The threat of persistent and
bioaccumulative toxins is widely recognized. The International Joint
Commission on Great Lakes Water Quality, upon the advice of dozens of
leading scientists, has declared that “persistent toxic substances are
too dangerous to the biosphere and to humans to permit their release in
any quantity.” And nations from around the world are entering UN
sponsored negotiations to create a global solution for the elimination
of persistent organic pollutants.
At a minimum, the public, policy makers, and even industry, need
complete information on the use and release of these dangerous
substances. Working in the dark, we can not hope to find the solution.
The 1986 Community Right to Know Act has been lauded by
environmentalists, policy makers, and even industry as one of the most
effective environmental laws in the U.S. Shining the public spotlight on
toxic chemical releases motivates industries to find ways to reduce
pollution. However, the nation’s best reporting law tells us almost
nothing about the chemicals that present the greatest threat to public
health and the environment. We do not have the information needed to
track and promote pollution prevention.
The Clinton Administration has played a leading role in championing
Right to Know expansions, but there are several major holes in the
program that keep vital information from the public. And, at a time when
we should be working to eliminate these substances, industries in the
U.S. are fighting to stop even the reporting of their releases to the
public and policy makers.
As the EPA is now considering changes to Right to Know reporting
requirements for persistent and bioaccumulative substances, we are
calling on them to stand strong against the pressure from industries
that have been fighting the public’s Right to Know for years. There is
no compelling reason to keep the public in the dark about the most
dangerous substances known to science and the legacy created by their
pollution.
U.S. PIRG and the National Environmental Trust are calling on the
Clinton Administration and the EPA to take the critical steps needed to
reduce the use and release of these dangerous substances. Specifically,
the Clinton Administration and the EPA should:
1). lower Right to Know reporting thresholds to include
information on all persistent or bioaccumulative toxins, and add
dioxins to TRI reporting requirements;
EPA should set a single zero threshold for reporting of these
extremely dangerous substances, and add dioxin to the reporting list.
Exemptions for small amounts of waste generation should be revoked.
The public has the right to know about the use and release of any
quantity of substances that are either highly persistent or highly
bioaccumulative.
2). expand Right to Know reporting to include all major
industries that are sources of pollution and toxic chemical use
information;
Although EPA’s 1997 facility expansion added several previously
exempt industries to the reporting program, a number of polluting
industries are still hidden from the public’s view. Specifically,
major sources of persistent bioaccumulative toxins like medical waste
incinerators are currently exempt from reporting under the Toxics
Release Inventory. In addition, Right to Know reporting is missing
information on toxic chemicals used in the workplace, transported
through communities, and placed in consumer products. By taking a
closer look at how toxic chemicals are used through every step of the
process, industries can better identify ways to reduce chemical use at
the source. State laws in Massachusetts and New Jersey already mandate
the collection of toxic chemical use information, or “materials
accounting” data. Industries in those states have reduced pollution
and have found ways to streamline processes and save millions of
dollars while doing so.
3). take steps to directly eliminate the use and release of
substances like mercury and dioxin, including:
- working to eliminate mercury pollution by setting strict
emissions standards for mercury from power plants, and requiring
increased investment in non-polluting energy efficiency, and
renewable energy;
- requiring the development and use of alternatives to major
polluting practices like incinerators and industrial processes or
uses of chlorine that result in the formation of dioxin, such as
pulp and paper bleaching and production of PVC plastics.
