The Discussion Forum is Open
EPA invites you to share your thoughts on a potential forthcoming rule by commenting on the posts below. These posts describe topics raised by stakeholders in Novemeber 2008 that were originally posted for public discussion in October 2009. The discussion forum will remain open and available for comment through June 30, 2010. Comments received will be posted to the docket identified as EPA-HQ-OEI-2009-0453.
Editor's Note: The opinions expressed here are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.
Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.
Industry representatives stated that some of the data this industry currently reports do not correlate in a direct way to significant environmental or public health impacts. Nor, in their opinion, does the TRI Program drive environmental improvement within this industry as currently implemented.
Editor's Note: The opinions expressed here are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.
Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.
Accurate Measurement of Releases
Representatives of the environmental community expressed an interest in looking at how actual releases beyond the facility property (e.g., fugitive air emissions, surface and groundwater migration) could be more accurately measured and reported.
Editor's Note: The opinions expressed here are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.
Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.
Releases beyond Containment
Environmental representatives felt that all releases beyond containment, including those currently exempt from TRI reporting, should be made reportable.
Editor's Note: The opinions expressed here are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.
Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.
Definitional Issues
Industry representatives stated there are a number of definitional issues that should be addressed in a rulemaking to clarify areas of uncertainty. These include the issues discussed in key court cases as well as a number of others.
Editor's Note: The opinions expressed here are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.
Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.
Additional Information
The Agency has posted a summary of the discussions from which these issues were taken. Feel free to share your thoughts on any additional TRI metal mining issues that should potentially be addressed through rulemaking.
Editor's Note: The opinions expressed here are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.
Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.
Docket Posted
All comments received prior to November 25, 2009 have been posted to the docket identified as EPA-HQ-OEI-2009-0453. Click here to view the docket.
Editor's Note: The opinions expressed here are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.
Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.
The Discussion Forum is Closed
Thank you for your participation. We will keep you informed as more information becomes available.
Editor's Note: The opinions expressed here are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.
Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.
Comment Deadline Extended
This discussion forum will be open until 5 pm on November 25, 2009. Share your thoughts on the posts below to help us define the scope of a forthcoming rule.
Editor's Note: The opinions expressed here are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.
Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.
Share Your Thoughts
The EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program is considering modifications and/or clarifications to TRI reporting requirements and terms that apply to metal mining operations. Before embarking on the formal phases of a regulatory development effort, the TRI Program decided to confer with a few representatives of key stakeholder groups to gauge their levels of interest in holding further discussions regarding the issues such a rulemaking might cover, and to get a sense of the scope of issues each stakeholder group would want to discuss. In November of 2008, EPA’s TRI Program had an external facilitator solicit informally by telephone the opinions of nine representatives of three stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups included the metal mining industry, national and grassroots environmental organizations, and technical consultants.
During these discussions, four issues related to metal mining and TRI were raised as topics for further input. These issues are described in the posts below. Share your thoughts on these posts to help us define the scope of a potential forthcoming rule. Your input may guide us as we plan for the data collection and analyses that will support development of such a rule and may help us to uncover points of potential agreement and disagreement between stakeholders.
The discussion forum will be open until 5 pm on October 30, 2009. Comments received before that time will be included in a public docket. We will provide a link to the docket once it is posted. A proposed rule may be published by early 2011.
The four issues are as follows (see below):
[Update as of 5/28/10: The four issues have been reposted above.]
Editor's Note: The opinions expressed here are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.
Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.
Permalink