|
Washington, D.C. – Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) and Hilda L. Solis (D-CA) the Ranking Democrat of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, issued the following statement today in response to the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to issue new rules gutting reporting requirements of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Changes announced by the EPA today will exempt nearly 3,000 facilities that release up to 2,000 pounds of toxic chemicals from issuing detailed reports and will also exempt companies that manage up to 500 pounds of the most dangerous substances, including mercury and lead.
Earlier this year, Pallone and Solis passed an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Interior-Environment Appropriations Act to prevent EPA from finalizing their proposal. That amendment is awaiting final action by both the House and Senate. The lawmakers reaffirmed their commitment to protecting community right-to-know under the TRI program with the introduction of the Toxic Right to Know Protection Act (H.R. 6219).
"EPA's decision today is absurd," Pallone said. "For twenty years, the TRI program has successfully provided communities with critical information about what is being dumped in their backyards, while also encouraging companies to voluntarily reduce their emissions. Today's decision is a step backwards and needlessly limits the amount of information community residents can receive about the chemicals present near their homes. Even under the changed requirements, companies will still have to track their releases, so there is really no good reason why the Bush administration should not continue to provide this helpful information to interested communities."
“While communities of color make up 32 percent of the U.S. population as a whole, they make up nearly 44 percent of the population within one mile of the polluting facilities that could have fewer protections and less information of toxic chemicals as a result of the Administration’s proposal. If the EPA was truly committed to protecting public health, it would have engaged these vulnerable communities who expressed concern about these changes rather than promulgating this rule today,” said Solis. “Yet today’s decision is yet another example of the agency’s continued failure to place a priority on the health and welfare of vulnerable communities.” |
