EPA relaxes rules on reporting of release of toxic chemicals

[cyberpj]

The Environmental Protection Agency approved new rules today that will quadruple the amount of some toxic pollutants that companies can release before they have to reveal the amounts to the public.

Federal officials originally proposed a 10-fold increase in the trigger for public reports on most chemicals covered by the the 20-year-old “Toxic Release Inventory” program. EPA Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock said the revised limits will ease regulatory burdens on industry while giving companies an incentive to recycle or better manage toxic compounds.

snip...

The original proposal, which had a 5,000 pound trigger, could have meant that public data would be lost for about 54,667 pounds of toxic chemicals, including some capable of causing cancer, respiratory diseases, reproductive problems and other disorders.

snip...

"The EPA has severely limited the public’s right to know today,” Tom Natan, research director for the National Environmental Trust, said in a written statement. “What communities don’t know can hurt them. Critical possible threats will be hidden from view.


http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061218/NEWS/61218019/1006/NEWS

[Buzz Clik]

1. "... while giving companies an incentive to recycle or better manage toxic compounds."???

Wow. What's the incentive?

[San Diego]

2. When I read news reports like this it makes me wish that Ralph Nader

would have remained an advocate for consumers' rights rather than become a politician.


Is there any news about Bush wanting to relax the lead standards? I read about that last month (?) but haven't heard anything since.

[cyberpj]

4. From the same article:

Under the revised change, the trigger was increased form 500 pounds to 2,000 pounds for most toxic chemicals. Compounds such as lead and mercury, which persist in the environment and accumulate in living tissues, would have to be reported at lower levels, but companies could manage or recycle up to 500 pounds a year without public disclosure.

Whatever "lower levels" means is not explained.

[burrowowl]

3. AGAIN!

They have done this a few years ago too.

[cyberpj]

5. Not sure if this is Federal or State.

It's posted as "local" in our Delaware newspaper but the article also refers to what Federal officials originally proposed so I'm not sure.