The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is facing increased pressure on at least two fronts to alter reporting requirements under the Toxic Release Inventory Program (TRI) for mining operations and facilities that manufacture or use lead. EPA is in the process of developing a rule that could change how mining companies report toxics in waste rock under TRI, a program that requires industry to report on its toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities. The rule will address regulatory changes for the mining sector and aims to interpret a court decision (Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc. v EPA) that found Barrick Goldstrikes Mines exempt from reporting toxic chemicals that make up less than one percent of waste rock. Waste rock contains trace amounts of naturally occurring metals like lead, mercury and arsenic. Although the amounts in the rock are small, some mining operations can discard millions of tons of waste rock, compounding the amount of toxics released to the environment. Under TRI, reporting is required for substances that are processed, manufactured, or used. Industry argues that simply moving the rock does not constitute any of these actions, and therefore does not mandate reporting. It is unclear on exactly how the agency will interpret the court ruling in the new regulation as it determines how processes should be characterized in TRI reporting. EPA claims it is considering both the reporting burden on industry as well as the public benefits of accessing toxics information. In testimony before the House Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee on Sept. 25 Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV) called on EPA to increase its collaboration with mining companies while developing the rule. Environmentalists and public health advocates expressed concern over this type of collaboration as well as scaling back requirements under TRI. Lexi Shultz of the Mineral Policy Center emphasized the importance of TRI asserting it “gives industries a chance to voluntarily control pollution and gain public good will. And it arms the public with information that they need and can use to improve their quality of life.” EPA’s list of proposed changes to the rule is currently being reviewed by OMB and should be publicly available in the next several months. The TRI program is also facing criticism over its reporting thresholds for lead. A recent issue paper released Sept. 22 by EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) could bolster industry’s claims that lead reporting is highly burdensome. An April 2001 rule lowered the reporting threshold by over 20,000 pounds a year forcing many facilities to begin reporting lead. The SAB report says the model used to evaluate lead is incorrectly applied. In addition, a lawsuit is currently pending between a coalition of metal industry associations and EPA to stop the reporting rule (Ad Hoc Metals Coalition v. EPA). Raising the lead thresholds to previous levels, while they might reduce burdens, would result in less information reported, undermining important right-to-know efforts. Many environmental and public health groups praised EPA for lowering thresholds in order to better protect citizens, especially children. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly half a million children younger than 6 years of age in the United States have blood lead levels of at least 10 micrograms per deciliter (?g/dL), a level high enough to adversely affect their intelligence, behavior and development. By requiring industry to report lead, communities can trace the presence of the metal in their communities and pressure companies to lower the amount produced and used. Over the next few months EPA will be analyzing proposals for changing regulations and reporting requirements under TRI.