A briefing for House congressional staff held on Feb. 23 to inform Congress about the dangers of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposals to reduce Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemical reporting was the first official forum of its kind. Staff from more than 30 offices heard from a diverse panel of experts on how the changes that EPA is proposing would undermine first responder readiness, harm worker safety, interfere with state programs and hinder cancer research. The briefing was sponsored by Reps. Stephen Lunch (D-MA), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Hilda Solis (D-CA).

Presenters in the briefing were:

• Michael R. Harbut, a medical doctor and Chief at the Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit, Michigan;

   

• Alan Finkelstein, Assistant Fire Marshall Strongsville, Ohio and Chair of Emergency Response with the Cuyahoga County Emergency Planning Committee;

   

• Andy Frank, Assistant Attorney General of New York;

   

• Bill Kojola, an Industrial Hygienist with the Department of Occupational Safety and Health at the AFL-CIO; and

   

• Sean Moulton, Director of Federal Information Policy with OMB Watch, who chaired the panel and offered opening remarks.

Moulton described how, for nearly 20 years, the TRI has been an essential tool in alerting emergency responders, researchers, workers, public health officials, community residents, and federal and state officials to the presence of toxic chemicals. Moulton went on to detail EPA's three current plans to scale back TRI reporting as part of an effort to reduce companies' "paperwork burden." He noted, however, that the proposed changes would only save companies between $7 and $14 a week for each chemical that could be report less--a miniscule amount compared to industry profits that range in the millions and even billions annual.

Harbut's previously recorded statement detailed how any reduction in reporting on the chemicals tracked under TRI will make more difficult the work of cancer researchers, as well as a wide range of other medical research dealing with human health and chemical exposure. Harbut's statement on TRI can be seen here formatted for dial up users and broadband users.

Finkelstein explained how he and other first responders use TRI information to preplan for emergencies. As a firefighter, he told attendees, he wants as much information about a facility as possible, so the necessary precautions can be taken when entering into a hazardous situation in the event of an emergency. Finkelstein went on to aver that any reduction in TRI data would likely place first-responders, as well as the public, at greater risk.

Frank reported that Attorneys General from 12 states, including New York, sent EPA official public comments challenging the legality of the agency's TRI proposals. Frank noted that many states rely on TRI information and would lose important data if EPA's changes went into effect. He also found serious deficiencies in EPA's research of the potential impacts of the changes. The agency did not produce any analysis of health risks, environmental justice impacts, or of the loss of all reporting on some chemicals. Frank noted that the changes would eliminate all numerical reporting for 26 chemicals and cut more than half of the data available on 30 additional chemicals. New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, in a recent press release, stated the proposed cutbacks appear to be "yet another poorly considered notion to appease a few polluting constituents at the expense of a valuable program."

Kajola spoke on workers that regularly use the TRI information to identify hazards and chemical exposures in the workplace. In many instances, once an unnecessary hazard is identified, according to Kajola, workers can collaborate with management to reduce toxic chemical inventories and/or exposures. He went on to say that changes spurred by access to TRI information usually end up saving companies money and creating safer workplaces. Kajola also noted that many of the identified risks are not releases, but pollution that is captured and either managed onsite or transferred for disposal elsewhere. While avoiding direct releases into the environment was important, Kajola explained, tracking onsite and transferred pollution was crucial as well, because such pollution posed a significant risk to workers and the public.

While no librarians were present for the briefing, many also weighed in officially recently. On Jan. 25, the American Library Association (ALA) issued a resolution opposing the EPA proposals. The ALA resolution sited the groups 130 year history of promoting "the ability of the public to access information important to their daily lives."

Whether Congress will weigh in on the TRI proposals remains uncertain. Now that EPA has closed the period for public comments on the proposed changes, however, Congress has become the main forum for this issue.