State Attorneys General Oppose EPA Move to Narrow Toxics Reporting

WASHINGTON, DC, January 23, 2006 (ENS) - A dozen state attorneys general are calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw proposed regulations that would cut back the amount of information available to the public about toxic chemicals released by industrial facilities.

On January 13, the attorneys general submitted detailed written comments challenging the legality of proposed EPA regulations that would scale back the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Since 1987, the federal computerized database has provided information annually on the type and quantity of toxic chemicals released into the air, water and soil.

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said, "The Toxics Release Inventory has been extremely successful in raising public awareness about chemical hazards in communities from coast to coast. Public disclosure has proven to be a strong incentive for polluters to reduce their use of toxic chemicals. This move by EPA appears to be yet another poorly considered notion to appease a few polluting constituents at the expense of a valuable program."

A Florida paper mill emits smoke into the air. (Photo courtesy Florida DEP)

The attorneys general are objecting to a rule proposed by the EPA on September 21, 2005 to expand the use of a shortened reporting form, the Form A certification statement, for some facilities.

Kimberly Nelson, assistant administrator for the Office of Environmental Information and chief information officer for EPA, said then that the proposal "would provide burden reduction for approximately one-third of TRI reporters while still requiring facilities to report on all chemicals that they report on today."

Nelson said the rule was proposed after an evaluation by EPA, its stakeholders and reporting facilities "to address the concerns expressed about TRI reporting burden."

The EPA estimates the proposed rule will save 165,000 hours per year, while still ensuring full Form R, the long form, would be used to report on "over 99 percent of toxic releases and other waste management activities."

But the attorneys general are less concerned about the reporting burden on emitting facilities than they are about the effects of the emissions on communities across the nation.

Waste liquid from a U.S. factory enters a stream. (Photo credit unknown)

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said, "There is absolutely no good reason to cut back on toxic release reporting. The cost of reporting these releases is low, and the cost to our citizens of not reporting them is intolerably high."

The EPA is proposing changes that would weaken the TRI by raising the baseline reporting threshold for chemical releases from the current 500 pounds to 5,000 pounds.

The EPA rule would reduce the reporting requirements for some of the most toxic chemicals - those that are persistent, and bio-accumulative - a category that includes lead, mercury and PCBs.

The federal agency is considering cutting the requirement to report toxic chemical releases from once a year to once every two years.

The attorneys general believe that "such changes would significantly reduce the amount of toxic chemical release information available to the public."

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said, "The EPA’s proposal to reduce public reporting of toxic chemical releases is the definition of heading in the wrong direction. Communities have a right to know if there are releases of PCBs, mercury, lead or other toxic chemicals."

Maryland Attorney General Joseph Curran, Jr. said, "The Toxics Release Inventory puts chemical release information in the hands of the public and allows communities to engage in an educated dialogue with their industrial neighbors, and this kind of communication is beneficial to us all."

Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly said, "The Toxics Release Inventory has resulted in a major reduction of toxic chemical releases across the country. These regulations have proven effective in providing valuable information to the public as well as protecting our environment and the public health, and should not be watered down."

After the 1984 deadly release of toxic chemicals at the Union Carbide facility in Bhopal, India, the U.S. Congress responded by establishing the Toxics Release Inventory.

Paper mill effluent is toxic if released into the environment. (Photo courtesy Florida DEP)

Disclosure of public information about toxic releases has prompted reductions in the release of toxic chemicals across the nation, the attorneys general and the EPA both acknowledge. The attorneys general point to the Boeing Company, which has reduced its toxic chemical releases by over 82 percent since 1991; to Monsanto, which reduced its toxic air emissions by over 90 percent between 1988 and 1992; and to the Eastman Chemical Company of Tennessee, which has reduced its releases of TRI chemicals by 83 percent since 1988.

New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte said, "If EPA were to adopt these rollbacks, New Hampshire would lose critical toxic release information from most companies currently reporting, hindering state and local efforts to protect the public from toxic releases."

The EPA says that advances in data gathering technology can be used to reduce the reporting burden, and at the same time the agency is offering "new incentives to facilities to emit less" so that they can use the shorter form to report emissions.

EPA Chief Information Officer Nelson said, "Since TRI began in 1986, EPA has learned a great deal about the power that public information has to influence corporate behavior and empower communities, and we also have found new ways to use technology to reduce costs for everyone involved, improve data quality and speed the release of the information collected."

New Jersey Attorney General Peter Harvey said, "EPA’s proposal undercuts one of the major goals of the TRI program. Instead of empowering citizens to hold polluters accountable for how they manage their toxic chemicals, the citizens will be stripped of one of the most effective tools they have ever had. EPA is denying people the right to know about toxic threats within their community. The negative impact will likely be greatest in low-income areas, where chemical plants are often located."

New Mexico Attorney General Patricia A. Madrid said, "As our comments to EPA point out, the success of the Toxics Release Inventory has been praised by the states, former EPA Administrator Carol Browner, the Sierra Club and chemical giant Monsanto. Monsanto has even stated that compliance with TRI will ultimately result in cost savings and a competitive advantage to the company. Any environmental program that can be praised by such diverse interests as these is well worth saving."

Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell said, "Americans have a right to know what poisons are being released into the environment. Public health considerations should compel more, rather than less disclosure about these hazards. It makes no sense for the EPA to try to keep this critical information from the general public."

A refinery in Texas belches toxics into the air. (Photo courtesy Texas Department of Transportation)

The attorneys general warn that densely populated neighborhoods are especially at risk, giving as an example Tonawanda, a community in western New York state.

In one Tonawanda neighborhood with 45,000 people, environmental releases of 8,100 pounds of neurotoxic chemicals, 3,100 pounds of chemicals that may cause respiratory problems, 2,300 pounds of chemicals that cause developmental problems and 650 pounds of chemicals that may cause blood disorders could go unreported under the proposed weaker EPA regulation, the attorneys general said.

In November 2005, six U.S. senators sent a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson detailing concerns similar to those expressed by the attorneys general. The letter was signed by Jim Jeffords of Vermont, an Independent; Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Barbara Boxer of California, and Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Republican John McCain of Arizona.

The EPA says as the agency begins collecting information to analyze the alternate year approach, it will "consider all viewpoints on the issues." The agency plans to convene meetings with TRI stakeholders to invite their views and says that any changes to the present TRI reporting requirements will be done as part of a full notice and public comment rulemaking process.

For more information visit: http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/modrule/phase2/