Deliberate Dumbing Down of America *By the EPA*

[Guest guest]

EPA seeks shroud on pollution data

 

Federal agency's proposal to scale back reporting requirements for

companies that produce toxic materials sparks opposition

 

By MATT PACENZA, Staff writer

 

First published: Friday, February 17, 2006

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=451792 & category=REGIONOTHER & B\

\

CCode=HOME & newsdate=2/17/2006<http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID\

=451792 & category=REGIONOTHER & BCCode=HOME & newsdate=2/17/2006>

 

 

 

[foto] Passonno Paints in Watervliet is among the local companies that

would be affected by proposed EPA regulations. (John D'Annibale / Times

Union)

 

 

When Susan Falzon of Friends of Hudson talks to residents who live near

cement plants or paper factories, they often ask her how they can learn

more about the pollutants facilities emit.

 

Falzon always directs them to the federal government's Toxics Release

Inventory. The TRI is a searchable database of the chemicals industrial

and commercial facilities release into the air, water or landfills.

 

Her advice soon may be different. The federal Environmental Protection

Agency last month proposed a big change in how companies report

pollution data. If the Bush administration gets its way, companies will

tell the public a lot less about pollution by reporting less often on

fewer chemicals.

 

In the Capital Region, 16 facilities would no longer have to report

anything to the EPA about the toxic substances they emit, according to

analysis from OMB Watch, a Washington D.C.-based open government group.

 

Environmentalists and elected officials, including Attorney General

Eliot Spitzer, are urging the feds to back off. They say the TRI has

helped communities and researchers investigate threats to local health

and safety while encouraging companies to cut pollution.

 

" We're learning every day about the relationship between toxic chemicals

and all kinds of illness, " said Falzon. " Now is not the time to restrict

information. "

 

The proposal is designed to reduce the paperwork burden on companies and

would save 165,000 work hours each year, according to the EPA. The

agency points out that most information would still be public, except

for relatively small amounts of chemicals from certain facilities.

 

Advocates aren't buying the burden argument. They point out that the

EPA's own data shows it costs companies just $430 to $790 for each

chemical they report on.

 

Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

in 1987, in the wake of the release of the deadly chemical methyl

isocyanate in Bhopal, India, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

 

The TRI data, available at http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer, is heavily

used by researchers, community groups, journalists and even state and

local officials. The state Department of Environmental Conservation on

Tuesday urged the EPA to maintain the current system.

 

" The DEC believes that changing the reporting requirements under TRI

undermines its effectiveness as a tool for trend analysis, making it

less useful for the public, " the department said in a written statement.

 

For most chemicals, the EPA wants to raise the minimum amount that would

have to be reported from 500 pounds to 5,000 pounds. That would mean no

public accounting at all for 26 chemicals that are only released at

those smaller amounts.

 

The agency also recommends reducing how often companies have to report

pollution, switching from an annual system to every other year.

 

The proposed change even applies to a category of the most troubling

chemicals -- categorized by the ungainly name of " persistent,

bioaccumulative and toxic " compounds -- including lead and mercury.

About 2,700 pounds of mercury pollution would no longer be made public

under the proposal, according to an analysis from OMB Watch.

 

Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the

Environment at the University at Albany, is using the TRI data in a

project that investigates whether people who live near industrial

facilities are more likely to develop certain illnesses. He was

flabbergasted to learn about the proposal this week.

 

" The idea that you would reduce the reporting threshold, in particular

with lead and mercury, is absolutely asinine, " Carpenter said.

 

Those who oppose the TRI change argue that making such data public has

reduced pollution, because companies have worked to not be identified as

dirty. Between 1988 and 1994, the amount of pollutants released dropped

44 percent, according to one study.

 

" No one wants to be on the top 10 polluter list, " said Judith Enck, an

environmental policy adviser to the attorney general. " Public awareness

can drive better environmental polices, and that has been case here. "

 

Last month, Spitzer was one of 12 attorneys general, from California to

New Hampshire, who sent comments to the EPA urging the agency to keep

TRI as is. The agency reported Wednesday it has received 65,000 comments

on the proposal. If TRI is changed, Enck said the attorney general's

office will strongly consider suing to overturn the new rule.

 

Matt Pacenza can be reached at 454-5533 or by e-mail at

mpacenza<http://health.Autism-Mercury/post?postID=vAl\

Dj8Cm_ym2nu1UH_mrrDtCAhvKn_43yEMaK_i-D3bbMVp1oghK_u6cZBg1y313cn4y8l-ziqOhn86pO5Y\

RKANl>

..

 

TOXIC LIST

 

The following area companies would no longer have to report the toxic

chemicals they release under a pending Bush administration proposal:

 

Rensselaer Cogen; Rensselaer

 

Allied Healthcare Products; Stuyvesant Falls

 

Clemente Latham Troy Plant; Troy

 

Passonno Paints; Watervliet

 

Surpass Chemical Co.; Albany

 

Crowley Foods Inc.; Albany

 

Saratoga Spa & Bath; Latham

 

Emsig Manufacturing Corp.; Hudson

 

Peckham Materials Corp.; Athens

 

North East Treaters of New York; Athens

 

Hussmann Corp. ;Gloversville

 

Nu-Gro Technologies ;Gloversville

 

Hudson Inds. Corp.; Johnstown

 

RH Crown Co.; Johnstown

 

Simco Leather Corp.; Johnstown

 

Source: OMB Watch

 

 

 

 

All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2006, Capital Newspapers

Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y.

 

The material in this post is distributed without

profit to those who have expressed a prior interest

in receiving the included information for research

and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email

for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain

permission from the copyright owner.