Toxic releases. Shhhh.

One of the most effective environmental regulations that wasn't a command and control item was something called the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Program. Here's EPA's description:

The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a publicly available EPA database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported annually by certain covered industry groups as well as federal facilities. This inventory was established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.

That pretty much says it. It's a Right to Know law. And it has been a powerful tool for local communities to pressure industries in their midsts that spew out toxic materials to get their act together. I guess the Bush administration isn't that keen on the right of its citizens to know, however (are you surprised?).

How much pollution can industry release into the environment without telling local residents? The US Environmental Protection Agency relaxed the law last year, but looks likely to toughen it up again after a high-profile lawsuit was filed in protest last week.

Until recently, US companies had to declare emissions of 230 kilograms or more per year, but last December the EPA increased this threshold tenfold. (New Scientist)

So the EPA is being sued by twelve states and Congress is considering getting in the act. A GAO report estimated that cost savings to industry of the new rule is only about $900 per year, far less no doubt than they have spent lobbying to get it put in place.

Everyone is guessing EPA will reverse themselves on this piece of stupidity. Opposing a citizen's Right to Know about toxic materials in their community is not exactly a political winner.

I expect to hear any minute, though, that we can't let terrorists know what toxic materials are being intentionally released into our communities just in case they might get the idea of intentionally releasing those materials into our communities.

More like this

By Les Leopold  If you need a quick snooze, read a US Government Accountability Office report with its carefully parsed prose. But lost in the holiday rush was a December GAO report that could keep you awake as it bashes the Bush administrationâs effort to water down the community Right to Know…
By David Michaels Last week, public scorn forced Rupert Murdock, powerful chief executive of the News Corp, to cancel âIf I Did It,â OJ Simpsonâs book and Fox TV tie-in. While shaming has fallen out of favor in the field of criminal justice, the heaping of public scorn and anger - dating back to…
One of the most important tools in the fight to reduce emissions of toxic agents into the environment has nothing to do with emission controls. It has to do with information. Since 1984 Americans have had access to information about how much individual companies were emitting into their…
The Washington Postâs Juliet Eilperin reports that a âlittle-noticedâ provision in the spending bill signed into law this week will reverse the Bush administrationâs loosening of Toxics Release Inventory reporting requirements. (Check out our past posts on the watered-down requirements and the…

The whole idea that the federal government will tell me something just because I have a legal right to know it is starting to seem quaintly unfamiliar to me. It's even more alien that the federal government would fight for me to get information to which I'm entitled solely because keeping me ignorant is harmful.

That makes me very, very sad for the fate of my country.