On Aug. 29 the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) passed a resolution urging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw its proposals to reduce reporting under the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). The resolution, by a national association of state and territorial environmental agency leaders, underscores the fact that states are firmly opposed to the EPA's plans to cut the national pollution reporting program. Late last year, EPA announced three significant changes it planned for TRI reporting, in order to reduce paperwork for companies. Since EPA's announcement, opposition to the plans has continued to mount from almost every direction. The EPA has received more than 122,000 comments from the public, nearly every one opposing the plans. Agencies and officials from more than 23 states submitted formal comments to EPA opposing the plans. The House of Representatives passed an amendment to one of its spending bills to prevent the EPA from spending money to finalize the proposals. The EPA's own Science Advisory Board sent a letter with unsolicited advice on the issue, expressing concern that the TRI changes would "hinder the advances of environmental research used to protect public health and the environment." ECOS members passed the resolution at their 2006 annual conference in Portland, Oregon. The resolution lists 14 reasons for the organization's position, including the House amendment and the numerous comments from state agencies and officials opposing the proposals. Generally, the resolution seems most concerned that the EPA's proposals would harm an important, effective tool for reducing toxic pollution without actually reducing any reporting burden on companies. Interestingly, the administration's nominee to direct EPA's Office of Environmental Information, which runs the TRI program, Molly O'Neill, currently works at ECOS as Executive Coordinator for the Exchange Network Leadership Council (ENLC) and the Network Operations Board. During her nomination hearing, O'Neill sidestepped several questions on the proposed TRI changes, refusing to take a position either supporting or opposing the plans. Recently, two senators placed a hold on O'Neill's nomination until EPA withdraws the proposed TRI cuts.