More than 70,000 citizens voiced opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposals to cut chemical reporting under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), during the agency's public comment period that ended Jan. 13. Those speaking out against EPA's proposals included state agencies, health professionals, scientists, environmentalists, labor, Attorneys General, and even Congress, all of whom raised substantive concerns with the plan.

A first look at the comments submitted on EPA's proposed rule to change the threshold for detailed reporting shows extensive opposition and little support for the agency's plans.

Reps. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Hilda Solis (D-CA) and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) coordinated a letter signed by over 50 members of the U.S. House of Representatives urging EPA to "immediately withdraw [the] proposed changes to TRI requirements." As previously reported, members of both the Senate and House have written EPA expressing their misgivings about the proposed changes.

Twelve state Attorneys General submitted detailed comments suggesting that EPA lacks authority to finalize the proposals and that the current EPA plans violate several laws. "In addition to being contrary to the public interest and sound policy," their comments explain, "the proposed changes would violate the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)." The comments were submitted by the attorney general offices of New York, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

Maine's Department of Environmental Conservation also questioned the legality of EPA's proposals and expressed fear that the proposals would inflict significant harm on Maine's 'toxic reduction' program. According to the agency's comments, "Such a change inherently conflicts with the intent of the Community Right to Know Act and the goals of the TRI program. Furthermore, because Maine has a Toxics Reduction Program centered on public accountability, this proposal would significantly curtail what the public can review." Maine, according to the comments, would lose almost 70 percent of its TRI inventory and the ability to track 70 percent of Toxic Release data in the state.

Joseph A. Gardella, Jr., Ph.D., an award-winning chemist and professor with the University of Buffalo, in comments submitted to EPA, strongly opposed the changes. Gardella, who works to forge partnerships between industrial facilities and exposed communities to foster pollution prevention and remediation, wrote, "[f]or almost 20 years, the TRI program has been successful in making communities around the country safer and healthier by providing critical information on the toxic chemicals released into our land, water, and air... [EPA's proposal] poses a significant threat to our nation's health, safety, and environmental quality."

OMB Watch submitted extensive comments detailing the numerous problems and shortcomings of EPA's plans. As did many other comments, the organization highlighted the fact that "EPA's proposed changes would greatly reduce the amount of information available to communities, state officials, first responders, and health professionals on the releases and disposals of toxic chemicals, which pose significant health risks to workers and the general public." OMB Watch urged the agency to withdraw the proposals and begin the process of identifying changes that would reduce reporting burden without increasing risks to public health or harming state pollution prevention efforts.

While EPA has not officially announced the number of comments it received, according to the more than a dozen organizations that provided online tools for submitting comments, at least 70,000 comments were submitted. According to EPA sources, comments against the proposals continue to pour in, despite the comment period having ended on Jan. 13.

Now, EPA must compiling and review the comments, and prepare a set of responses to all the issues they raise. During that time the EPA may modify its proposals based on the comments or even withdraw the proposals entirely. Given the volume, not to mention the variety of reasons and sources of opposition, the agency will likely take several months to prepare a full response. Officials report that the agency hopes to have a final rule published by December 2006.

In the meantime, EPA has begun gathering stakeholder input on another proposal to limit the TRI, the possibility of alternate year reporting under TRI. Under the law, EPA must notify Congress about its intent to alter the frequency of TRI reports. Then, the agency must decide whether the change would harm the usefulness of the program to states, health professionals and the general public. The agency's stakeholder outreach appears to be the first stage of its investigation into the matter. After concluding this process, if the agency elects to move forward with this other cutback to TRI reporting, that rule change could not be proposed before October 2006, after which roughly a year would be needed to conclude the rulemaking process.

While congressional approval is not required for either the TRI threshold reporting changes or reduction in the frequency of TRI reporting, Congress can intervene before either proposal is finalized; and, given the level of concern over both proposals that a number of senators and representatives have expressed, such intervention does not seem out of the question.