EDITORIAL & OPINION — COMMENTARY — Understanding TRI

Beginning July 1, the metal mining industry in the United States was required to file reports according to the federal Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program. The biggest challenge for the industry, however, isn’t “toxic release” but “public release.”

The TRI program, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), requires manufacturers to report, from a list of 650 chemicals, releases of those chemicals into the air, water and soil. The program began in 1986 as part of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, passed in the wake of a chemical spill in Bopal, India.

Originally, TRI covered chemical companies, oil refiners, paper manufacturers and metal smelting and refining operations. In 1997, the EPA unilaterally expanded the program to cover seven new industries, including metal mining. The TRI law is based on the concept that communities near facilities that use or produce significant quantities of chemicals have a right to know of potential risks.

However, the law, as applied to mining, requires that “releases” from all the rock moved during mining be reported. Therein lies the problem. Most of what is reported under TRI consists of naturally occurring trace minerals found in waste rock and tailings. All of these minerals are stored on-site and controlled under existing state and federal environmental regulations.

The typical mine moves tons of rock on a daily basis. Inclusion in the TRI report of trace minerals found in this rock means that numbers submitted by the mining industry will dwarf anything reported by the chemical and manufacturing industries.

Large mining operations and the states in which they operate will be perceived as the “top polluters” and “most polluted,” respectively, due to the inclusion of these naturally occurring minerals. For example, Nevada ranked 45th on the list for 1997. Inclusion of the state’s minerals industry in the TRI report has pushed it to the top — this despite the fact that Nevada has one of the most comprehensive systems for regulating mining in the nation.

Another key issue is perception of the term “toxic release.” Because the EPA’s definition of toxic release includes minerals that occur naturally in rock, the public may get the wrong idea. In fact, EPA admits that the reporting of some releases “could lead to the misperception that an uncontrolled release is taking place, when, in reality, the facility is legally and responsibly managing waste materials.”

Mining companies have come together with a comprehensive strategy to deal with the public relations implications of TRI. Briefings have been held with elected officials, regulators, the media, securities analysts and, most importantly, groups in the communities in which mines operate. While EPA is not scheduled to release the TRI data until next year, the mining companies made their data public in June.

Beyond the concerns of the public, there is concern that anti-mining groups will push for further, unnecessary regulation or that they will argue in favour of limiting the activities of the industry based solely upon the TRI data. Environmental groups already use TRI data to target specific companies. In 1998, for instance, the Environmental Defense Fund launched a “chemical scorecard” web site that pinpoints a list of “top polluters” by state, county and zip code. The Mineral Policy Center and other groups opposed to mining will undoubtedly use the data in a similar fashion.

By coming together, the industry is providing the public with not only the “right to know” but the “right to understand.” The one positive outcome of TRI for the mining industry is that it provides a platform to discuss the careful way we go about extracting minerals, taking care to protect the environment, our employees and the communities in which we live and work.

— The preceding was derived from an article in The Gold Standard, the publication of Newmont Mining. The author is Newmont’s manager of communications.