Support Collins on boilers
Some ill-intentioned activists recently criticized Sen. Susan Collins for introducing legislation that would bring sanity to a process gone wrong in the federal regulatory community. Unfortunately, their spin is misrepresenting the good work that Sen. Collins is doing to protect jobs and to assure realistic regulations are developed that can actually be implemented to improve our environment.
Sen. Collins’ bill provides much-needed business and legal certainty and the necessary time in which to make Boiler MACT (Maximum Available Control Technology) compliance investments. With the amendment receiving over 50 votes, it has bipartisan support, not just support from “industry lobbyists.”
Any claim that industry does not want to comply with the Boiler MACT rules is completely untrue, and Sen. Collins’ bill wouldn’t indefinitely delay them. What we do want is to have the opportunity to make investments in controls that can achieve the regulations’ limits and provide legal and business certainty.
Nearly 18,000 men and women and the communities we live in depend on the good-paying jobs that the forest products industry provides in Maine. We produce products that are used across the country and around the world.
Sen. Collins demonstrates true leadership every day in representing the interest of Mainers, and her Boiler MACT bill offers the chance to finalize a rule that protects both jobs and the environment. We should be supporting her efforts, not criticizing them.
Joel Swanton
Northeast Region Manager
Forest Resources Association
Holden
Keep us safe, senators
Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins should co-sponsor the Safe Chemicals Act, under which the Environmental Protection Agency will test chemicals for safety and toxicity before they end up on the market. You thought they were tested before they went into products? Think again.
Stain-resistant furniture, floor protectants, nonstick cookware, plastics, light bulbs, etc. threaten health because they contain toxic ingredients. Shampoos contain chemicals known to cause cancer. Lead is still allowed in art supplies, hair dyes, lipstick and even imported candy.
As a mother, I am discouraged that chemicals are allowed that are not tested for safety. Many are contributing to higher rates of cancer, intellectual and developmental disabilities, and dangers to reproductive health. For example, the EPA tried to restrict asbestos in 1989 and failed. No wonder we have to keep raising money to fight cancer. It’s because we’re not fighting to prevent it!
Our 35-year-old toxics law is being reformed to reflect real science. Out of the 80,000 chemicals used in commerce today, 62,000 are “grandfathered.” The EPA has tested just over 200 and regulated only five.
Under this Act, the EPA would be given new authorities to take immediate action to reduce exposure to chemicals that have been known toxins for years.
Our senators have a unique opportunity to protect the health of future generations of Maine families. There would be no better legacy for them than to leave their constituents with a promise of good health and real health reform spelled like this: prevention.
Suzanne A. Foley-Ferguson
Scarborough
We know the benzene in the gasoline and heating oil from the oil companies most of you give money to so they can have even more control over you is carcinogenic Suzanne. We don’t have to test these chemicals on helpless victims to earn more bad karma.
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hematologic/leukemia/statistics/state.htm – 2007 Maine leukemia rates
Suzanne Foley-Ferguson: correcting some points in your letter (pretty much cut and paste from some only partially correct data):
The TSCA list may contain 80,000 chemicals but not all are in commerce. Many are “natural”. Other than research quanitites, working or with or shipping any chemical requires that it be on the list.
Toxicity data exists on most of the chemicals (RTECS, etc.). Peer reviewed toxicity data exists for ca. 8000 chemicals (HSDB), all on the list.
Just about everything is toxic in the right amounts, amount and extent of exposure, etc. Risk evaluation is done much better referring to “Toxic Chemicals”, CRC Press, 2011, available in the Maine State Library. Therefore, describing only certain chemicals, many of which are “natural”, as toxic and subject to bans is unrealistic.
Exposure is a key factor. You cite light bulbs, assumed to be CFLs. CFLs contain a small anount of elemental mercury as do any fluorescent bulb. These are only a hazard if broken or not properly disposed of. I agree, require recycling/reclamation of any fluorescent bulb.
The hazards and risks of at least some of your cited products are not certain and not very well established. In many cases, translation from animal studies to human toxicity is prone to significant error. It would seem that what’s needed more is testing of products, e.g., lead in cosmetics, etc. Support of the bill can only be recommended unless it deals realisitcally with these and other issues and not just the simplistic apporach cited here.
My usual disclaimer: I’m a retired scientist not in the employ of a chemical manufacturer or chemical business organization.
Suzanne A. Foley-Ferguson,
Stop with this obsession that government should solve all our woes. It just isn’t going to happen. If you don’t like using toxic products, don’t buy them. In fact, people can and do make a business of selling all non-toxic products. Support that, and move the money out of the hands of businesses that make toxic products. (Some things you can’t get around though, like fire retardant chemicals, due to specific laws on specific products).
The government is in such a mess right now, I don’t think they even know what’s going on. The last thing I need is the government telling me what I can and can’t use in my home based on what they think is “toxic”. It can and will lead to legislation to punish certain businesses, products and people, and further push businesses that can’t immediately comply be forced out of business.
Like lead paint just left on its own, right?
The EPA says leave lead paint alone if it’s intact. Removal has to be done by professionals and will cost large sums of money.
I’m not saying, put lead back in paint, or go back to using lead pipes… But this “Toxic Task Force” idea is a dangerous one that WILL lead to politicism. It adds bureaucracy where none is needed. We need to streamline all these agencies, and get rid of others. We’re way too bloated, it is costing too much to run government functions, as evident by our massive federal deficit.
Um, it’s the government’s job to make sure it’s citizens aren’t exposed to deadly toxic chemicals in their own homes. There are some situations that call for libertarianism, but ensuring the saftey of consumer products through government regulation isn’t one of them.
Why not?
Because these are dangerous things. You’re living in lalaland if you tell someone to educate themselves before buying their products. Well, how can they educate themselves if there are no regulations for the business to disclose what’s in their products? No regulations requiring them to be truthful?
I d almost support having chemicals tested but you just can’t count on the government to have any common sense. Maybe if it were privatized it would work. It would be cheaper that way, far more productive and actually attract a good work force.
Just like our privatized healthcare is cheaper than all the socialized systems in the world.
How are all the Mr. Lepage supporters doing over here??????
Must be someone who has a compaint about the head cheese of Maine…
Keep “you safe” Suzanne Foley-Ferguson. If you are concerned about the content of a product. request a material safety data sheet from the manufacturer. Simple.
The EPA is not your mother, your big brother, your cousin or your boss…they think they are!
The state regulates environmental safety, unless a pollutant crosses a state boundary, then the EPA gets involved, not the other way around People seem to look at it from the perspective that the EPA writes the rules and the States march to their orders. Unfortunately they have been…but that is not what the law says.
Regarding the Boiler MACT act, Senator Collins has it right. It is the only way to save , because if the EPA has their way Maine will lose big time.