Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by the EPA

[kaygore]

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>

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.groups.yahoo.com/group/Autism-Mercury/post?postID=vAlDj8Cm_ym2nu1UH_mrrDtCAhvKn_43yEMaK_i-D3bbMVp1oghK_u6cZBg1y313cn4y8l-ziqOhn86pO5YRKANl>
.

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