Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTwelve states, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, sued the Environmental Protection Agency yesterday for weakening regulations that for two decades have required businesses and industries to report the toxic chemicals they use, store and release.
The suit, filed in the Federal District Court in Manhattan, asks the court to reverse the agency's move and so restore all the chemical reporting requirements that were previously part of its Toxics Release Inventory program, or T.R.I.
Community groups across the country have used the program to track the amounts of hazardous chemicals in local neighborhoods. Under the program, companies must provide information about the types of toxic chemicals stored at plants and factories in each state, as well as the quantities discharged from each plant.
Besides the states of the New York tristate area, the plaintiffs are Arizona, California, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Vermont.
Their suit takes aim at a change, adopted by the environmental agency last December, that streamlined the T.R.I. process by reducing the amount of information that companies are required to report. The new rules allow them to file shorter, less detailed forms if they store or release less than 5,000 pounds of toxic chemicals. The old rules required a longer, more comprehensive form whenever a company stored or discharged as little as 500 pounds.
In addition to making compliance less burdensome for businesses, the agency says the new regulations provide an incentive for them to eliminate the release of the most dangerous chemicals, including those known as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic pollutants, like lead and mercury. Last December's change allows companies that handle those chemicals to use the shorter reporting form, but only if they can certify that they are not releasing them into the environment.
Molly A. O'Neill, assistant administrator for the agency's Office of Environmental Information, defended the new rules in a statement yesterday, saying they were "making a good program better."
But Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, who is leading the plaintiffs, said, "The E.P.A.'s new regulations rob New Yorkers - and people across the country - of their right to know about toxic dangers in their own backyards."
Mr. Cuomo said the lawsuit sought to restore a public right to information about chemical hazards, "despite the Bush administration's best attempts to hide it."
The Toxics Release Inventory program was enacted in 1986, two years after a deadly cloud of chemical gas was accidentally released from a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, killing thousands. The law quickly became a kind of "community right to know" rule.
Information on the location of dangerous chemicals is posted on the environmental agency's Web site. Environmental organizations, community groups and labor unions across the country have used the inventory to prevent exposures to toxic chemicals in neighborhoods and at workplaces.
The first reporting deadline under the new rules was July 1. But officials say it is not yet clear whether individual companies have substantially reduced the amount of information they provide, or voluntarily decided to comply with the old rules.
© 2007 The New York Times
17 Comments so far
Show AllKen Hausle provides good information on this forum. This article evolves for the edification of the readers here and to sound the alarm for those who want to know more. It is a lot of words but I think the stakes are high and education of the issues, while growing, is not doing so fast enough. We have ten years for major changes in this country the USA to take shape. The vested interests here will do everything they can to kill it and those people who are making inroads. For those who want hope it behoves all of us to work as quickly as we can for rapid change. To support those people who want to fight the established desire for money and technology to be the supreme value before any other, even if it be life itself on this planet!
The USA with three (3) percent of the poulation of the world creates Seventy three (73) percent of the worlds toxic waste. Any wonder health is not good in this country and the infant mortality rate here eqals some third world countries? The political fools here led by the chief fool have an emasculated EPA. The US politicians and big business work together in this mess and could'nt care less.
Kansas, the so called heartland is showing more than heart they are showing that there are still some intelligent people out there by rejecting coal the number one climate change agent. The people in Massachusetts are helping to shut down a nuke plant in Vermont. Hell, we have a movement against big business who are trying to shut down the human race. Most of these megakillers are still looking for the magic technological bullet that will save all and we can continue on the way we are going with ever more growth and ever more and greater GDP as the bankers advise until the Earth is black with hydrocarbons before it turns red like Mars.
The more poisons in our environment the more our children sicken. The sicker our children become the more of our life's savinge we pour into the pockets of the Corporate Drug Lords for their false hopes and snake oil. For those that overspend their VISA card to save their child our government has provided Corporate Prisons. That's the Neo-Christian Way! What a Bereaved New World we have to look forward to.
I was just wondering if these companies are allowed to use creative accounting methods when weighing their toxic waste so as to ensure that it always comes in bundles of less than 5,000 pounds. After the the whole Enron thing, I wouldn't put it past these "dirty rotten scoundrels".
RuthK - That stuff is not scary, but there sure does seem to be some interesting info there. Thanks.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
If you really want to be scared, check out:
http://www1.environmentalhealthnews.org/
In my "former life" i was an evironmental consultant and as i mentioned earlier i filled in numerous TRI SARA 313 reports for facilities both big and small. The first time you completed a report it was time consuming to set everything up, but after that in subsequent years it was a relatively simple effort because most of the data entry wouldn't change much year-to-year.
This law has probably been one of the most successful environmental regulations ever implemented because it forced companies to be more aware about dangerous chemicals that they use and it forced them to provide information to the public on the fate of these chemicals. This created tremendous incentive to reduce releases, and it was not done by "command and control" (as so many other environmental regulations are), but rather by virtue of information sharing.
This rule was never very onerous, and has been around long enough so that most of the "bugs" have already been worked out. As a consultant, after the first year, completion of a report even for large facilities would only cost a couple thousand dollars - which is a trivial expense for these facilities. Therefore, it is most unfortunate that EPA is weakening the standard because this was not necessary. But i suppose it is no surprise given the current administration's desire to stifle exchange of information on so many levels.
Just another example of our government putting the interest of the People behind the interest of corporations. It sucks and i'm glad the states are suing because the EPA no longer seems to be about protecting the citizens, which is very sad because over the years i have known many fine folks who worked for the EPA. I have a feeling some of them feel like the bush fiasco has been a nightmare for public health and safety.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
Get this, NEW JERSEY is suing the EPA because they think the EPA is not tough enough on pollution. Other than Texas or Louisiana that is an amazing turn of events.
Think I'll try nuking a frog with a cheery bomb firecracker stuffed up its ass. I might end up in the White House too.
My wife just told me, the local clinic for the criminally insane is painted white.
I recall when the Air Force used Trico to clean oil filters for jet engines. If you put a single drop of that magical cleaner on your arm, you will immediately taste it. A cup of trichloethelene will pollute millions of gallons of water.
At a base in Michigan, the troops would wash down aircraft engine oil spills, by dumping a three gallon bucket of the long lastng poison on the spill. That stuff is as bad as atomic waste, and nothing kills it but thousands of years of time. Some trico got into the aquifer in Tucson, Arizona and they had to shut down several wells on the south side of the city,___ forever.
There were no fish in the Air Force base's nearby lake, which fed into lake Huron. That type of oil spill cleaning would occur on a daily basis and did so for several years, until one day the EPA put a stop to it. So lets now stop the EPA from doing a very important duty. ___ It figures__ Bush the impaler.
JohnR - This standard does not restrict flexibility or limit operations -- it only calls for reporting. Generally speaking reporting is easy (although often incredibly tedious) once a system for doing this is set up. What the facilities don't like is if their operating flexibility is restricted, but this standard does not do this. There is really no reason to try to circumvent this rule. My experience with these reports is that folks in the companies made a "good-faith" effort to complete the forms accurately, and as a consultant, it was my job to help make sure this was done.
That is why i think in many ways this standard is a bit of a rarity in environmental regulations because it creates desirable incentives without using "command & control" type statutory limits. The desirable incentive is that it is in the interest of the facility to minimize (if not eliminate) all releases to the environment because then they will be viewed favorably. The citizens can look at the reports to find out what kind of toxic chemicals (there is a long list) are at the facility, and to see if the facility is doing as good of a job as should be expected in minimizing all releases. The data is available online.
There are other regulations that are based on command & control, which are often ridiculously complicated, such as the infamous Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulation....at least it is infamous in the small community of folks who have to deal with it. These kind of very complicated restricting regulations could "invite" an unscrupulous facility or company to attempt circumvention of the regulation.
The fact EPA wants to ease some of the threshold requirements for the TRI Reporting is a bit of a mystery to me. I'm not sure why they would have decided to do this.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
i have a recollection of a battle over toxic food supplies going back to the 1970's i think. organics were being poopoo'd and processed foods were on the rise. however, it was known that rockefeller got his beef from his organic farms in venezuela. what else is new today. the peasants can eat toxic dust but the rulers will be protected from it all and if they get ill will have access to an incredible array of medical attention and care.
we have no value other than as consumers--remember bush called us that when referring to the american public in an early speech.
when we run out of purchasing power then we can die. that is what happens to poor folks. that is what happens to working people who run out of the medical insurance. that is what i was told a number of yrs ago when, on a most rare occasion, went to a medical facility to have a problem diagnosed: depending on how much $ i want to spend, they will pursue a diagnosis. that clearly told me what value i had--none as a human being!!!
so what is new about this administration continuing down its road to fascism. in the 1940's grandpa bush and others were caught in an attempted coup about roosevelt; they supported hitler and thought fascism was the way to go to protect their greed for money & power. today, they have top dog position and are cruising down that road in the most public and blatant manner. 50-60yrs ago they were exposed and lambasted, today the public doesn't even notice what is stinking beneath their noses.
we are in trouble, folks.
As a JD candidate specializing in toxic torts in 1990, I became neurologically disabled for six years by exposure to the underregulated chemical Chlorpyrifos, commonly sold as Dursban. As a result of this exposure, I
Chlorpyrifos is a potent neurotoxin which was freely used in homes and argiculture for 25 yrs before 200,000+ toxic tort lawsuits which were filed against its manufacturer Dow Chemical finally brought the EPA to its senses. By the time EPA acted to meaningfully restrict sale of Chlorpyrifos, its widening use had expanded to include pest control in public schools, private nursery schools, child day care centers, and assisted living facilities for the elderly.
Before EPA's stricter registration of this chemical, millions of dollars had been paid by Dow to ten of thousands of litigants who proved injury from the product. In almost every instance, however, cases were settled by court supervised defendant/plaintiff consent decrees which barred successful plaintiffs from discussing their case or their settlement in public. A few states have now enacted laws which prevent consent decrees in instances of toxic torts. But public information about dangerous chemcials and manufactured toxics is still woefully inadequate.
Although the TRI legislation passed by congress in 1986 did not intend to track common dispersal of privately used chemicals such as Chlorpyrifos, the toxic compounds and elements which TRI is intended to track, which are generally dispersed through smokestacks, ground burial captivations, settling ponds and river dumping, are in most instances just as dangerous to human health, as documented by peer-reviewed science over the past 60 years.
As the federal programs such as the Toxics Release Inventory become attenuated by increasing political influence of large industries over the regulatory process, states will have no alternative but to take up the slack. There will be no alternative if human health is to be protected.
I have filled out many of these SARA reports. They just speak to what is there (both the 311/312 inventory reports and the 313 emission release reports). These reports are good for the People. Whenever i prepared one, i tried to do it with integrity.
But, just like DC, it is all a big joke. We don't even exist in their minds. Otherwise, how could they have a conscience?
Ken Hausle
Charlotte, NC
Siouxrose...Maybe we can get Laura to tie him up in bed and just leave him there. With what he must have on his conscience, I doubt he can sleep or have sex. Oh, that's right, he doesn't have a conscience. Oh well, just leave him there until he rots..NO ONE will miss his sadistic ass. Is it possible that Pelosi could THEN put IMPEACHMENT back on the table?
Amen Ezeflyer!
Just trust the market! Bow down before it and offer it your first born! It will never lead us astray.
www.tshritinsurgency.com
Don't worry, be happy. The free market will fix everything...as long as the corporate oligarchy controls it. The "free market" decided that people should pay for pollution, not its producers. You're not supposed to understand it. Simply realize that Bush's EPA stands for Environmental Polluting Agency.
Isn't this just so typical of Bush & co.? If you can't obfuscate info, just pretend it doesn't exist, and when necessary buy PR and/or media to say that UP is down and down is up. How convenient, as Dana Carvey's "Saturday Night Live" Church lady would utter. And now for what might appear as a non sequitur to linear minds, a leap to Dr. Seuss, consummate shaman returned as literary genius imparting metaphysical, inviolate truths to kids. Maybe Bushie boy missed out on his wisdom? Seems this "Cat in the Hat" thinks he can make all the spots just disappear. In the story, children learn that the mess they make has to be cleaned up, ain't no way to hide from that basic, karmic bottom line. Laura, dear librarian, how bout you tie your beloved up in bed and start reading him the Seuss classics?