Correspondences obtained by OMB Watch between the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) raise significant questions about the influence SBA exerted over EPA's decision to pursue its current proposals to reduce chemical reporting under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

The SBA is an independent government agency with a mission to "[m]aintain and strengthen the nation's economy by aiding, counseling, assisting and protecting the interests of small businesses..." The agency has come under fire for its efforts to promote small business interests that come into conflict with environmental, health and safety, and labor standards. Given the extensive correspondence between SBA and EPA on this issue and the profound similarities between the changes SBA sought and those ultimately proposed by EPA, it appears that small business priorities may have been considered over environmental and health concerns.

On Nov. 4, 2002 the EPA announced an On-line TRI Stakeholder Dialogue to "reduce the reporting burden of companies that report to the TRI." Since this dialogue began in late 2002, OMB Watch has discovered that Kevin Bromberg, the lead SBA official on TRI burden reduction and a former chemical industry lobbyist, has held roughly 14 meetings and exchanged numerous emails with EPA officials on limiting TRI reporting requirements.

Many of the emails between Bromberg and EPA suggest a high degree of cooperation on the issue of TRI burden reduction.

• In a Feb. 13, 2004 email, Bromberg wrote to EPA officials crafting the TRI proposals, "We're very appreciative of your cooperation, and look forward to a fruitful partnership."
• An Oct. 6, 2004 email from Bromberg also conveys the level of influence SBA appears to have come to expect from EPA: "At a minimum, I should help EPA refine/tailor its presentation slides for the meeting." A meeting was held shortly after between Bromberg and EPA officials to discuss EPA's presentation at an upcoming stakeholder briefing on burden reduction.
• An Oct. 21, 2004 email from Bromberg to EPA Assistant Administrator Kim Nelson, considered the main architect of EPA's plans to cut TRI reporting, reads, "We've [EPA and SBA staff] been working closely together lately on TRI," to which Nelson responded, "The final product will be better with a partnership up front. Glad to hear things are progressing from your perspective."

The timeline for EPA's selection of TRI changes indicated by the documents also raises suspicion surrounding SBA influence.

• On Nov. 4, 2003 the EPA released its White Paper on the five burden reduction options being considered by the agency.
• On Feb. 4, 2004 EPA closed the public comment period on the Burden Reduction White Paper after having received hundreds of comments from stakeholder organizations and agencies opposing all of the options.
• Two months later, on April 15, 2004, the SBA sent EPA the 80-page report Proposed Reforms to the Toxics Release Inventory Program: Streamlining Reporting and Preserving Data Integrity. The report laid out SBA's case for its four most coveted TRI reporting cutbacks:
  1. Raising the general threshold for detailed reporting from 500 to 5,000 pounds;
  2. Allowing facilities to use the program's short form for Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBTs), like lead and mercury;
  3. Creating the ability for companies to file a no significant change report on the basis of having no major change in production; and
  4. Exempt petroleum and chemical wholesalers from reporting.
• At the National TRI Meeting, held Feb. 9 - 11, 2005, Kim Nelson announced that EPA was planning to allow companies to submit a simple "no significant change" report on the basis having no significant change in production rather than requiring the normal calculation of pollution amounts. Nelson also reported that other options would be included in the proposal.
  1. Raising the general threshold for detailed reporting from 500 to 5,000 pounds;
  2. Allowing up to 500 pounds of PBT disposals to be reported on the program's short form; and
  3. Creating the ability for companies to file a no significant change report every other year.
In a July 19, 2005 meeting with public interest groups, EPA officials announced that the agency would be pursuing three burden reduction changes which almost directly mirror the SBA changes:
• On September 21, 2005, EPA officially proposed reductions in TRI reporting. The only major change was that EPA shifted from a "no significant change" report every other year to no report at all every other year. Apparently, EPA could not make a "no significant change" system work so that it would be valid and still achieve burden reduction so they substituted alternate year reporting.

In other words, SBA saw three of its four requests reflected in EPA's final proposal. Although the "no significant change" request--because of the infeasibility of its implementation--was ultimately changed to every other year reporting for all facilities. That all of these proposals were either opposed or not even mentioned by EPA during the earlier public comment period makes them particularly suspect. For instance, the option to allow facilities to report PBTs through the TRI program's short form was not even mentioned in EPA's original White Paper. It is also important to note that while the "no significant change" option was not included in EPA's final proposal, the agency initially pursued the option exactly as described in SBA's report, planning to allow companies to complete avoid calculating their pollution levels and instead qualify for the reporting loophole based on having no major change in production.

This is not the first time questions have been raised about SBA's influence over the TRI program. In April 1997, then-Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) raised the similar questions, suggesting that SBA acted unethically in advocating against an EPA proposal to expand the TRI. In an April 8, 1997 letter to SBA, Torricelli called for an ethics investigation into whether Bromberg had "taken actions that aided his former clients and the lobbyists who now work for them in obtaining exemptions from the proposed TRI expansion."

Torricelli went on to write that Bromberg's actions "at best appear improper and inappropriate but may be unethical." The SBA's Inspector General removed Bromberg from SBA's work on the TRI-expansion proposal while conducting the requested investigation; the proposal, however, ultimately passed. In the end, the Inspector General's investigation found no evidence of inappropriate behavior on the part of Bromberg.

The public comment period on EPA's current TRI proposals closes on Jan. 13. To weigh in on EPA's plans to cut this cornerstone environmental right-to-know program, visit OMB Watch's TRI Action Alert site and send a message to EPA and Congress. To learn more about the proposals, visit OMB Watch's TRI Resource Center.