- A Study ,of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 99:
MORE ATTENTIVE TO HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
BECAUSE OF SARA TITLE III
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp, & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OP EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No .'
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF., STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
More Attei
Agree
Strongly
46%
52%
, 44%
; 45%
47%
. "50%
42%
49%
46%
41%
44%'
51%
44%
50%
30%
58%
34%
53%
37%
38%
49%
43%
49%
itive to H«
Agree
Somewhat
38%
39%
36%
42%
38%
38%
36%
33%
39%
46%,
42% '
31%
39%
35%
50%
29%
47%
35%
32%
31%
38%
38%
38%
azardous S\
Disagree
Somewhat
10%
1 . •
4%
13%
8%
• i -
10%
8%
13%
, i
10%
, 11%
11%
9%
13*1
I
• 12%
8%
'12% ',
8% -.-
i
•1 '
12%
7%
21%"
i i
21«.
8%i
1
12%
9% , ;
ibstances
Disagree
Strongly
6%
6%
6%
5%.
5%
. 4%
9%
9%
, 4%
; 2%
6%
6%
5% "'
7%
8%
5%
7%
5%
11%
10%
5%
8%
4%
Sec.VIII, Q.#3: -A Study of .Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and,public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 100:
ELIMINATED USE OF SUBSTANCES BECAUSE OF SARA TITLE III
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# OF- EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes ,
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Eliminated Substances
Agree
Strongly
29%
37%
26%
29%
27%
31%
31%
32%
35%
18%
29%
31%>
28%
32%
20%
35%
19%
32% '
37%
29%
29%.
28%
30%
Agree
Somewhat
28%
33%
23%
34%
22%
31%
30%
27%
35%
21%
29%
26%
28%
26%
34%
22%
40%
25%
11%
31% •
27%
21%
33%
Disagree
Somewhat
22%
15%
27%
16%
27%
20%
20%
22%
13%
34%
24%
20%
23%
23%
27%
20%
22%
22%
32%
24%
23%
26%
20%
Disagree
Strongly
21%
15%
24%
21%
24%
18%
19%
19%
17%
27%
19%
24%
21%
19%
19%
22%
19%
21%
21%
17%
21%
24%
18%
Sec.VIII, Q.#3: -A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 101: , .-'{ •
REDUCED USE OF SUBSTANCES BECAUSE OF SARA TITLE III
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up>
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Reduced Use of Substances
Agree
Strongly
30%
39%
26%
32%
26%
35%
35%
37% -••
31%
20%,
33%
28%
29%
34%
27%
35%
28%
30%
53%
39%
29%
" 28%
34%
Agree
Somewhat
36%
46%
32%
38%
35%
34%
40%
37%
41%
' 31%
40%
31%
38%
33%
35%
35%
35%
39%
11%
34%
37%
32%
38%
Disagaree
Somewhat
17%
6%
23%
11%
16%
19%
14%
14%
11% , •
27%
13%
22%
. 17%
16%
1- •
21%'
14%
18%'
16%
21%;
. 17%
.16%
21*f
13%;
Disagree
Strongly
17%
9%
:i9%
19%
23%
12%
11%
13%
17%
22% /-
, 14% ,
19%
•15% •
17%
17%
16%
19%
15%
16%
10%
18%
19%
14%
Sec.VIII, Q<#3: -A Study of Industry Response! to SARA Title III,
A survey of facility environmental and public!'affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 102:
INCREASED MEDIA INTEREST BECAUSE 'OF SARA TITLE III
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF EMPLOYEES
jess than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
• Increased Media Interest
Agree
Strongly
8%
9%
7%
8%
1%
7%
17V
6%
11%
7%
7%
8% .
12%
1%
14%
2%
17%
3%
5%
19%
5%
12%
4%
Agree
Somewhat
21%
20%
22% .
16%
15%
26%
25%
17%
28%
23%
24%
18%
26%
14%
32%
13%
• 36%
15%
21%
29%
19% '
30%
13%
Disagree
Somewhat
42%
46%
38%
47%
38%
45%
41%
46%
37%
36%
41%
41%
41%
42%
' 36%
46%
34%
46%
37%
33%
44%
41%
42%
Disagree;
Strongly
30%
24%
33%
29%
45%
23%
17%
30%
24%
34%
28%
33%
. 21%
43%
18%
39%
12%
36%
37%
19%
32%
17%'
41%
Sec.VIII, Q.#3: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 103: ',..''
INCREASED ACTIVIST INTEREST BECAUSE OF SARA. TITLE III
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper -.
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF. EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up '
Same
Down
HOMES/BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
N~
P TB . ENV . PROS .
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Environmental Activists! Interest
Agree
Strongly
8%
J 13%
6%
8%
1%
8%
16%
5% ,
7%
13%
7%
8%
12%
1%
16%
1%
17%
2% -
11%
19%
5%
13%
3%
Agree
Somewhat
20%
20%
20%
18%
12%
22%
30%
19%
28%
14%
21%
18%
28%
7%
29%
^4%
.36%
12%
32%
33%
17%
', 30%
12%
Disagree
Somewhat
44%
! "
41%:
44%
47% j
43%
47%:
41%!
48%
43%
38%:
i
45%;
42%
37%j
. 55%|
| .
i 38%
48%
j
34%
51%:
26%
i •
36%
45%
44%
43%:
Disagree
Strongly
28%
26%
30%
26%
' 44%
23%
14%
28%
22%
36%
26%
32%
23%
38%
18%
37%
12%
35%
32%
,12%
33%
14%
42%
Sec.VIII, Q.#3: A Study of Industry Response! to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed resspondents.
-------
Table 104:
PUBLIC HAS BEEN APATHETIC TO SARA TITLE III
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF- EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No - • '•
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB . APF . STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Public Apathy
Agree
Strongly
33%
24%
36%
35%
42%
28%
25%
33%
26%
39%
33%
32% „
34%
31%
40%
28%
28%
34%
42%
21%
35%
31%
34%
Agree
Somewhat
46%
56%
44%
41%
38%
51%
52%
47%
50%
43%
45%
49%
46%
48%
40%
51%
43%
50%
32%
50%
46%
49%
45%
Disagree
Somewhat
13% :
15%
11%
14%
9%
15%
13%
12%
15%
11%
13%
11%
14%
9%
11% .
13%
21%
- 10%
0%
14%
11%
13%
12%
Disagree
Strongly
8%
6%
9%
11%
11%
5%
10%
9%
9%
7%
9%
8%
7%
11% •
9%
9%
,9%
6%
26%
14%
,7%
7%
10%
Sec.VIII. Q.#3: -A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 105: ;
PERCENTAGE OF OPERATING COSTS SPENT COMMUNICATING WITH PUBLIC
• • '• •
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# OF 'EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down '• ,
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes '., ;
No •
PUB. ENV. PROB.'
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
% of ,Operl Costs Spent on Communication
Less than
.5%
87% .
88%
87%
86%
95%
83%
82%
84%
94%
88%
85%
91%
88%
8 €.« ,
88%
86%
, 80%
90%
83%
83%
88%
82%
• 92%.
,5% to 1%
9%
10%
' 10%
6%
4%
11%
13% .
12%
4%
8%
, 12%
4%
' 9i
8%
10%
.8%.
14% ;
6%
17%
15%
8%
11%
7%
1% to '2%;
2%
0%,
2%
• 6%| .
1%
4%
2%
i
3%
2%
2%
1%
4%
1%
5%
' ' f- '-
0%
. '4%;'"-'.
2^
3%
.°v
0%
3% "
4%
1%
More than
2%
1%
2%
v 1%
3%
0%
1%
3%
2%
0%
2%
.1%"
1%
2%
IV
- 1%
2%
4%
1%
0%
t ' >
3%
.1%
3%
0%
Sec:VIII, Q.#4: 'A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public: affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table, 106:
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AT FACILITY
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Pet'ro .
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down ,
HOMES/BUS . /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFP. STAFF
Yes •
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Number of . Employees
Less than
50
38%
9%
50%
41%
38%
33%
43% -
36%
41%
28%
54%
25%
47%
18%
43%
58%
9%
44%
24%
50%
1 to 200
32%
33%' .
32%
31%
38%
31% • .
27%
33%
34%
33%
34%
37%
32%
35%
35%
. 21%.
7%
41%
, 33%
34% ,
More than
200
36%
57%
18%
28%
25%
35%
30%
31%
25%
39%
.11% •
38%
22%
47%
22%
21%
84%
15%
43%
16%
Sec.X, Q.-#2: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Tit 1? Ill
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs .officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 107: | '•
CHANGE IN FACILITY'S BUSINESS IN LASTiFIVE YEARS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# of EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased •
Same
Decreased
PUB . AFF . STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
52%
43%
57%
53%
(. '
51%
58%
45%
55%
46%
50%
53%
49%
53%
45%
56%
42%
49%
54%
53%
52%
Same
24%
28%
21%
25%
21%
22%
29%
27%
19%
27%
18%
26%
23%
35%
21%
11%,
28%
. 22%
25%
22%
Down
f 24% •
30%
/- 22%
.23%
28% .
!• 20%
26%
18%
35%
22%
28%
25% .
24%
20%
23%
47.%
. 23% -
: 24% ,
22%
.27%
Sec.X, Q.#3: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public1 affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 108: •
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED IN PAST FIVE YEARS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper .
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# of EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Specific Environmental Problems
Notice of
Violation
47%
52%
42%
55%
32%
50%
59%
' 43%
45%
54%
50%
39%
55%
32%
70%
29%
68%
36%
53%
57%
43%
52%
41%
Reportable
Haz . Waste
Spill
24%
17%
,26%
25%
18%
19%
38%
25%
23%
22% _.
26%
19%
28%
15%
38%
13%
35%
18%
32%
38%
20%
32%
17%
Difficulty
Obtaining
Permits
23%
27%
18%
30%
14%
14%
44%
21% .
25%
22%
24%
19%
28% -'
14%
39%
10%
40%
14%
32%
40%
18%
30%
16%
Reportable
Air Toxics
Release
20%
31%
14%
25%
7%
14%
44%
19%
. 19%
22%
26%
10%,
29%
5%
-
36%
8%
35%
12%
32%
48%
13%
31%
10%
i
Implement i
RCRA ]
Correct ive j
Action i
i
13%
8%
14%
18%
8%
7%
28%
16%
9%
11%
11%
17%
18%
6% '
24%
i
'6%'' ;
i-
23% '
I
9%
' 1.1* j
i
29% i
10% .
L -
1
21% i
7% '
Sec.X, Q.#4: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents; multiple responses.
(continued)
-------
Table 108: [ ,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED IN PAST FIVE YEARS
L - t '
.'<•'•'
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
.# of EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
UP
Same
Down -
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 .feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC, INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATI ONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Specific Environmental Problems
Finding
TSD
Facility
13% ,
0%
• 14%
28%
9%
15%
16%
11%
19%
11%
s ' ^
15% ;
10%
15%
9%
20%
9%
23%
8%
21%
14%
12%
17%
10%
Designated
Superfund
Site
3%
2%
2%
8%
1%
4%
6%
3%
6%
2%
5%
1%
5%
1%
5%
.2%
5%
. 2%
11%
" '•• 5% «
3%
3%
4%
None of
These
39%
35%
42%
33%
55%
36%
20%
41%
36%
37%
32%
51%
29%
55%
12%
57%
17%
49%
21%
21%
43%
29% •-
46%
Sec.X, Q.#4: A Study of Industry Response to SARA,Title III
A survey of facility environmental and publiic affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents; multiple responses.
-------
Table 109: .
FACILITY TRACKS TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTES
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# of EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES/BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB . ENV . PROB .
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Facility Tracks
Toxic Substances
and Wastes
Yes
70%
72%
68%
74%
49%
86%
82%
74%
70%
65%
72%
69%
72%
69%
78%
66%
77%
70%
67%
86%
68% .
73%
70%
No
30%
28%
32%
26%
51%
'. 14%
18%
26%
30%
35%
28%
31%
28%
31%
22%
34%
23%
30%
33%
14%
32%
27%
30%
Sec.X, Q.#5: A-Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
• ' ' • . ' . 1 . .
Table 110: I
FACILITY HAS WRITTEN POLICY SUPPORTING WJASTE REDUCTION
,t
/
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Pet ro .
# of EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /.REC
Within 500 feet
Npt Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROS.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Written Waste;
Reduction Policy
Yes
73%
61%
79%
. U73%
67%
78%
77%
78%
72%
65%
70%
79% :
74%
72%
75%
74%
82%
71%
79% N
77%
72%
76%
71%
No I
27%
1
39%
21%
28%
33%
22%
23%
r
22%
28%
35%!
30%
21%
26%
28%
i.
i
255k
26%
I
'!
18%
, 29%
21%
23%
28%
24%
29%
"
Sec.X, Q.#6: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 111:
FACILITY HAS A PARENT COMPANY
•
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# of EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROS.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATI ONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Facility Has Parent
Company
Yes
67%
76%
63%
68%
44%
72%
91%
68%
72%
61%
71%
61%
80%
47%
83%
„ 57%
87%
61%
68%
88%
63%
79%
58%
No
33%
24%
37%
33%
56%
28%
9%
32%
28%
39%
29%
39%
20%
53%
17%
43%
13%
39%
32%
12% ,
37%
21%
43%
Sec X Q #7: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 112:
DEVELOPMENT OF WASTE MINIMIZATION
POLICIES
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# of EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No ,
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF, STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Developed
at Parent
19%
27%
18%
13%
16%
22%
20%
23%
19%
11%.
20%
19%
25%
• 11%
23%
18%
32%
16%
17%
19%
19%
24%
16%
Developmer
Developed
on Site
33%
33%
32%
35%
20%
41%
40%
32%
38%
31%
31%
36%
35%
29%
41%
27%
38%
32%
28%
40%
32%
37%
30%
it of Waste
Developed
at Both
8%
4%
7%
. . 15%
2%
3%
20%
5 %
8%
13%
10%
4%
11%
2%
11%
5%
12%
6%
11%
19%
5%
11%
4%
s Policies
Don't
Have
Policy
7%
12%
6%
5%
5%
5%
11%
7%
8%
5%
9%
2%
8%
4%
8%
5%
'5%
6%
,11%
12% , .
6%
7%
7% -,
No Parent
33%
25%
38%
,33%
56%
29%
9%
33%
28%
40%
30%
39%
21%
53%
17% •
44%
-13%
40%
33%
12%
38%
2.1%
43%
Sec.X, Q. #8: A Study of Industry Response
A1 survey of facility environmental and public
Percentages based on all surveyed re
to SARA Title III
affairs officers
spondents.
-------
Table 113:
SPECIFIC WASTE REDUCTION GOALS
AS PART OF WASTE MINIMIZATION POLICY
*
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery/Petro.
# of EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes •
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
T"\af T-^a G*»d
Specific Waste Reduction Goals
Yes
52%
50%
57%
38%
44%
53%
63%
50%
61%
48%
51%
54%
55%
47%
55%
53%
60%
53%
42%
No
38%
35%
35%
53%
44%
39%
26%
42%
28%
39%
36%
40%
34%
44%
35%
38%
35%
36%
47%
No Answer/
Don't Know
10%
15%
8%
10%
12%
8%
11%
8%
11% -
13%
13% ,
6%
11%
9"
10%
9% ,
5%
• 11%
11%
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
60%
53%
42%
67%
49%
55%
51%
35%
36%
47%
19%
43%
37%
38%
5%
• 11%
11%
14%
8%
8%
11%
Sec X Q #9- A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 114: j
PUBLICIZED WASTE REDUCTION GOALS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
t of EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down .
HOMES/BUS . /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near,
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF, STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Publicized Waste Reduction Goals
Yes
17%
11%
22%
10%
7%
18%
28%
17%
15%
16%
15%
19%
16%
16%
21%
14% '
29%
14%:
5%
33%
12%
25%
9%
NO
34%
38%
34%
28%
36%
34%
35%
32%
44%
32%
36%
34%
39%
29%
34%
38%
31% ,
39%
37%
33%
36%
29%
41%
No Goals
38%
36%
36%
53fe
45%
41% .
26%
''" 42% '
29%
39%
371
41%
'•34%
45%
36%
39%
36%
36%
47%
19%
44%
38%
39%
No Answer
10%
15%
8%
10%
12%
8%
11%
9%
12%
13%
13%
6%
'.'• 11%
9%
10%
9%
5%
11%
11%
14%
8%
9%
11%
Sec.X, Q.#10: A. Study of Industry Response! to SARA Title III
A survey -of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all those whose waste policy
includes specific reduction goals.
-------
Table 115:
PERCENTAGE OF OPERATING COSTS — POLLUTION CONTROL COSTS
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# of EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Percentage of Operations Costs Spent on Pollution
Control
Less than
1%
25%
22%
23%
38%
41%
20%
12%
26%
24%
, 25%
29%
20%
18%
38%
19%
30%
20%
29%
11%
14%
28%
23%
28%
1% to 3%
38%
35%
40%
33% .
31%
41%
40%
40%
30%
39%
34%
42%
37%
37%
33%
40%
30%
38%
58%
44%
36%
32%
42%
4% to 5%
12%
15%
13%
3%
6%
17%
14%
13%
15%
7%
10%
14%
' 14%
8%
13%
11%
13%
11%
16%
9%
.13%
13%
,11%
More than
5%
14%
13%
13%
20%
9%
11%
25%
ii%
20%
14% .
15%
13%
19%
7%
25%
6%
27%
10% l
5%
26%
12%
21%
8%
No ,
Answer/
Don ' t
Know
11%
15%
10%
8%
13%'
12%
9%
10%
- 11%
14%
12%
11%
12%
10%
10%
12%
10%
12% ,
11%
7%
1 12%
11%
11%
Sec.X, Q.#ll: A- Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 116:
LOCAL FACILITIES WITHIN 500 FEET OF PLANT
• ' . • , . - - - - - , ••' • • ' • <• ' ' •
• •
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
#. of EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
UP '
Same
Down
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNI CATI ONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Specific Facility
Homes or
Apartments
40%
48%
36%
43% ,
31%
1 45% .
49%
42%
,44%
36%
50%
26%
51%
34% '-
52%
38%
37%
56%
38%
41%
42%
Office
Buildings
•29%
24%
31%
30%
34%
30%
22%
34%
30%.
20%
28%
33%
33%
27%
30%
29%
32%
23%
31%
25%
34%
Wildlife,
Wetlands
or Nature
Preserves
19%
26%
17%
20%
13%
17%
34%
18%
24%
21%
29%
6%
27%
15%
23%
18%"
26%
33%
17%
23%
18%
Parks or
Recreation
Areas
14%
22%
11%
10%
f
5%
13%
26%
16%
15%
7%
17%
7%
17%
11%
22%
11%
, V5%
26%
11%
17%
11%
Schools or
Day Care
..5%
6%
-6%
5%
3%
3%
11%
5%
4%
7%
8%
1%
8%
4%
8%
4%
, 5%
12%
4%
4%
7%
Rows sum to more than 100% due to multiple responses.
Sec.IX, Q.#l: A Study of Industry Response!to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
I, (continued)
-------
Table 116:
LOCAL FACILITIES WITHIN 500 FEET OF PLANT
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# of EMPLOYEES
jess than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased - ,
Same/Decreased
Specific Facility
Hospitals
or Nursing
Homes
1%
4%
0%
0%
o*
1%
2%
2%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
1% •
2%
1%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%'
None of
These
38%
39%
38%
35%
41%
38%
32%
33%
, 30%
54%
31%
47%
27%
44%
30%
39%
37%
30%
38%
39%
36%
Rows sum to more than 100% due to multiple responses.
Sec.IX, Q.#l-: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 117: !
VISIBLE ASPECTS OF PRODUCTION
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Pe-tro .
# of EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REG
Within 500 feet
Not Near
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Aspects of Production
Odors
40%
54%
32%
50%
30%
34%
63%
. 37%
50%
39%
45%
33%
59%.
27% .
63%
31%
37%
69%
33%
50%
33%
Plumes
from
Smoke-
stacks
30%
46%
21%
35%
10%
25%
. 58%
26%
33%
29%
35%
18%
49%
14%
<
50%
19%
32%
67%
. 19%
42%
17%
Trucks to
and from
Facility
26%
39%
15%
45%
19%
25%
41%
27%
26%
27%
34%.
15%
28%
26%
r 33%
25%
21%
43%
23%
30%
24%
Visible
Water
Discharge
\ 13%
! •' 31%
6%
! 13%
3%
! 12%
! 28%
7%
26%
14%
14%
12% ,
20%
8%
23%
9%
H.%
31%
9%
18%
' 9%
Visible
Flares
Burning
11%
0%
8%
35%
1%
8%
27%
I
10%
15%
7%
10% j
11%
1
. - 1
18%
5%
23%
5%
16%
31%
6%
;
i
17%
5%
Rows sum to more than 100% due to multiple responses.
Sec.IX, Q.#2: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public: affairs officers. -
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
i (continued)
-------
Table 117:
VISIBLE ASPECTS OF PRODUCTION
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & , Paper
Chemical
Ref inery/Petro .
# of EMPLOYEES
jess than 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC
Within 500 feet
Not Near-
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Aspects of
Production
None of
These
39%
22%
47%
35%
55%
39%
16%
40%
30%
45%.
33%
49%
23%
50%
15%
47%
47%
12%
44%
30%
46%
Rows sum to more than 100% due to multiple responses.
Sec.IX, Q.#2: A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey'of facility environmental and public affairs officers,
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 118:
POLLUTION REDUCTION BY COMMUNICATION
ACTIVITIES
Total Sample
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# of EMPLOYEES
Less than 50
51 to 200
More than 200 ,
COMM. INFO.
PROGRAM
Yes
No
EMPLOYEE COMM.
TRAINING
Yes
No
PUBLICIZED »
REDUCTION
GOALS
Yes
No
No Goals
PUB. ENV. PROS.
Yes
No "
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB. AFF. STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS -
Increased
Same/Decreased
Index of Pollution Reduction
Reduced
No
Measures
6%
4%
7%
8%
13%
5%
0%
1%
9%
1%
9%
0%
1%
10%
3%
8% ,
0%
9%
5%
2%
7%
2%
10%
Reduced
on One
Measure
12%
13%
13%
5%
14%
13%
6%
10%
13%
8%
13%
5%
11%
13%
. • •
11%
11%
10%
13%
5%
5%
13%
11%
12%
Two
Measures
24%
24%
22%
30%
21%
24% .
26%
20%
24%
. 27%
21%
16%
23%
, 28%
27%
21%
J
25%
23% '
16%
.33%
21%
21%
26%
Three
Measures
•
24%
22%
24%
30%
22%
30%
23%
i
28%
24%
22%
28%
30%
33%
20%
31%
21% i
• 18%
27%
37%
,
, 21%
27%
28% ••
23%
Four
Measures
18%
26%
14%
18%
10%
18%
26%
27%
13%
26%
13%
"
27%
13%
17%
17%
, 18%
23%
15%
21%
28%
16%
24%
12%
Reduced
all Five
Measures
16%
11%
20% '
10%
20%
9%
18%
14%
17%
16%
16%
22%
".9% .
12%
11% .
20% -
23%
13%
16%
12%
16% -
14%
17%
Index based on number of positive responses on:
Reducing/eliminating wastes/TRI releases, or reducing stored chemicals,
A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title .III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers.
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Table 119:
DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE "SURVEY SAMPLE
INDUSTRY
Pulp & Paper
Chemical
Refinery /Petro .
# of EMPLOYEES
jess than. 50
51 to 200
More than 200
BUSINESS CHANGE
Up
Same
Down
HOMES /BUS. /REC.
Within 500 feet
Not Near
VISIBLE POL.
Yes
No
PUB. ENV. PROB.
Yes
No
PUBLIC INTEREST
Increased
Same
Decreased
PUB . AFF . STAFF
Yes
No
COMMUNICATIONS
Increased
Same/Decreased
Total
Sample
N - 229
24%
58%
18%
38%
32%
30%
52%
24%
24%
62%
38%
61%
39%
42%
58%
27%
64%
9%
19%
81%
47%
53%
A Study of Industry Response to SARA Title III
A survey of facility environmental and public affairs officers
Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
-------
Appendix C; Questionnaire
Columbia University Center for Risk Communication
Page 207
-------
-------
SECTION I. HAZARDOUS RELEASES A^D TOXIC RELEASES
We are interested in learning about your facility's programs to reduce tide generation of
hazardous wastes (sometimes called RCRA wastes) and to reduce your Toxic Release Inventory
releases (sometimes called TRI or SARA 313 releases) to the environment.
1-1. Thinking first about hazardous wastes, is this facility currently generating more, about the same,
or less hazardous waste in .1991 than it did five years ago? ,
More waste in 1991 than before
About the same amount in 1991 as before
Less waste in 1991 than before
Missing: 9
16
20
64
1-2. Now, think about the amount of waste generated per unit of product.
of hazardous waste divided by your total production.
How has the waste per unit of production changed over the past five years?
may be difficult for you to determine, so just give your best estimate.
This is the total amount
We realize that this
More waste per unit of product in 1991 than before
About the same per unit of product in 1991 as before
Less waste per unit of product in 1991 than before
Missing: 10
4
21
75
The next questions talk about your TRI releases. These are the releases you would report on
the Federal SARA 313 Toxic Release Inventory.
\ releases
1-3. Thinking about your TRI releases, has the total amount of these
years? Did you release more, about the same, or less, of the TRI substances
before?
changed in the last five
in 1991 than you did
More released in 1991 than five years before
About the same amount as five years before
Less released in 1991 than five years before
Missing: 5
15,
27
59
-------
1-4. Now, think about your TRI releases per unit of product over the last five years. How do you
think that your releases per unit of production have changed? This may be difficult for your to
determine, so just make your best estimate.
More released per unit of product in 1991 than five years before
About the same amount per unit of product in 1991 as five years before
Less released per unit of produce in 1991 than five years before
Missing: 5
1
32
67
1-5. Firms have mentioned a number of different ways that they have reduced or stabilized the
quantities of hazardous wastes that they generate and/or TRI releases. Which of the following, if
any, has your firm used to reduce the amount of your hazardous wastes or toxic releases.
Changed materials usedj replaced a toxic or hazardous substance with one that is
less toxic or non-toxic. An example is substituting a water-based paint for a
solvent-based paint in an auto body shop.
Changed the products made in order to reduce the toxic and hazardous waste
generated.
Changed the production processes in order to reduce the toxic and hazardous
waste generated.
Changed housekeeping practices in order to reduce the toxic and hazardous
substances released. For example, eliminating leaks, improving inventory control,
improving the way the facility operates and maintains equipment.
V ,-'•'-
We have not been able to reduce our wastes or releases.
Missing: 10 "'
65
25
58
77
4
-------
1-6. Here are some reasons why your firm may have decided to try to reduce the volume of
hazardous wastes generated or TRI releases. Please tell us how important jsaclti of the following were
for your firm. ,
To improve profitability
To protect employee health
To reduce risk to community
To reduce paperwork required
for reporting
To meet state/federal regulations
To reduce liability
To comply with company
policy to prevent pollution
To improve relations with
the community
Missing: 8
Very
Important
42
68
54
16
62
54
48
36
Somewhat Not Very
Important Imponjant
40
24 .
33
29
26
33
39
38
12
6
10
H
42
7
11
10
20
Not at All
Important
2
3
13
5
2
SECTION II.
HAZARDOUS WASTE NO LONGER GENERATED OR TRI SUBSTANCES NO LONGER
RELEASED. !
"[
\ - |
(1-1.. Thinking first about your hazardous wastes, are there any typies of hazardous waste
which your facility had in the five years prior to 1991 that you have COMPLETELY
ELIMINATED and did not generate in 1991? i
Yes, we have eliminated one or more wastes
No, we have not eliminated any wastes.
Missing:?
53
47
-------
,-2 Thinking now about your TRI substances, are there any TRI substances which the
acility had in the five years prior to 1991 that you have COMPLETELY ELIMINATED and
iid not release in 1991? _ . . ;---
Yes, we have eliminated TRI substance(s)
No, we have not eliminated any TRI substances.
Missing: 5
40
60
n-3. Thinking of the hazardous wastes and TRI releases the firm has eliminated, how important were
the following as reasons for eliminating the waste and/or release? '
Very Somewhat Not very Not at all; NoAns/
Important Important Important Important DK
We no longer make •
the product we used
that substance for
We use a different
formula to make the
same product
To reduce treatment
costs
To reduce employee
health risks
To reduce .japer work
required for reporting
To reduce liability
To improve community
relations
To meet state/EPA
regulations
To comply with company
policy to prevent
pollution
Missing: 81
26
31
20
55
11
41
25
50
43
11
14
31
28
28
35
39
25
34
11
10
19
34
12
18
14
13
50
41
28
23
10
15
13
9.
4
2
-------
and
Thinking about the specific hazardous wastes you generate
still release, we'd like to have you answer some
companies have for not being able to reduce or further reduce
toxic releases.
TRI substances you
questions about the reasons that
hazardous wastes or
11-4. The following list contains reasons some firms give for not
arid/or toxic substance releases. Please indicate how important
being able to further reduce hazardous wastes or toxic releases at
reducing hazardous waste
each reason is to not
your facility.
Very Somewhat Not very
Important Important Important
Cost savings too small
Missing: 10
Substitutes unavailable
Missing: 10
Substitutes too costly
Missing: 10
Waiting until time to retire
existing equipment
Missing: 11
Product quality may
decline if we change
Missing: 10
Not sure things we have
heard about will work here
Missing: 11
12
70
24
50
15
39
23
40
19
29
33
31
Not at all
Important
18
24
36
10
34
12
42
11
19
Are there any other things keeping the firm from reducing its hazardous wastes
-------
SECTION IV. Actions Your Facility May Have Taken to Prevent Hazardous Releases
or Spills.
Here is a list of actions some facilities have taken to reduce the chances of spills or
releases of hazardous substances or wastes at their facility. Has your firm done any of
these things in the last five years?
IV-1 . Built or added to your containment measures such as dikes, berms, etc. in the past
five years? -
Yes, we have added these measures
No, we do not need these at our facility
No, our containment measures were already adequate
Missing: 4 .
78
5
17
lV-2. Instituted or added monitoring devices such as perimeter monitoring at the fenceline
to detect releases or ambient levels?
Yes, we have instituted or added to these devices
No, we do not need these devices at our facility
No, these devices were already adequate 5 years ago
Missing: 5 .
29
63
9
lV-3. Installed additional process controls to reduce hazardous wastes generated and/or
TRI releases to the water or air?
Yes, we have instituted or aCded to these controls
No, these controls were already adequate five years ago
Missing: 7
IV-4. Reduced the amount of chemicals that you store at your facility?
Yes
No .
Missing: 3 •
70
30
56
44
-------
IV-5. Here are some statements about toxic and hazardous substance management. How
strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
If we reduce our waste now, it
could hurt us later if EPA issued
required goals for percentage
waste reductions
Missing: 2
We manage some non-hazardous
wastes as hazardous to avoid
future liability risks
Missing: 3 . . .
Agree
Strongly
10
Agree
Somewhat
48
Disagree Disagree
Somewhat Strongly
26
16
27
45
14
14
Unless required by regulations, it is
hard to persuade management to invest
in waste-minimizing innovations 8
Missing: 2
25
33
35
IV-6. Please tell us how often, if at all, your facility does any of the following kinds of
activities.
Almost
Always
Include waste and releases reduction
considerations in the design of new or
modified products or processes. 63
Evaluate worker health risks prior to
purchase/use of new materials.
79
Measure annually your reductions in
hazardous waste generation and toxic
releases. 73
Missing: 3
Some-
times
33
18
16
Hardly
Ever
Never
10"
-------
SECTION V.
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC ABOUT HAZARDOUS WASTES AND TRI
SUBSTANCES AND RELEASES
In this next section we would like to have you think about communications with the
public about your facility's hazardous waste generation and toxic release activities.
[We realize that there may be several groups in your facility that deal with the public
and that some of these questions may be difficult for you to answer. Please
respond as best you can to each of the following questions.)
V-1 . Do you have a program for providing information to the community about plant
operations and environmental issues at this facility?
Yes, we have an active community relations. program
No, we have no special program of .public communication
No answer/don't know
Missing: 3
36
64
V-2. In the past five years would you say your facility's efforts to communicate with the
community have increased, decreased or stayed about the same.
Our efforts to communicate have increased
Our efforts to communicate have stayed about the same
Our efforts to communicate have decreased
Missing: 2 .
47
52
1
V-3. Thinking about the past year, which, if any, of the following kinds of activities has
your firm engaged in to communicate with the public?
Have you: , .
Organized "focus groups"
Done a public opinion survey
Held "town meetings' with the public
Held meetings with community leaders
Run advertisements in newspapers, magazines or on TV
Circulated newsletters •
Formed community advisory groups
Invited the public to an open house or plant tour
Maintained a telephone "hotline"
Our facility has not done any of these kinds of programs
Missing: 13
Yes
8
7
11
36
19
12
12
32
17
43
-------
Are there any other kinds of communication or outreach programs
implemented in the past year that you feel have been particularly effective?
describe them.
your facility has
? Please briefly
V-4. Which of the programs that your facility has implemented do you feel have been most
effective in communicating with the public?
1. .
Most effective program
/
2. :
Next most effective program
3. .
Third most effective program
-------
V-5. Here is a list of reasons facilities have given for having programs of communication
with the public. How important would you say each of the following factors are in
influencing your firm's decision to invest in a public outreach/risk communication program.''
Very
Important
Somewhat Not very
Important Important
Not at all
Important
NA
The cost of communication with the
public is small given the benefit
of improved relations with the
community.
Missing: 25
Increased public scrutiny of company
operations has resulted in our facility
increasing our community outreach
activities.
Publicity about past environmental
problems at our facility resulted
in media and environmental group
attention to our TRI release reports.
Above 2 Missing: 26
Communication programs help to
increase our credibility with the
community.
Communication programs help "turn
around" perceptions about past
environmental problems and promote
good will with the community.
Communication efforts will lessen
public demand for more stringent
environmental regulations.
31
37
17
4 1.1
12
28
31
15 14
17
29
35 14
33
43
8
4 13
26
12
44
31
11
33
4 14
12 13
Communication about safety practices
and emergency planning has made the
public more frightened thari they
should be. 15
Above 4 Missing: 25
29
32
13- 12
-------
V-6. Since 1987 how frequently, if ever, did you provide the following information to the
public without any specific requests? .. .
Frequently
Information about plant operations 19
SARA Title III reporting forms 18
Facility accident/incident history 11
General chemical toxicity information (MSDS.etc.) 28
"What to do" in the event of an emergency at the plant 20
Report on environmental problems or risks at the plant
site to public health or the environment 8
Report on facility efforts to reduce risk to public
health or environment 13
Seldom
40
24
25
30
34
34
35
Were there any other kinds of environmental information that you provided without specific
public requests for it? Please list them.
V-7. Which, if any, of the following groups are targets for your publ
programs? '
Government officials
Community leaders
Emergency responders
The media
Environmental activists
Health professionals
Educators
The general public
Our information programs are not targeted.
Missing: 18
(Please go to question 9.)
Are there any other groups that are targets for your public informal ion programs?
Never
41
59
64
42
46
58
52
ic information
Yes
;/53
51
67
27
12
32
17
37
21
-------
V-8. In thinking about the people with whom your facility communicates, whom do you
consider are the most important audiences for targeting information about your facility?
1.. '
Most important group
2, - ••-'
Next most important group
3.. __
Third most important group
V-9. Does your industry trade association encourage or support your efforts to
communicate with the public, e.g. CMA's Responsible Care?
Yes
No
Missing: 15
76
24
V-10. Which, if any, of the following does your industry trade group provide you with?
Training materials for employees
Materials for the public
Media support
Information clearinghouses with other companies
No help
No answer
Missing: 82
Do they provide any other kinds of support? Please Ijst them.
Yes
48
39
35
28
24
14
V-11. Have programs or materials provided through your trade association helped in
developing and implementing a community outreach program at your facility?
Yes
No
No help
Missing: 59
30
46
24
-------
- • • , - • • ' • " ' -•':•..'.'•
SECTION VI
COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO FACILITY OPERATIONS
In this next section we would like to ask some questions aboul how the community
responds to this facility.
VI-1 . During the past several years would you say public or media concern and interest in
your facility have increased, stayed about the same, or decreased*!
> Interest has increased
Interest has stayed about the same
2 Interest has decreased
Missing:?
27
64
8 '
VI-2. Has your facility experienced any environmental problems or incidents that have
received public or media attention during the past several years?
Yes
No, there have been none that I know of
(Please go to question 4.)
Missing: 5
•
42
58
VI-3. Briefly describe the incident(s) or problem(s).
'
VI-4. Do you think that publicity about the chemicals or hazardous substances used at
your plant such as in normal production processes would cause undue community alarm?
Yes
No
Missing:?
39
61
Vl-5. Over the past few years, has any community or activist group publicly admired
environmental practices at your facility?
Yes
No
please specify
-Missing: 8
81
19
-------
Yes
No
Missing: 3
21
79
VI-6. Over the past few years, has any community or activist group publicly targeted
VI-7. Over the past several years would you say that such requests from the public have
Increased, stayed the same, or decreased?
The number of requests has increased
The number of requests has stayed about the same
The number of requests has decreased
Missing: 15
17
73
11
VI-8. In the past year, how often, if at all, have any of the following groups of people
requested information about your facility's wastes and releases?
Never 1-3 4-8 9 or more
times times times
The media
Health professionals
Environmental activists
Community leaders
Educators
Emergency responders
Individual citizens
Missing: 7
69
73
78
68
81
40
68
22
21
14
25
14
49
22
6
5
6
4
3
8
6
4
1
2
2
2
3
5
Have any other groups of people requested information? Please list them and tell us how
often they have requested information.
About how many times?.
Group
Group
About how many times?.
-------
In a previous section, we asked a question about whether you
information to the public without being asked for it. In this
interested in whether the public has asked for information whic
had provided
question we are
h you then provided.
VI-9. Over the last five years please indicate how often, if ever, the
that your facility provide each of the following types of information.
public has requested
SARA Title III reporting forms
Missing: 8
Facility accident/incident history'
Missing: 9
General toxicity info./MSDS, etc.
Missing: 8
"What to do" in an emergency
Missing: 8
Reports on facility's efforts to reduce risk
to public health or environment
Missing: 8 '
Emergency response plans
Missing: 8
Frequently Seldom
3 19
2 14
11
28
24
Never
78
84
61
71
3
15
32
82
62
Has the public requested any other kinds of environmental informal ion? Please list them
-------
SECTION VII.
FORMAL TRAINING IN COMMUNICATION
In this next section, we would like to have you think about the facility's expectations
and requirements for formal training of employees who communicate with the public
about environmental risks.
VIM. In the past year, has your facility conducted one or more training sessions for
employees to improve communication with the public? - •
Yes
No (Please go to question 3)
Missing: 3
34
66
Vll-2. -Approximately what percentage of the employees who are responsible for
communicating with the public have had at least eight hours of formal training?
No training
Less than 30% have had formal training
30 to 60% have had formal training
More than 60% have had formal training
Missing 105
66
19
5
10
VII-3. Wh-at types of employees are responsible for communicating with the public about
your facility? ' _______^____-_
Plant manager
Facility environmental affairs staff
Corporate communications
Facility public affairs staff • _
Other technical facility staff
Missing: 6
Are there any other staff at your facility who routinely communicate with the
public?
82
53
53
19
26
-------
SECTION VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
In this section we are interested in your opinions about some
laws and regulations your facility has had to respond to over
of the environmental
the Hast several years.
VIII-1. Do you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, or disagree strongly
that recent trends in environmental laws have
Made the public feel safer
about environmental risks
Caused needless public concern
Actually reduced community risks
Increased production costs
Caused more important environ-
mental priorities to be downgraded
Allowed us to improve environmental
protection without hurting
our competitive position
Improved our community image
Missing: 3
Has there been some other effect?
Agree
Strongly
6
26
12
50
24
4
6
Agree
Somewhat
30
55
52
41
35
27
45
Disagree Disagree
Somewhat Strongly
43
16
29
8
35
50
35
22
3
7
0
20
14
VIII-2. Taking into consideration both the costs and benefits to your facility of meeting
environmental requirements, how effective do you believe each of the following have
been?
Superfund (CERCLA)
SARA Title III
RCRA (Hazardous Waste
Control Law)
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Very
Effective
5
17
8
13
Somewhat
Effective
35
48
58
60
57
Not Very
Effective
39
25
17
25
23
Not Effective
At All
21
10
6
6
7
-------
VIII-3 We are also interested in how your facility has responded to SARA Title III and
similar state community right-to-know laws. Do you think that any of the following have
happened as the result of community right-to-know laws? Do you agree strongly, agree
somewhat, disagree somewhat, or disagree strongly with the following statements?
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
As a result of these laws, ._
we have greatly increased our 18 33 45
community information activities
Worker safety in handling
hazardous substances has become 9 12 37 41
more important
' - i
We have changed our production
processes as a result of the law • - 18 27 41 14
We pay more attention to the
hazardous and toxic substances 6 10 38 46
we use ,
We have, eliminated use of
specific chemical(s) or hazardous 21 22 28. 29
substances as a result of this law
We have reduced the use of a on
specific chemical(s) or hazardous 17 17 36 30
substances as a result of this law
Media interest in our facility "•"«-'•• o
has increased „ . . 30 42 - 21 8
Environmental activists' interest Q
in our facility has increased 28 44 20 8
Missing: 4
The public has been generally '•'.'. . • : 00
apathetic about our SARA Title III, 8 13 46 33
Section 313 reports
Missing: 5
I : •—:——— — ' —-
-------
VIII-4. Thinking about all of your public communication activities,
of your total operating costs did your facility spend last year on communicating
public?
about what percentage
with the
Less than 1/2 of one percent
1/2 to 1 percent
1 to 2 percent
More than 2 percent
87
9
2
1
-------
SECTION IX. NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE FACILITY >
Now we would like to have you think about the geographic area and community near
your facility.
IX-1. Which, if any, of the following are close to (within 500 feet of) the facility here.
Office buildings
Homes or apartments
Schools or day care facilities
Hospitals or nursing homes
Parks or outdoor recreation areas
Wildlife, wetlands, or nature preserves
None
29
40
5
1
14
19
38
IX-2 Certain aspects of production at facility operation call attention to the facility.
Which, if any, of the following are readily visible or are sensed (heard, smelled) as coming
from your facility? • • '
Plumes from your smokestack(s)
Odors that do not smell good
Visible flares burning
Ten or more trucks per day driving
through nearby residential
neighborhoods on the way to and
from your facility
Visible water discharge into nearby
streams or rivers
None
Missing: 1
30
40
11
26
13
39
-------
.'•• ' ' , .' • " '" ' • " ' ' ' .•'''.
SECTION X
BACKGROUND ON YOUR FACILITY AND YOUR EXPERIENCE IN {ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
These next few questions ask about the facility you work in and your experience
with managing hazardous wastes and toxic releases.
X-1. What is this company's business? (For example, what products you make, what
services you provide.) • • ; f
• . - • - , • - • _ . , . ,
X-2. How many people are .employed at your particular facil
3. By how much has your facility's business changed in the
Has it:
Fallen off dramatically?
Fallen off somewhat?
Stayed about the same?
Grown by up to 10%?
Grown by 11-25%?
Grown by more than 25%?
Missing: 1
X-4. Which, if any, of the following environmental problems
in the last five years?
Been designated as an EPA or state Superfund site
Had difficulty finding a TSD facility to take your
hazardous waste
Had a reportable hazardous waste spill
Had a r.eportable air toxics release .
Been subject to an enforcement action or
"notice of violation"
Had difficulty in obtaining environmental permits
Had to implement RCRA corrective action
None of these
Missing: 4
itv?
last five years?
•••"."•••' , 8, •
16.
24
21
14
17
has your facility experienced
; . ••-'• 3 -
13
24
20
47
23
13
39
-------
X-5. Does your facility track toxic substances and hazardous wastes, tying the generation
of specific wastes to specific production processes in the plant?
70
Yes
No
Missing: 6
30
X-6. Does your facility have a written policy supporting toxic and hazardous waste
minimization or reduction? -
Yes
No
Missing: 3
73
27
X-7. Does this facility have a parent company?
Yes
No (Please go to question 9)
Missing: 1
67
33
X-8. Where are the waste minimization policies developed - at the parent company or at
the individual facility? • —
Developed at parent
Developed here at the facility
Both collaborate
We don't have a pqlicy (go to question 13)
No parent
19
33
8
7
33
X-9. HOP.Q thft firm's waste minimization policy include specific waste reduction goals?
Yes
No (Please go to question 11)
No Answer
Missing: 22
52
38
10
X-10. Has your facility made public its waste reduction goals?
Yes
No
No Answer/Don't Know
No Goals
[ Missing: 73
17
34
10
38
-------
X-11. Thinking about all of your pollution abatement and waste minimization
how much did your facility spend last year? Approximately what
operating costs would you say your pollution control and minimizat on
costs, about
percentage of your total
cdsts were?
Less than 1 percent
1 to 3 percent
4 to 5 percent
More than 5 percent
No Answer/Don't Know
Missing: 25
25
38
12
14
11
-------
I
------- |