World's First Zero Waste Paper Recycling Plant
by Michelle Raymond 
An industrial-looking channel directs water into a small pond in front of the new Corelex paper recycling plant in Kawasaki, Japan. The pond is home to a school of healthy goldfish. Visitors to the facility are told outright: “The smoke house (a small, attractive round wood structure) is used for parties – the fish are living in the plant’s discharge water...”
Indeed, the $180 million Corelex plant, built with the help of government loans, is the first “zero waste” paper recycling plant in the world, according to its developers.


Unlike many paper plants, which struggle over “stickies” and landfill growing mountains of sludge, this new plant can easily take all manner of mixed paper. Binders, paper with plastic clips, metal parts, and aseptic poly-coated paper is no problem. The only waste product is some ash, which is used for filler in a concrete product by another plant nearby.
The key, according to Tetra-Pak’s environmental engineer Robert Kawaratani, is the system soaks the incoming paper for longer periods than a standard hydra-pulper. In Japan, the government requires such plants getting help to become educational labs, complete with classrooms and tours for children of all ages.
The Corelex plant has a built-in classroom, numerous colorful brochures for children, and produced several videos that explain the whole process. However, unlike many commercial plants with glassed-in areas, visitors receive a genuine tour of the entire facility.
The baled material – ranging from poly-coated cups from Tokyo Disney to boxed confidential documents from big companies, are fed directly into the pulper in a lump, and then swelled while being matured to facilitate ink separation.
The material goes into a large tower where it is soaked for 12-14 hours. A rake system at the bottom pulls pulp out of the tower, and screens out contaminants. The San-Ei Regulator company designed the equipment.
The pulp is de-inked, sterilized, and bleached with hydrogen peroxide. The sludge is passed through a screw press to squeeze out much of the water, and then burned in a boiler at 800-900 degrees C. The energy from burning the sludge and the polyethylene from the aseptic material create energy to help run the plant.
Recovered material is transferred into a huge tissue maker, which runs a mile a minute.
The plant can handle 250 tons per day but runs at 220 tons per day, making 150 tons of toilet paper daily. It cannot get enough of the higher quality aseptic feedstock, he says.
The rolls are cased in plastic, and then palletized by robots for storage. However, the product must be de-palletized and manually loaded because they don’t fit onto Japan’s small delivery trucks.
The plant runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week with a staff of about 100 employees.
Collection: Different than US
Unlike in the U.S., where there is almost no recycling of consumer polycoated and polystyrene, Japanese grocery stores collect these two materials, along with PET bottles, though they are only paid for the polycoat material, Kawaratani explains. Consumers carefully rinse, and then disassemble the cartons so they lie flat. “It’s easier to store them that way when you don’t have a lot of space,” he explains.
Based upon a voluntary agreement, PET bottles are all clear to facilitate recycling, though they have shrink-wrap labels. Many bottles are square to save space.
Each prefecture and local government collects differently, but Kawaratani says there is no single-stream collection. He notes that federal figures show that for fiscal year 2002, 30.63 million tons of paper were consumed, and 20 million tons were collected for recovery.
About 62% of PS foam is collected, though about 25% is recycled materially – the balance going for feedstock recycling and energy recovery.
While federal figures indicate a 14% recycling rate, sources say that when business recycling is counted, Japan is now sending about 30% of its waste for recycling and recovery nationwide.

For more information:

Contact:
Kenneth Friedenberg V.P.
Graceful Earth Inc.
Pres. / Green Earth Paper Inc.
U.S. Agents for “Corelex” / San Ei”
838 Kealahou Street
Honolulu, HI 96825
561-829-5152
808-366-4324 (cell)
Toll free: 1-877-697-7300
Email: info@gracefulearth.com

Letter to EPA official Winston Porter

Dear Mr. Porter,

I noticed your presentation on C-Span today.

In his award winning film “FUEL” Josh Tickell reveals that it was primarily the oil companies that funded the EPA agency. In fact it has also been revealed that the EPA reduced TPIs in 1994.

Do you have any explanation for why the Bush administration would not sign on to the Kyoto agreement?

When I have attempted to introduce my wife’s Japanese family’s zero-emissions waste management recycling plant to state government officials like Frank Doyle and Dr Eric Takamura of Hawaii their main interest and question is “what are you going to give me if I give you the garbage for free”. When I reported this response to Suzanne Jones, Mayor Hananaman’s City Recycling Coordinator and head of the environment for Hawaii she defended these questions by stating that “he must have been referring to tipping fees for the truckers”. Of course in Japan our San Ei / Corolex factory does indeed pay for certain waste such as office paper but he seemed to suggest something else.

At the same time Frank Doyle’s H-Power plant which releases toxins into the environment has been defended by Frank Doyle’s director Dr. Takamura as a recycling effort that should have all of the financial support to the exclusion of other technologies. Director Takamura was earlier quoted as saying to Hawaii council in 2005 that “there are no current alternative technologies available” even though our San Ei zero-emissions waste management factory was completed in 2003. When council members republican rep Charles Djou (letter to Charles Djou who supports shipping waste overseas) who asked what are you going to do with the Mayor’s 9 million dollars for curbside recycling as a recycling effort questioned Dr. Takamura he eventually answered that they consider H-power recycling as if to suggest that this is the only necessary form of recycling. Councilmember Ron Tam later told me over breakfast that these same waste management officials are believed to be getting kick backs from H-power (where waste is simply burned to produce electricity while releasing harmful chemicals into the air and water) and that this is why they don’t want to consider anything else. Councilmember Tam also told me that they can not fire them because they have a government job. This shows the levels of corruption that circumvent the public’s interest to the expense of other more viable and sustainable technologies such as those exhibited in the attachments above.

How can someone effectively produce a “feasibility” study when they can not account for kick-backs to certain government officials? As soon as they learn that you can make money from garbage it is no longer a liability but a commodity that they want a piece of. It seems that politicians and agencies on both sides have their own agendas. This may help explain why President Obama offered an EPA position to Robert Kennedy Jr. (Re. his internal and external environmental causes) known for amongst many things his Hudson River cause.

Additionally there have been concerns expressed (i.e. http://whatchildisthisfoundation.blogspot.com) that many of the toxins being released by “H-Power” Hawaiian power into Hawaii’s air and water may be at the root cause of the epidemic levels of autism and diminished IQ’s exhibitive in these regions and Hawaii in general. This blog was composed to suggest that one of the probable reasons that children in the areas near H-power and Nanakuli gulch, who have a layer of soot and dust on there kitchen table every morning may actually be the primary contributors to Hawaii having 3X the national average of autism in the US and that we (I) can prove it by performing forensic hair analysis, through our US CLIA licensed lab, on about 100 of the affected children in these areas to see if their mercury, lead, aluminum, arsenic or antimony levels are elevated. After relating my intention to Charles Djou he suggested I follow through and that nothing will be done for a long time because of the 51 million dollars that the state gave to a San Francisco law firm to defend against the Sierra club and EPA. He might have been suggesting (probably correctly) that the CA law firm would rather drag it out or create more dysfunction in order to use up the 51 million that they apparently have on retainer.

I believe this demonstrates a microcosm of much greater issues and the current bigger problems exposed in the Gulf through the unhealthy, unregulated “relationships” motivated by financial greed to the expense of accountability and responsibility, specifically a lack of accountability by BP and the mineral management companies and this contributes to creating a greater reliance and “addiction” to oil and ultimately supports the very political agendas which have compelled us to virtually go to bed with dubious middle eastern figures. It suggests that during this period of scrutiny that your (EPA's)conveniently timed appearances on C-span and this “winporter.com” website are nothing more than a form of damage control to save your own industry and maintain the status quo. Please prove to me and the American public otherwise.



Best Wishes,

Ken Friedenberg, VP

Graceful Earth Inc. -

Integrative & Preventive health services

Health & Beauty Products and Services

Preventive Medicine for the Body & Planet

www.gracefulearth.com

info@gracefulearth.com

1-808-394-2832

Toll Free -1-877-697-7300

Fax: 1- 310-734-4651

Hair Analysis / Alzheimer's Genome Saliva Test / Tyfu / Shower & Bath Filters / Pure Encapsulations

http://gracefulearth.nutracompute.net/main/

www.AnalysisofHair.com



Green Earth Paper Inc.

The World's First Zero Emissions Waste management Re-cycled Paper Mill (Coreless Toilet & Tissue Paper)

US Agents for Corelex / San Ei of Japan

Integrative & Preventive health services

Health & Beauty Products and Services

Preventive Medicine for the Body & Planet

Graceful Earth Inc.

1-808-394-2832

Toll Free -1-877-697-7300

Fax: 1- 310-734-4651

http://purenutritionals.com/coreless/index.html

Albert Schweitzer , the great German-French theologian, musician, philosopher, and physician who received the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize for his philosophy of "Reverence for Life" once said:

Until he extends his circle of compassion to include all living things, man will not himself find peace.

and

I don't know what your destiny will be, but one thing I do know: the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who have sought and found how to serve."

This week Graceful Earth is looking for people who can help us find peace and happiness by helping us help you prevent and treat disease at it's source.

Graceful Earth has sought and found how to serve people by offering access to the most sophisticated and advanced hair, saliva and blood testing services designed to include preventive and integrative health advice to help pro-actively prevent serious disease by providing customized reports hair analysis and the ApoE gene test.

The N.Y. Times Recently Reported on the importance of the ApoE Gene test and the need to know.

Alzheimer's is the fastest growing disease in America.

Graceful Earth Inc. offers what has been referred to as the solution - ApoE Gene Diet, specifically designed and included with your ApoE / Alzheimer's Gene test results.

Normally this PCR ( FDA approved polymerase chain reaction) test can be quite expensive..on upwards to several thousands of dollars. For only $280.00 dollars our ApoE gene saliva test can accurately determine your genetic potential and will give you a valuable peek into your genetic future. ..... This is a once in a lifetime test. People ordering any oif these tests from us fo the second time receive 20% off hair analysis and ApoE Gene testing

Remember ...whenever you look into the future...it changes..because you looked at it!

Help us help you.

Graceful Earth Inc."

Graceful Earth Inc./ Green Earth Paper Inc. & La Tagua will participate in the following Hawaii Movie Premier of FUEL by Josh Tickell.

Green Event at Neal S. Blaisdell Center Concert Hall

Green Earth Media Presents.

The Oahu Premiere of "FUEL" the movie

(There is only one screening-buy your tickets now!)

See the film trailer at www.gemhawaii.com

With special guest Josh Tickell, the director of FUEL, who recently appeared on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

Woody Harrelson calls FUEL "the most hopeful film of the year". Winner of the 2008 Sundance Film Festival Audience Award for Best Documentary, FUEL received 11 standing ovations at Sundance.

WHEN: Friday June 26, 2009 at 6.30pm (Come early--4.30 -6.30pm &

Meet our Green & Sustainable VENDORS)

WHERE: Neal S. Blaisdell Center Concert Hall

TICKETS: $10 Admission - All Seats Reserved

Tickets available at the Blaisdell Box Office, on-line at www.ticketmaster.com or charge by phone 1-800-745-3000 (applicable service charge for phone & on-line purchases)

The Corelex factory of Japan has pioneered new technology & revolutionized the way we approach recycling.

Since its inception in 1963 San- Ei Corporation of Japan has pioneered, developed and incorporated the latest machinery designed to handle all kinds of wastepaper, creating the world’s first Coreless toilet paper. From 1990 – 1994 Corelex created a system which would remove all foreign substances from all types of paper, including the removal of magnets from train tickets. This process was to become a major contribution towards environmental and public safety concerns and was granted the Science & Technology award in 2002.

How is Zero-emissions recycling achieved?

o Plastic wrappers, metals and all alien substances are removed and separated from the paper.
o Pulper – a big washing machine – removes ink and any additional foreign matter.
o Contrivance – a machine using centrifugal force removes any plastic laminates coating to form and collect paper sludge (a glue-like, clay substance often used to protect, coat and add a glossy finish to paper surfaces).
o The “PS” / Paper Sludge is taken to a very high intensity incinerator to create ash for cement fill.
o Another machine collects the raw paper pulp where any remaining ink is washed and cleaned off. Depending on and in accordance with the paper’s consistency a regulated amount of oxygen is moderately added.
o The drained waste water then goes through 4 layers of a purification system and is channeled to a waste water tower where hydro-electric power is generated to supply and produce enough energy to run the entire factory.
o The thin paper pulp is sent through a dryer which provides enough heat to kill any micro-organisms which may be present.
o This dried sterile paper is then formed into jumbo rolls of paper sheets.
o At this point it enters “San-Ei’s” large high speed machine, the largest of its kind in the entire world, where the paper strength and texture is automatically regulated to a uniform consistency regardless of the various types and quality of paper.
o The Intl. patented re-winder machine then converts the jumbo roll sheets of paper to any desired types of textured, embossed or smooth toilet paper where, after passing through several x-ray inspection points, it is packaged and labeled.
o Robotic Machines then load, wrap, box and stack the toilet paper in a separate facility.


CORELESS is the toilet paper of the future.


 Made from recycled pre & post - consumer waste.

 Manufactured by the worlds first ZERO-EMISSIONS / ZERO-POLLUTION waste management / recycling paper plant.

 No - Toxic Chemicals (including Dioxins and Furans), or Heavy metals such as Mercury, Lead, Arsenic typically found in H-POWER’s exhaust.

 CORELESS provides twice the length and weight of ordinary rolls, while providing longer / more durable sheets in a conventionally sized product.

 No wasteful core to throw away.

 Twice the length and weight of ordinary rolls Coreless offers greater savings while providing longer / more durable sheets.

Protect Hawaii
Support Zero-Emissions Waste Management and recycled paper products.
Purchase reusable / consumable by-products made in Hawaii
Coreless Toilet Paper
Cement Ash Fill / Fertilizer
 Made from recycled pre & post - consumer waste. No wasteful core to throw away.
 Manufactured by the worlds first ZERO-EMISSIONS / ZERO-POLLUTION waste management / recycling paper plant.
 Creating 100% of its hydro-electrical energy by utilizing and filtering Hawaii’s raw treated sewage water.
 No - Toxic Chemicals (including Dioxins and Furans), or Heavy metals such as Mercury, Lead, Arsenic typically found in H-POWER’s exhaust.
 CORELESS provides twice the length and weight of ordinary rolls, while providing longer / more durable sheets.
 Greater savings in a conventionally sized product.
 Protects & supports Hawaii’s natural waste and employment resources while protecting against the bleaching of our coral reefs and eventual erosion of our beaches.
 Plants and produce reap 2 X larger growth. Japan’s streets and highways last 30% longer.
Zero Emission is defined as finding value in all resources and utilizing them to the last. It is a worldwide keyword towards the realization of a resource recycling-based society.

Bush Environmental Rollback May Be Connected To The increase in Childhood (as well as Alzheimer's disease) Disorders

California's sevenfold increase in autism is most likely due to environmental exposures, according to scientists. A new study advocates a nationwide shift in autism research to focus on environmental factors such as pesticides, viruses and chemicals in household products.

Throughout the U.S., the numbers of autistic children have increased dramatically over the past 15 years. More than 3,000 new cases of autism were reported in California in 2006, compared with 205 in 1990.

Many medical officials argued that the rise was due to changes in diagnoses or migration patterns rather than a real rise in the disorder. But the new study concludes that those factors cannot explain most of the increase in autism.

Researchers analyzed 17 years of state data that tracks developmental disabilities. Migration to the state had no effect, and changes in how and when doctors diagnose the disorder can explain less than half of the increase.

It is possible that a pregnant woman's exposure to chemical pollutants, particularly metals and pesticides, could be altering a developing baby's brain structure, triggering autism. Many parent groups also believe that childhood vaccines could be responsible.
Sources:
• Scientific American January 9, 2009
• Epidemiology January 2009, Volume 20(1) pp 84-90

Bush Rollback Will Hide Data on 600,000 Pounds of Toxic Chemicals in California
Published April 10, 2007
Stolen Inventory

The Bush Administration has adopted regulations that will dramatically roll back Americans' right to know about chemical hazards in their neighborhoods, allowing California industries to handle almost 600,000 pounds of toxic chemicals a year without telling the public, according to an investigation of federal data by Environmental Working Group (EWG).
For more than 20 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program has required industrial facilities to report the release, disposal, incineration, treatment or recycling of 650 chemicals covered by the law. Comprehensive TRI reporting has been required for facilities that handle at least 10,000 pounds a year or manufacture 25,000 pounds per year, and discharge or dispose of at least 500 pounds per year of the listed chemical.
But just before Christmas, the EPA gutted the TRI by sharply raising the detailed reporting threshold so that only releases of at least 2,000 pounds of chemicals will be subjected to detailed reporting. Facilities that don't meet the threshold must only indicate that they use a chemical.

The agency adopted the rollback over the objections of more than 122,000 American citizens, corporations, government agencies and others who wrote in to protest the change. [OMB Watch 2006]

EWG's investigation of TRI data from 2004 found that the proposed EPA rollback deals a crippling blow to Californians' access to information about toxic chemicals in their communities:

• The rollback will allow 274 industrial facilities in 30 counties to stop detailed reporting on the use or release of 595,422 pounds of hazardous chemicals a year. In Los Angeles County alone, 247,097 pounds of chemicals a year from 107 facilities will no longer be subject to reporting. In Alameda and Contra Costa counties combined, almost 66,000 pounds from 29 facilities will no longer be reported. In Orange County, more than 58,000 pounds from 27 facilities will no longer be reported.

EPA Will End Detailed Reporting of nearly 600,000 Lbs. of Waste a Year in California
County Facilities reporting releases between 500 and 2000 pounds and waste management activities up 5000 pounds in 2004

Number of facilities
Emissions
(pounds)
Annual
Reportable
Amount
(pounds)

Los Angeles County
107 123,991 247,097
Contra Costa County
15 24,365 34,021
Orange County
27 23,111 58,202
San Bernardino County
19 19,341 34,542
San Diego County
16 18,768 39,496
Alameda County
14 12,961 31,918
Kern County
12 12,253 22,239
Solano County
4 7,091 16,219
Riverside County
4 6,691 14,091
Humboldt County
2 6,330 6,950
California Total 274 505,169 595,422
See Full List of Counties
• The rollback will allow 52 California facilities to stop reporting any details of their use or release of toxic chemicals. These facilities will be allowed to handle 69,426 pounds of toxic chemicals a year without detailed public disclosure.

52 Facilities Will Be Exempt From Detailed Waste Reporting
Facility
Facilities reporting releases between 500 and 2000 pounds and waste management activities up 5000 pounds in 2004
Number of chemicals
Emissions
(pounds)
Annual
Reportable
Amount
(pounds)

Coatings Resource Corp., Huntington Beach 3 3,103 3,103
Westway Feed Products Co, Stockton 1 1,850 1,850
Distinctive Appliances Inc Aka Dacor, City Of Industry 1 1,728 2,592
Solvay Draka Inc., Commerce 1 1,705 1,710
Bardon Enterprises Inc, Santee
2 1,579 1,579
Century Plastics Inc, Compton 1 1,473 1,473
Prc-desoto International Inc., Glendale
1 1,450 1,450
Gillig Corp, Hayward 2 1,381 3,264
American Polystyrene Corp, Torrance 1 1,371 1,371
P.f.i. Inc., Santa Fe Springs 1 1,369 1,629
California Total 52 60,029 69,426

• Chemicals for which reporting will be slashed or curtailed are among the most hazardous to human health. The rollback will end annual reporting in California of more than 41,000 pounds of ethylbenzene, 10,000 pounds of styrene, 12,000 pounds of benzene and almost 16,000 pounds of chromium and chromium compounds - all known or suspected carcinogens. It will also eliminate annual reporting for more than 6,200 pounds of chemicals that meet the EPA's criteria for persistent bioaccumulative toxics, or PBTs - chemicals that present the greatest threats to human health and the environment. [EWG 2006]
.
• Although the proposed rollback will reduce the total amount of chemicals used in California that must be reported to the TRI by less than 1 percent, reporting for many individual chemicals will drop sharply. All reporting will end for five different chemicals and reporting will drop by 10 percent or more for 69 chemicals.

The TRI is the nation's premiere pollution reporting and citizens' right-to-know program. It is widely recognized as the least controversial environmental program in the country and has been praised by industry and environmentalists as an effective way to increase chemical use efficiency and reduce waste and pollution. The TRI is the only source of chemical-specific information on industrial pollution at the individual facility level. It is an essential source of information for state and local governments and community activists nationwide.

Established in 1986, the TRI imposes no mandatory pollution controls on industry, but instead requires the reporting of estimated levels of release and disposal for 650 chemical compounds (less than one percent of chemicals registered for use in the U.S.) by some 23,000 facilities. This simple act of public disclosure is widely credited with spurring voluntary pollution reductions, with total U.S. chemical releases dropping 65 percent since 1989. [Hogue 2005]. In 2006, after the EPA first proposed rolling back the TRI, a report by a dozen state attorneys general, including Bill Lockyer of California, cited striking reductions achieved by industry since the program began: Boeing Company cut its toxic chemical releases by over 82 percent; Monsanto cut its toxic air emissions by over 90 percent; and the Eastman Chemical Co. cut its releases of TRI chemicals by 83 percent. [Spitzer 2006.]





In January 2006, the attorneys general wrote to the EPA to protest the planned rollback, saying: "The proposed changes to the rule are not consistent with the purpose of TRI - to provide a maximum amount of information regarding toxic chemical use and releases to Americans - but directly contrary to the statutory purpose." The AGs said the proposed changes "violate the old saying: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

"They said: The changes would significantly reduce the amount of information about releases of toxic chemicals available to the public and as a result would impair efforts by federal, state and local governments, workers, firefighters and citizens to protect Americans and their environment from the harm caused by discharges of toxic chemicals to the air, water and land. In addition to being contrary to the public interest and sound policy, the proposed changes would violate the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, the Pollution Prevention Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. [Spitzer 2006.]

About the TRI

In December 1984, thousands of people died following the release of methyl isocyanate, a chemical used to make pesticides, at a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India. This tragedy was followed by the disclosure one month later that the same chemical had leaked at least 28 times from a similar Union Carbide facility in Institute, W.V. Eight months later, 3,800 pounds of leaked chemicals from the same Institute plant sent dozens of injured people to local hospitals [NYT 1985a, NAP 1989a].

Following the tragedy in India and the realization that a similar disaster was possible in the United States, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) in 1986 as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).

This legislation requires manufacturing facilities handling toxic chemicals to have emergency plans and coordinators in place in case accidents occur. Additionally, it requires facilities to inform communities and local authorities about the hazardous chemicals handled. Finally, the Act requires facilities to publicly report their chemical waste and emissions, a provision under Section 313 of the Act known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) [EPA 2004a, EPRCA].

The TRI has become the nation's premiere right-to-know law. It is one of the most widely praised and successful environmental programs for industry, environmentalists, and the public. Each year, companies across a wide range of industries (including chemical, mining, paper, oil and gas industries) that produce more than 25,000 pounds or handle more than 10,000 pounds of a listed toxic chemical must report it to the TRI. When the TRI first when into effect, the threshold was 75,000 pounds annually. Until the recent rollback by the EPA, if the company treated, recycled, disposed, or released more than 500 pounds of that chemical into the environment (as opposed to just handling it), they had to provide a detailed record of its use and environmental fate.

In 1990 the TRI was expanded with passage of the Pollution Prevention Act to include data on chemical quantities and practices involved in source reduction and recycling. In 1993 President Clinton issued an Executive Order in response to an evaluation of TRI by the General Accounting Office, which further expanded the program to require reporting from federal facilities [EPA 2002c]. EPA then reduced certain reporting requirements in 1994 when it established a system of different forms to be submitted for different levels of chemical releases [EPA 1994a]. Larger releases now require more detailed reporting, while smaller releases require more basic reporting.



In 1997 TRI was again expanded when EPA mandated more complete data on emissions from incinerators, and required TRI emissions reporting from additional industries not previously included: metal and coal mining, commercial electric utilities that use coal or oil, commercial hazardous waste treatment facilities, petroleum bulk terminals and plants, chemical and allied product wholesalers, and solvent recovery services [EPA 1997a].

The TRI imposes no pollution controls on industry, but instead requires facilities to report estimated levels of pollution and disposal for a list of 650 chemical compounds - less than one percent of chemicals registered for use in the U.S. This simple act of public disclosure has been undeniably beneficial for industry, the public, and the environment by:

• Producing broad reductions in emissions for scores of major air and water pollutants;
• Generating more efficient use of chemicals by industry;
• Helping to identify and prioritize chemicals of potential concern;
• Measuring progress toward chemical management goals;
• Delivering important information on pollution to communities near industrial facilities.

With annual emissions reporting from over 23,000 industrial and federal facilities, the TRI is credited with dropping the total releases of chemicals from all sources by 65 percent since 1989 [Hogue 2005]. It has also provided a foundation of solid facts to inform and drive policy advances, planning and citizen action at the national, state, and local levels.

In a 2003 report, the EPA listed two dozen state governments that rely on the TRI program for emergency planning, environmental targeting, risk assessments, standards, legislation, and quality assurance and control [EPA 2003a]. The state attorneys' general report said the TRI is also essential information for firefighters and local governments, for scientists, labor unions, investment advisors, even the Internal Revenue Service.

But nowhere has the TRI been more important than in the fight for environmental justice by grassroots communities - especially "fenceline" neighborhoods adjacent to chemical facilities. In the words of the attorneys general: "TRI data is the tool that proves the need for environmental justice at the national and local level." [Spitzer 2006]. Throughout California, TRI data has been a key tool that has empowered diverse communities to take action against toxic chemical hazards:

• In Los Angeles, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) used TRI data to show that more than 80 percent of facilities that release toxic chemicals in L.A. County were located in areas where a large majority of residents were people of color. Among the results: Three industrial recycling facilities relocated to more appropriately zoned areas, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District adopted environmental justice guidelines to ensure that diverse community voices are included in planning and regulatory decisions. [NIEHS 2005]

• In Richmond, the West County Toxics Coalition and CBE used the TRI to investigate refineries and other industrial polluters. The group published a report identifying the area's 20 largest polluters, naming a Chevron refinery as the worst. The report brought the oil company to the table for discussions that led to Chevron's agreement to close down older portions of the plant and install equipment to achieve zero emissions from an expansion. [EPA 1998]

• In the Ventura County community of Frasier Park, Concerned Residents of Lockwood Valley fought to get Pacific Custom Materials, a clay mine and cement kiln, report its emissions from burning diesel fuel to the TRI. They then used the data to force state and county regulators to crack down on the plant’s nitrogen and sulfur pollution, to institute real-time online emissions reporting, and bring a health damages lawsuit against the company, recently settled for an undisclosed amount. [Swan 2006]



• In West Oakland, the Chester Street Block Club Association, Citizens for West Oakland Revitalization and Greenaction used TRI data in a campaign against Red Star Yeast, whose plant was emitting tens of thousands of pounds of acetaldehyde, a carcinogen, and other toxic chemicals into the neighborhood's air. The community pressured authorities to investigate and fine Red Star for pollution violations and fought against renewal of the plant's operating permit, prompting the company to shut down the facility. [DeFao 2003]

Not surprisingly, the TRI is popular with the public, as demonstrated by public responses to government proposals to roll back the program in the past. The TRI's popularity is consistent with findings from public opinion polls showing that the public considers access to pollution information to be a basic right [Mellman 1999a].

The EPA Rollback

On September 21, 2005, the EPA announced its intention to roll back reporting requirements for all chemicals under the Toxics Release Inventory [EPA 2005a]. The rationale for this proposal was to reduce the reporting burden on industry, although it is notable that outside of EPA, there was no perceptible demand for the reporting changes that were proposed, nor were any presented along with the proposal. The EPA proposal had two major components: (1) Increase the amount of chemical releases that trigger detailed TRI reporting from 500 to 5,000 pounds per year. (2) Eliminate annual reporting and replace it with reporting every other year.
The EPA offered no rationale for the proposal other than its desire to ease the regulatory burden on business. But some prominent industries joined in the widespread outcry against the proposal, saying the TRI helped them reduce the use of toxic chemicals and keep track of chemicals they used, and few spoke out in support. In the end, EPA received 122,386 written comments on the proposal. A December 2006 report by OMB Watch broke down the numbers:

• 121,691 comments from private citizens opposing any change in the TRI.
• 442 comments in opposition from environmental, health, labor, faith and other public interest groups.
• 199 comments in opposition from government agencies and elected officials at the federal, state and local levels.
• A total of 34 comments supporting the changes, mostly from affected industries.
In addition, EPA received other strong criticism and resistance to the changes to TRI reporting:

• The House of Representatives passed a bipartisan appropriations rider preventing EPA from implementing the rule changes.
• Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) placed a hold on a Bush administration nominee to protest the proposals.
• EPA's Science Advisory Board formally opposed the proposals.
• The Environmental Council of States, an association of state governmental environmental agencies, passed a resolution urging EPA to withdraw the proposals.

The overwhelming response did prompt EPA to modify its proposal. When the final rule was published in December 2006, the proposal for alternate-year reporting was gone, and the threshhold for reporting chemical use was raised not to 5,000 pounds, but 2,000 pounds. However, raising the threshhold by a factor of four rather than a factor of 10 still will eliminate reporting of millions of pounds of toxics chemicals nationwide.

In February 2007, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a report analyzing the effect of the rollback. The report found that "TRI reporting changes will likely have a significant impact on information available to the public about dozens of toxic chemicals from thousands of facilities in states and communities across the country. "


Impacts included:

"Detailed information from more than 22,000 [facilities] could no longer be reported . . . .affecting more than 33 percent of reports in California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Second, we estimate that states could lose all quantitative information about releases of some chemicals, ranging from 3 in South Dakota to 60 in Georgia. Third, we estimate that 3,565 facilities . . . would no longer have to report any quantitative information to the TRI. " [GAO 2007]

Chemicals of Concern

The chemicals for which reporting will be slashed or curtailed by the EPA's rollback are among the most hazardous to human health

• Benzene. The rollback will end detailed reporting in California of release of more than 84,000 pounds of benzene, ethylbenzene and 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene from 41 facilities. Benzene is widely used to make other chemicals such as Styrofoam, dyes, detergents, drugs, pesticides, and chemicals used in nylon and other synthetic fibers. It is also found in crude oil, gasoline and cigarette smoke. Benzene is a known human carcinogen, causing leukemia and possibly non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Benzene has also been linked with non-cancer health conditions such as anemia, central nervous system depression, and other nervous system effects. [ATSDR 2005] (More about benzene)

• Toluene. The EPA proposal will eliminate reporting of release of 30,000 pounds of toluene and toluene compounds from 28 facilities in California. Toluene is used to produce benzene and as a solvent in paints and coatings, adhesives, inks, cosmetics, cleaning solutions, and organic reactions. Long term exposure to toluene-contaminated drinking water may cause serious nervous system disorders, including spasms, tremors, speech impairment, and memory, hearing, vision and coordination loss; it may also cause liver and kidney damage [USEPA 2002a]. Chronic exposure to toluene may also cause skeletal muscle disease, and studies in laboratory animals show that toluene can alter reproductive hormone levels and cause decreased sperm counts. [ATSDR 2005] (More about toluene)

• Chromium and chromium compounds. The rollback will end reporting of more than 16,000 pounds of chromium and chromium compounds, from 15 California facilities. An unknown amount of this is the highly toxic chromium-6, a known human carcinogen. Chromium-6 exposure has also been linked to lung cancer, chromosome aberrations and damage to the pharynx, larynx, kidney, heart and liver. Chromium-6 contaminated drinking water in Hinkley, Calif., was the basis of the movie "Erin Brockovich." In real life, a lawsuit by Hinkley residents against Pacific Gas & Electric Co. resulted in the largest legal settlement in U.S. history, $333 million. [ATSDR 2005] (More about chromium. More about chromium compounds)

The most hazardous chemicals in the TRI, including DDT, PCBs, dioxins and lead, are persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals (PBTs), which are defined as compounds that "possess toxic properties, resist degradation, [and] bioaccumulate." [Stockholm 2004] Different national and international treaties define specific properties in different ways, but for the Toxics Release Inventory, the EPA uses the following criteria [EPA 1999a]:

• Possesses a degradation half-life (the time it takes for half of the chemical to break down in water, soil, or river sediments) of two months or greater. This rate of degradation means that the chemical will persist for at least one year in the environment. Airborne chemicals must possess a degradation half-life of 2 days or more, meaning that they last in the air for about 12 days.



• Bioaccumulates in the tissues of organisms either through exposure to the chemical in the environment (bioconcentration) or through uptake in food (bioaccumulation). The EPA has created a number of tests to measure bioaccumulation. If these tests show that a chemical accumulates at levels 1000 or greater times in an organism's tissues compared to environment or food levels, the chemical is considered to bioaccumulate.

• Is reasonably anticipated to cause serious or irreversible chronic human health effects at relatively low doses or ecotoxicity at relatively low concentrations.

PBTs are so hazardous that they are the only group of chemicals to be banned on a global scale by international treaty. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants which came into force in May 2004, bans or severely restricts the 12 most harmful. Under the PBT provisions, any facility that handles 100 pounds of a persistent and bioaccumulative chemical or just 10 pounds of a very persistent and very bioaccumulative chemical - a chemical that meets international guidelines for banning - is subject to full reporting of pollution and disposal. Dioxins are so toxic that companies handling more than 0.1 gram are subject to fully reporting (nationwide, only about 285 pounds are disposed of or emitted annually).

The stricter PBT reporting requirements are, for the most part, not included in EPA's proposed rollback. But EWG has identified five chemicals already covered by the TRI that meet the EPA's own criteria for classification as PBTs, yet have not been made subject to the more stringent reporting rules. [EWG 2006] One of these chemicals are among those for which all detailed reporting will be curtailed in California, because all of the facilities that reported releases in 2004 were under the 2,000-pound threshold.

• DEHP. The rollback will end all reporting in California of releases of 6,233 pounds of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, from five facilities. In laboratory animals, fetal exposure to DEHP causes significant developmental toxicity, especially of the male reproductive tract. In adult animals, DEHP causes toxicity to the reproductive organs, adrenal, liver, and kidney. In humans, exposures to DEHP in polyvinyl chloride plastic used in medical applications are of concern, especially for infants and toddlers [Kavlock 2002]. DEHP was found in the blood of more than 95 percent of 2,800 people tested by the Centers for Disease Control in 2001 and 2002 [CDC 2005].

(More about DEHP)

California TRI Explorer

All Facilities: By County | By City | By Facility | By Chemical
EPA Will End Detailed Reporting of nearly 600,000 Lbs. of Waste a Year in California
County

Facilities reporting releases between 500 and 2000 pounds and waste management activities up 5000 pounds in 2004
Number of facilities
Emissions
(pounds)
Annual
Reportable
Amount
(pounds)

Alameda County
14 12,961 31,918
Butte County
2 1,808 5,475
Contra Costa County
15 24,365 34,021
Fresno County
2 1,254 1,832
Humboldt County
2 6,330 6,950
Kern County
12 12,253 22,239
Lassen County
1 1,047 1,047
Los Angeles County
107 123,991 247,097
Madera County
2 2,790 2,790
Merced County
1 700 700
Orange County
27 23,111 58,202
Placer County
3 2,547 5,515
Riverside County
4 6,691 14,091
Sacramento County
9 4,740 16,267
San Benito County
1 727 727
San Bernardino County
19 19,341 34,542
San Diego County
16 18,768 39,496
San Joaquin County
8 6,264 11,409
San Luis Obispo County
1 750 4,611
San Mateo County
3 2,017 4,259
Santa Barbara County
1 1,350 1,350
Santa Clara County
10 5,571 17,391
Santa Cruz County
1 15 934
Shasta County
1 505 505
Siskiyou County
1 1,216 1,216
Solano County
4 7,091 16,219
Sonoma County
1 0 2,000
Ventura County
4 4,305 8,263
Yolo County
1 89 2,832
Yuba County
1 10 1,524
California Total 274 505,169 595,422


References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2000. Toxicological Profile for Toluene. CAS# 108-88-3.
Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Section, O. o. E. H. H. A., California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 1999. Public Health Goal for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene in Drinking Water.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2005. Third national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/3rd/.
DeFao 2003. Yeast plant in Oakland will close; Neighbors have complained about smell, chemical releases. Janine DeFao, San Francisco Chronicle. April 2, 2003.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. "Alternate Threshold for Facilities With Low Annual Reportable Amounts; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Community Right-To-Know; Final Rule," Federal Register, November 30, 1994, vol 59, pg 61488;. Access on January 9, 2006 at: http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-TRI/1994/November/Day-30/pr-3.html
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. "Addition of Facilities in Certain Industry Sectors; Revised Interpretation of Otherwise Use; Toxic Release Inventory Reporting; Community Right-to-Know; Final Rule," Federal Register, May 1, 1997, vol 62, pg 23834. Accessed on January 9, 2006 at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TRI/1997/May/Day-01/tri11154.pdf
EPA 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9: Cross-Media Division, A Citizen's Guide to Reducing Toxic Risks: Putting the Toxics Release Inventory to Work! (EPA # 909-B-98-001, Washington DC, 1998).
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999a. "Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Lowering of Reporting Thresholds for Certain PBT Chemicals; Addition of Certain PBT Chemicals; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Reporting", Federal Register, October 29, 1999, vol 64, 209, 58665-58753
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002c. "President Clinton's Executive Order on Reducing Toxic Emissions from Federal Facilities," EPA Press Release, August 4, 1993. Accessed on January 8, 2006 at: http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/programs/02.htm
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. How Are the Toxics Release Inventory Data Used? (EPA-260-R-002-004). May 2003. http://www.epa.gov/tri/guide_docs/2003_datausepaper.pdf
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003a "How Are the Toxics Release Inventory Data Used? Government, business, academic and citizen uses," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003. Accessed on January 12, 2006 at: http://www.epa.gov/tri/guide_docs/2003_datausepaper.pdf
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002a. Technical Factsheet on: Toluene. Last updated November 26, 2002. Accessed on February 28th, 2006 at: http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/dwh/t-voc/toluene.html
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004a. "What is the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program". Last updated 14 June 2004, accessed on-line on January 10, 2006 at: http://www.epa.gov/tri/whatis.htm
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005a. "Toxics Release Inventory 2006 Burden Reduction", Federal Register, October 4, 205, vol 70, 191, 57871-57872.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Last Updated on February 21st, 2006. Consumer Factsheet on: 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.
EPCRA. "Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act," Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 11001-11050.
EWG 2006. Stolen Inventory: EPA's Plan Would Allow Industry to Pollute Communities with Dangerous Persistent Chemicals without Notifying the Public. Environmental Working Group. Jan. 13, 2006. http://www.ewg.org/reports/cheminventory
Foster, W. G. 1995. The reproductive toxicology of Great Lakes contaminants. Environ Health Perspect 103 Suppl 9:63-9.
Hogue, C. 2005. "A Smaller Right-To-Know?", Chemical and Engineering News, 83, 44, (2005), pg 22-25
Kavlock R, Boekelheide K, Chapin R, Cunningham M, Faustman E, Foster P, Golub M, Henderson R, Hinberg I, Little R, Seed J, Shea K, Tabacova S, Tyl R, Williams P, Zacharewski T. 2002. NTP Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction: phthalates expert panel report on the reproductive and developmental toxicity of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Reproductive Toxicology. 16(5):529-653.
Mellman Group, Inc. and Public Opinion Strategies, Inc. 1999 "Public Opinion Research on Public Health, Environmental Health, and the Country's Public Health Capacity to Adequately Address Environmental Health Problems," conducted for the Pew Charitable Trusts.
National Research Council. 1989. Committee on Risk Perception and Communication, "Improving Risk Communication: Working Papers," National Academy Press, Washington DC. Access on January 10, 2006 at: http://www.nap.edu/books/POD289/html/index.html
NIEHS 2005. "Environmental Justice: Project Descriptions." National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Division of Extramural Research and Training. April 12, 2005. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/translat/envjust/projects/porras.htm.
Shabecoff, P. 1985. " E.P.A. says Union Carbide plant in U.S. had 28 leaks in 5 years," New York Times, January 24, 1985, page 1.
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. 2004. Available at http://www.pops.int.
Swan 2006. Personal communication from Sylvia Swan of Tri-County Watchdogs, Frasier Park, CA. February 2006.
Spitzer 2006. Comments of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, et al, on the Toxics Release Inventory Burden Reduction Proposed Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 57822 (Oct. 4, 2005) and the Toxics Release Inventory 2006 Burden Reduction, 70 Fed. Reg. 57871 (Oct. 4, 2005). January 12, 2006.
About this report
Authors: Kristan Markey and Bill Walker
Editor: Bill Walker
Databases: Chris Campbell
Web Design and Graphics: T.C. Greenleaf and Carrie Gouldin
Thanks to Environment California, Communities for a Better Environment, Greenaction and Sylvia Swan of Concerned Citizens of Lockwood Valley for their help.
This report was made possible by a grant from The California Wellness Foundation. The authors are responsible for all errors.
Right-to-Know Rollback will Hide Data on 600K lbs of Toxics in California
SACRAMENTO, April 12 – The Bush Administration has adopted regulations that will dramatically roll back Americans' right to know about chemical hazards in their neighborhoods, allowing California industries to handle almost 600,000 pounds of toxic chemicals a year without telling the public, according to a report released today by Environmental Working Group (EWG).
The rollback will allow 274 industrial facilities in 30 California counties to stop detailed reporting on the use or release of 595,422 pounds of hazardous chemicals a year.
In Los Angeles County alone, 247,097 pounds of chemicals a year, from 107 facilities, will no longer be subject to reporting. In Alameda and Contra Costa counties combined, almost 66,000 pounds from 29 facilities will no longer be reported. In Orange County, more than 58,000 pounds from 27 facilities will no longer be reported.

The EWG report, which is searchable by county, chemical and facility, is available at www.ewg.org.

In the state legislature, Assembly member Ira Ruskin of Redwood City has introduced AB 833, a bill would require California industries to continue complete reporting of chemical emissions, despite the EPA rollback. This week the bill passed the Environmental Safety & Toxic Materials Committee, and ow heads to the Appropriatons Committee.





"It is unfortunate that California must once again defend itself from a Bush Administration action that harms the health of people and turns its back on scientific knowledge. In this case, the affected industry did not even clamor for the reporting rollbacks granted by Bush's EPA," said Ruskin. "My legislation ensures that the people of California maintain the same rights to know despite the efforts of the Bush Administration to curtail that right."

For more than 20 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program has required industrial facilities to report the release, disposal, incineration, treatment or recycling of 650 chemicals covered by the law. But late last year, the EPA gutted the TRI by sharply raising the detailed reporting threshhold so that only releases of at least 2,000 pounds of chemicals will be reported. Facilities that don't meet the threshold must only indicate that they use a chemical.

EWG/TRI, 2
EWG's investigation of TRI data from 2004 found that the EPA rollback deals a crippling blow to Californians' access to information about toxic chemicals in their communities:
• The rollback will allow 52 California facilities to stop reporting any details of their use or release of toxic chemicals. These facilities will be allowed to handle 69,426 pounds of toxic chemicals a year without detailed public disclosure.
• Chemicals for which reporting will be slashed or curtailed are among the most hazardous to human health. The rollback will end annual reporting in California of more than 41,000 pounds of ethylbenzene, 10,000 pounds of styrene, 12,000 pounds of benzene and almost 16,000 pounds of chromium and chromium compounds - all known or suspected carcinogens. It will also eliminate annual reporting for more than 6,000 pounds of chemicals that meet the EPA's criteria for persistent bioaccumulative toxins, or PBTs - chemicals that present the greatest threats to human health and the environment.
• Although the rollback will reduce the total amount of chemicals used in California that must be reported to the TRI by less than 1 percent, reporting for many individual chemicals will drop sharply. All reporting will end for five different chemicals and reporting will drop by 10 percent or more for 69 chemicals.
________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.ewg.org/reports/ca_tri2007

JAPAN OFFERS BEST SOLUTION TO HAWAII'S WASTE MANAGEMENT LANDFILL PROBLEMS.

World's First Zero Waste Paper Recycling Plant
An industrial-looking channel directs water into a small pond in front of the new Corelex paper recycling plant in Kawasaki, Japan. The pond is home to a school of healthy goldfish. Visitors to the facility are told outright: “The smoke house (a small, attractive round wood structure) is used for parties – the fish are living in the plant’s discharge water...”Indeed, the $180 million Corelex plant, built with the help of government loans, is the first “zero waste” paper recycling plant in the world, according to its developers.
Unlike many paper plants, which struggle over “stickies” and landfill growing mountains of sludge, this new plant can easily take all manner of mixed paper. Binders, paper with plastic clips, metal parts, and aseptic poly-coated paper are no problem. The only waste product is some ash, which is used for filler in a concrete product by another plant nearby.
Petition to State Officials
Support the Zero-Emissions / Waste Management factory and its reusable / consumable by-products in Hawaii
l Coreless Toilet Paper
l Black Lite / “Odorway” & Fertilizer
l Cement bits for street repair
Protect Hawaii
Reduce Global Warming and its possible effects on weather systems, hurricanes and typhoons
Eliminate Landfills (i.e. Nanakuli, Makaiwa Gulch and an expansion of Waimanalo Gulch)
Eliminate Toxic chemical emissions dumped into our land, air, and water supplies
The Solution to pollution is not Dilution
We the undersigned know that zero-emissions technology exists (re. Kawasaki City factory completed in 2003) and implore you to pass legislation to bring the safest, most effective waste management factory to Hawaii instead of spending 10’s of millions shipping our natural waste resources overseas or 100’s of millions burning it.