Fw: [ban-toxics] Stop EPA from Weakening Toxics Right-to-Know

[Guest guest]

-

" Mike Ewall " <catalyst

<ban-toxics >;

<CONS-EQST-HORMONE-MIMICS;

<safealternatives; <seac-announce;

<ecology_gpus >; <corporations;

<dvs; <njeja; <zerowaste;

<wastecoal; <e_advocates;

<sludgewatch-l; <summit

Saturday, December 03, 2005 10:58 PM

[ban-toxics] Stop EPA from Weakening Toxics Right-to-Know

 

 

>

> Since 1987, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required

> certain industries to report certain toxic chemical releases into

> communities. It's not perfect, but it's one of the best

> right-to-know tools we have. It enables us to learn about some of

> air and solid waste pollution released from power plants. It also

> enables us to learn about some of the toxic chemicals sent to

> landfills, incinerators and sent down the drain to sewage treatment

> plants, where the toxic sludge often ends up on farm fields as fertilizer.

>

> Now, Bush's EPA wants to dramatically weaken this law, denying

> communities the rights to know what toxic chemicals they're being exposed

> to.

>

> EPA just extended the comment period to January 13, 2006 and we're

> working to try to get as many comments in as possible.

>

> EPA's proposal would:

> * Eliminate every other year of TRI data by switching from annual

> reporting to biennial;

> * Allow companies to pollute ten times as much (raising thresholds

> from 500 to 5,000 lbs.) before requiring them to report the details

> on the quantity and media;

> * Permit facilities to withhold details on low-level production of

> persistent bioacculuative toxins (PBTs).

>

> Please use the links below to read up and act to protect our rights:

>

> Fact Sheets and links to various groups' action alerts

> http://www.ombwatch.org/tricenter/TRIaction.html

>

> New Report: " Dismantling the Public's Right to Know: EPA's Systematic

> Weakening of the Toxics Release Inventory "

> http://www.ombwatch.org/pdfs/TRI_Report.pdf

>

> OMB Watch's Toxics Release Inventory Resource Center

> http://www.ombwatch.org/tricenter/

>

> Use the TRI database here:

> http://www.rtknet.org/new/tri/

>

> Some info on the limitations of the TRI database:

> http://www.actionpa.org/tri/#what

>

> Here are some excerpts from a recent LA Times article on the matter:

>

> Thousands of Firms Could Stop Reporting Emissions

> By Marla Cone, LA Times Staff Writer

> December 2, 2005

>

> Thousands of companies throughout the nation, including many in the

> Los Angeles region, would no longer have to provide the public with

> details of toxic chemicals they release into the environment under a

> Bush administration proposal to streamline the nation's environmental

> right-to-know law.

>

> For nearly 20 years, the national Toxics Release Inventory has

> allowed people to access detailed data about chemicals that are used

> and released in their neighborhoods. In about 9,000 communities, the

> annual reports identify which industrial plants emit the most toxic

> substances, whether their emissions are increasing and what compounds

> may be contaminating their air and water.

>

> Seeking to ease the financial burden on industry, the U.S.

> Environmental Protection Agency has proposed eliminating some

> requirements for smaller facilities that must monitor their emissions

> and file the complex annual reports. The EPA will make a final

> decision on the proposal next year, after a public comment period.

>

> Under the agency's proposal, 922 communities would lose all

> information from the inventory detailing emissions...

>

> Under existing rules, facilities that release 500 or more pounds of

> toxic substances each year must reveal how much of each chemical is

> emitted into the air, discharged into waterways and taken to

> landfills or other disposal sites.

>

> But under the EPA proposal, unveiled in September, that threshold

> would be raised to 5,000 pounds. The smaller emitters would be

> required only to list chemical names without any data on

> environmental releases, such as amounts discharged into the air.

> Among the industries that could benefit are metal-plating plants,

> electronics firms, pharmaceutical companies, foam manufacturers, food

> processors and petrochemical and oil facilities.

>

> Read the full article here: http://tinyurl.com/dykh2

>

>

> Mike Ewall

> 215-743-4884

> catalyst

> ActionPA http://www.actionpa.org

> Energy Justice Network http://www.energyjustice.net

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

[ban-toxics] Stop EPA from Weakening Toxics Right-to-Know

 

 

>

> Since 1987, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required

> certain industries to report certain toxic chemical releases into

> communities. It's not perfect, but it's one of the best

> right-to-know tools we have. It enables us to learn about some of

> air and solid waste pollution released from power plants. It also

> enables us to learn about some of the toxic chemicals sent to

> landfills, incinerators and sent down the drain to sewage treatment

> plants, where the toxic sludge often ends up on farm fields as fertilizer.

>

> Now, Bush's EPA wants to dramatically weaken this law, denying

> communities the rights to know what toxic chemicals they're being exposed

> to.

>

> EPA just extended the comment period to January 13, 2006 and we're

> working to try to get as many comments in as possible.

>

> EPA's proposal would:

> * Eliminate every other year of TRI data by switching from annual

> reporting to biennial;

> * Allow companies to pollute ten times as much (raising thresholds

> from 500 to 5,000 lbs.) before requiring them to report the details

> on the quantity and media;

> * Permit facilities to withhold details on low-level production of

> persistent bioacculuative toxins (PBTs).

>

> Please use the links below to read up and act to protect our rights:

>

> Fact Sheets and links to various groups' action alerts

> http://www.ombwatch.org/tricenter/TRIaction.html

>

> New Report: " Dismantling the Public's Right to Know: EPA's Systematic

> Weakening of the Toxics Release Inventory "

> http://www.ombwatch.org/pdfs/TRI_Report.pdf

>

> OMB Watch's Toxics Release Inventory Resource Center

> http://www.ombwatch.org/tricenter/

>

> Use the TRI database here:

> http://www.rtknet.org/new/tri/

>

> Some info on the limitations of the TRI database:

> http://www.actionpa.org/tri/#what

>

> Here are some excerpts from a recent LA Times article on the matter:

>

> Thousands of Firms Could Stop Reporting Emissions

> By Marla Cone, LA Times Staff Writer

> December 2, 2005

>

> Thousands of companies throughout the nation, including many in the

> Los Angeles region, would no longer have to provide the public with

> details of toxic chemicals they release into the environment under a

> Bush administration proposal to streamline the nation's environmental

> right-to-know law.

>

> For nearly 20 years, the national Toxics Release Inventory has

> allowed people to access detailed data about chemicals that are used

> and released in their neighborhoods. In about 9,000 communities, the

> annual reports identify which industrial plants emit the most toxic

> substances, whether their emissions are increasing and what compounds

> may be contaminating their air and water.

>

> Seeking to ease the financial burden on industry, the U.S.

> Environmental Protection Agency has proposed eliminating some

> requirements for smaller facilities that must monitor their emissions

> and file the complex annual reports. The EPA will make a final

> decision on the proposal next year, after a public comment period.

>

> Under the agency's proposal, 922 communities would lose all

> information from the inventory detailing emissions...

>

> Under existing rules, facilities that release 500 or more pounds of

> toxic substances each year must reveal how much of each chemical is

> emitted into the air, discharged into waterways and taken to

> landfills or other disposal sites.

>

> But under the EPA proposal, unveiled in September, that threshold

> would be raised to 5,000 pounds. The smaller emitters would be

> required only to list chemical names without any data on

> environmental releases, such as amounts discharged into the air.

> Among the industries that could benefit are metal-plating plants,

> electronics firms, pharmaceutical companies, foam manufacturers, food

> processors and petrochemical and oil facilities.

>

> Read the full article here: http://tinyurl.com/dykh2

>

>

> Mike Ewall

> 215-743-4884

> catalyst

> ActionPA http://www.actionpa.org

> Energy Justice Network http://www.energyjustice.net

>

>

>

>

 

>

>

>