EPA wants polluters to do more ... polluting

Considering how badly the Gulf Coast has been affected by all the toxics released by Katrina, and considering how many more are likely to be unleashed (sub. required) by Rita, does it seem like a good time for our EPA to propose loosening emissions standards?

The AP's John Heilprin writes that, in the interest of "easing the regulatory burden" on corporations,


the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed adopting a "short form" that would excuse companies from disclosing spills and other releases of toxic substances if:
  • They claim to release fewer than 5,000 pounds of a specific chemical. The current limit is 500 pounds.
  • They store onsite but claim to release "zero" amounts of the worst pollutants, such as mercury, DDT and PCBs, that persist in the environment and work up the food chain. However, they must report if they have stored dioxin or dioxin-like compounds, even if none is released.
EPA said it also plans to ask Congress for permission to require the accounting every other year instead of annually.
Just to be perfectly clear here, the EPA is proposing a 900 percent increase in the amount of toxics that can be released before the public needs to know. It is also proposing to cut back how often polluters have to tell the public about any spills, even though, as EPA spokesperson Kimberly Nelson said, "Every community will still have the same information about the types of toxic releases. They just won't have some of the details in terms of how that particular substance was managed or released."

The reason for this drastic and devastating change? Paperwork. It seems that too much time is being spent on reporting all these spills, to the effect that Nelson estimates the changes "would save businesses about 165,000 hours a year in paperwork. If Congress agrees to require the reports every two years instead of annually, that would save another 2 million hours."

Clearly, spending too much time on reporting these spills will take away from the time that companies can spend causing the spills.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Close
alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.