QUOTE
EPA quietly attempts to radically change pollution rules
Kate Raiford
Published: Monday June 12, 2006
CHICAGO -- During the cleanup after Hurricane Katrina, local officials and the Environmental Protection Agency depended on one source to find hotspots of toxic chemicals: a database known as the Toxic Release Inventory.
"This was the only information they had to identify toxic chemicals of any kind in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina," says Clayton Northouse, an information policy analyst at OMB Watch, a nonprofit government accountability group.
Until a few weeks ago, the inventory was to be slashed to comply with the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act. The EPA said they were gutting the 20-year-old database to save paper. What they didn't say was that the decision would dramatically reduce pressure on polluters.
Under the plan, companies would report biannually instead of annually and would only have to report toxic releases of more than 5,000 pounds. Currently, the EPA requires reporting of any releases greater than 500 pounds.
"During the off year, they could release any toxic chemical without having to report it," Northouse said. "There's already an 18-month delay."
Environmental watchdogs say the inventory is critical to public health.
"The TRI is one of the premiere pollution-prevention tools in the United States," says Kristan Markey, a research analyst for Environmental Working Group. "Businesses don't like TRI because it says who is polluting in local communities."
The EPA, he added, decided to change the database "out of the blue" in 2005.
But on May 22, eight months after EPA proposed the cutbacks, the House of Representatives voted for an amendment that would save the Inventory. 92 percent of the nays came from Republicans. It's unclear whether the amendment will pass the Senate or be signed into law by President Bush.
Northouse said he thought many Republicans voted against the database because they believed doing so would benefit smaller businesses, an argument made on the House floor.
The EPA denies the move will harm the environment.
"EPA sets a very high environmental bar for companies, and the proposed changes in TRI reporting would in no way affect the amount of chemicals facilities are allowed to release under federal, state and local regulations," the agency said in an official statement.
The Most Toxic Chemicals
The cut would also change, for the first time ever, the way the most toxic chemicals, known as Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins, are reported. These toxins -- including lead, mercury and dioxin -- can't naturally be disposed of by the body.
Lead and dioxins have historically faced detailed reporting rules. Under the cut, a short-form report only saying that the company has the chemical would suffice.
According to EPA estimates, these changes would save companies only $600 to $800 a year, Northouse said. Many businesses, he added, think the EPA's estimates are too high.
A spokeswoman for the Environmental Working Group told RAW STORY that companies would probably end up doing the same amount of paperwork either way. The EPA, she said, would probably get the most bang for the buck not by cutting the amount of paper, but by requiring reports be filed electronically.
The environmental cost of the cuts could be substantial. Public health researchers, doctors, community planners and emergency responders all depend on the Toxic Release Inventory to locate toxins and identify disease and cancer patterns in the community.
"If [the cut] goes into effect," Northouse says, "about one in ten zip codes would lose all numerical data."
Kate Raiford
Published: Monday June 12, 2006
CHICAGO -- During the cleanup after Hurricane Katrina, local officials and the Environmental Protection Agency depended on one source to find hotspots of toxic chemicals: a database known as the Toxic Release Inventory.
"This was the only information they had to identify toxic chemicals of any kind in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina," says Clayton Northouse, an information policy analyst at OMB Watch, a nonprofit government accountability group.
Until a few weeks ago, the inventory was to be slashed to comply with the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act. The EPA said they were gutting the 20-year-old database to save paper. What they didn't say was that the decision would dramatically reduce pressure on polluters.
Under the plan, companies would report biannually instead of annually and would only have to report toxic releases of more than 5,000 pounds. Currently, the EPA requires reporting of any releases greater than 500 pounds.
"During the off year, they could release any toxic chemical without having to report it," Northouse said. "There's already an 18-month delay."
Environmental watchdogs say the inventory is critical to public health.
"The TRI is one of the premiere pollution-prevention tools in the United States," says Kristan Markey, a research analyst for Environmental Working Group. "Businesses don't like TRI because it says who is polluting in local communities."
The EPA, he added, decided to change the database "out of the blue" in 2005.
But on May 22, eight months after EPA proposed the cutbacks, the House of Representatives voted for an amendment that would save the Inventory. 92 percent of the nays came from Republicans. It's unclear whether the amendment will pass the Senate or be signed into law by President Bush.
Northouse said he thought many Republicans voted against the database because they believed doing so would benefit smaller businesses, an argument made on the House floor.
The EPA denies the move will harm the environment.
"EPA sets a very high environmental bar for companies, and the proposed changes in TRI reporting would in no way affect the amount of chemicals facilities are allowed to release under federal, state and local regulations," the agency said in an official statement.
The Most Toxic Chemicals
The cut would also change, for the first time ever, the way the most toxic chemicals, known as Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins, are reported. These toxins -- including lead, mercury and dioxin -- can't naturally be disposed of by the body.
Lead and dioxins have historically faced detailed reporting rules. Under the cut, a short-form report only saying that the company has the chemical would suffice.
According to EPA estimates, these changes would save companies only $600 to $800 a year, Northouse said. Many businesses, he added, think the EPA's estimates are too high.
A spokeswoman for the Environmental Working Group told RAW STORY that companies would probably end up doing the same amount of paperwork either way. The EPA, she said, would probably get the most bang for the buck not by cutting the amount of paper, but by requiring reports be filed electronically.
The environmental cost of the cuts could be substantial. Public health researchers, doctors, community planners and emergency responders all depend on the Toxic Release Inventory to locate toxins and identify disease and cancer patterns in the community.
"If [the cut] goes into effect," Northouse says, "about one in ten zip codes would lose all numerical data."