A bipartisan group of senators has called for an investigation into the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposals to relax chemical reporting requirements for large industrial facilities. On March 27, Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jim Jeffords (I-VT), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), requesting the office investigate whether EPA had adequately considered how reducing Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) information would impact communities and data users, including federal and state programs that rely on TRI data.

Among the specific issues GAO will investigate were the impacts of reduced toxics data on EPA enforcement efforts, environmental justice programs, and the ability to provide first responders with up-to-date information on toxic chemicals. The GAO was also requested to examine if the EPA's proposed changes conform to legal requirements, under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, that any threshold changes maintain information on a substantial majority of releases for each chemical.

One EPA program that relies on TRI data is the Risk Screening for Environmental Indicators program, which combines TRI release data with hazard and potential exposure data. The hazardous air pollutant program also uses TRI data to help track sources and ambient air concentrations of toxic chemicals. The EPA's voluntary persistent, bioaccumulative toxics tracking program relies on chemical-specific TRI data not available through other EPA programs. While states have submitted comments to demonstrate how the proposals will harm their programs, some believe that those within EPA would be reluctant to comment against the proposals, even if the proposals would harm their programs. The GAO report should shed some light on the true impact of EPA's proposals.

Many states have made it clear, in comments to EPA, that the proposals will negatively impact their programs. For example, Maine's Department of Environmental Conservation sent comments to EPA expressing fear that the proposals would inflict significant harm on Maine's 'toxic reduction' program. According to Maine's comments, "Maine has a Toxics Reduction Program centered on public accountability, [and] 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. An initial analysis of the comments shows that at least 20 other states have expressed similar concerns.

According to Snowe, "The Toxic Release Inventory provides invaluable data to the public about the release of toxic chemicals in our environment. It simply does not make sense for the EPA to alter the Toxic Release Inventory before we have an understanding of the impact these changes will have on communities throughout Maine and the country."

On a related note, hundreds of organizations from around the country are also working to prevent EPA's efforts to reduce public right-to-know. Last week, each congressional office received a letter signed by 233 environmental, health, labor, public interest, socially responsible and research organizations, calling on Congress to stop EPA from reducing toxic chemical reporting.

"On behalf of the 233 undersigned organizations," the letter states, "we are writing to urge Congress to stop the [EPA] from moving forward with a set of proposed changes to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The changes will make it more difficult for citizens to track toxic pollution in their neighborhoods and take steps to reduce the impact on their family's health."