U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
WASHINGTON, DC - In a letter sent today to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a bipartisan group of Senators called for an investigation into the suggestion by the E.P.A.'s (EPA) to weaken regulations that require polluters to inform the public about toxic releases.
Signing the letter sent to GAO Administrator David M. Walker were U.S. Senators Jim Jeffords, Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (I-VT), Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program, part of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, makes information about toxic delivers publicly accessible on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis each year. Since the TRI disclosure requirement went into effect in 1988, the volume of toxic material released annually in the U.S. has fallen by an estimated 59 percent. Many experts believe the requirements to annually disclose the levels of released toxins into the environment were the main factor in this dramatic reduction.
In September of last year, the E.P.A. notified Congress of its intent to reduce the frequency of toxics reporting from every year to every 2 years. At the same time, the E.P.A. initiated 2 additional changes that will allow thousands of facilities to withhold details about pollution volumes, waste management and treatment if they generate less than 5,000 pounds of toxic chemicals per year.
Jeffords said, "We know that more information leads to better decision-making. Perhaps if the Bush Administration had better information about how this suggestion would undermine federal, state and local government programs, they would have thought twice before going forward with such a counterproductive and unnecessary initiative."
"The Toxic Release Inventory provides invaluable data to the public about the release of toxic chemicals in our environment. It simply does not make sense for the E.P.A. to alter the Toxic Release Inventory before we have an understanding of the impact these changes will have on communities throughout Maine and the country. That is why I am joining with my colleagues - Senators Lautenberg and Jeffords - in asking the GAO to fully review these changes before the E.P.A. makes any drastic changes to the TRI," said Snowe.
"The TRI plan was established on the principle that the public has a right to know about chemicals that are being stored and released in their communities. The agency's suggestion would curtail that right, leaving families uninformed. This is wrong. The health and safety of the American people must trump the interests of the chemical industry," said Lautenberg.
"Concerns have been raised that, in developing these proposals, EPA's Office of Environmental Information failed to adequately consider the impact of the proposals on E.P.A. programs, other members of the federal family, or the States," wrote the lawmakers.
A copy of the letter is below.
# # #
March 27, 2006
Mr. David M. Walker
Comptroller General
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548
Dear Mr. Walker:
We write to request that the General Accountability Office examine the extent that E.P.A. evaluated, prior to proposing various reforms to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program, how the proposals would impact the use of TRI data by E.P.A. offices, other members of the federal agencies, and the States.
The TRI program, part of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, is often described as one of the nation's most successful environmental statutes by making information about toxic delivers publicly accessible on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. Since the yearly disclosure requirement went into effect in 1988, the volume of toxic material released annually in the U.S. has fallen by an estimated 59 percent.
On September 21, 2005, E.P.A. notified Congress of its intent to modify the frequency of toxics reporting from yearly to biennial. At the same time, E.P.A. initiated a separate rulemaking to (1) allow thousands of facilities to withhold details about pollution volumes, waste management and treatment if they generate less than 5,000 pounds of toxic chemicals as waste annually, and (2) reduce information collected on persistent, bio-accumulative toxins generated as waste by a facility up to 500 pounds annually.
Concerns have been raised that, in developing these proposals, EPA's Office of Environmental Information failed to adequately consider the impact of the proposals on E.P.A. programs, other members of the federal family, or the States. In investigating these concerns, please evaluate whether E.P.A. analyzed, prior to proposing the reforms, how the proposals would impact:
(1) E.P.A. programs that rely on TRI data, including but not limited to:
a. the Risk Screening for Environmental Indicators program, which combines TRI release data with hazard and potential exposure data;
b. the hazardous air pollutant program, which tracks sources and ambient air concentrations of toxic chemicals;
c. the voluntary persistent, bioaccumulative toxics tracking program, which relies on chemical-specific TRI data not accessible through the hazardous waste program;
d. the enforcement program, which uses TRI data for targeting and prioritization; and
e. the environmental justice program, which relies on TRI data for evaluate potential state and local impacts.
(2) The ability of federal, state and local governments to provide up-to-date information to 1st responders for planning and training purposes;
(3) The public health uses of TRI data by federal, state and local agencies, including the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Countrywide Institutes of Health;
(4) State toxic programs, pollution prevention and compliance assistance programs;
(5) The availability of data concerning toxic delivers not related to production activities, such as accidents, spills or periodic actions like maintenance or equipment rebuilding (currently reported as non-production waste);
(6) The availability of toxic release data to individual communities, particularly those with only small industrial facilities; and
(7) Compliance with the statutory requirement of EPCRA section 313(f)(2) that reporting threshold changes maintain information on a "substantial majority" of delivers for each individual chemical.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
James M. Jeffords
Ranking Member
Frank R. Lautenberg
U.S. Senator
Olympia J. Snowe
U.S. Senator
