An Apr. 20 Senate staff briefing brought to Congress's attention concerns over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposals to reduce Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemical reporting. A diverse panel of experts discussed how the changes proposed by EPA would cripple this successful environmental program, undermine first responder readiness, impede financial investment decisions and interfere with state and local programs. Panelist were:

• Alan Finkelstein, Assistant Fire Marshall and Chair, Emergency Response, Cuyahoga County Emergency Planning Committee, Strongsville, OH
• Julie Fox-Gorte, Vice President, Calvert Investment Group
• Andrew Frank, Assistant Attorney General, New York State Attorney General's Office
• Sean Moulton, Director Federal Information Policy, OMB Watch

Importance of the Toxic Release Inventory Since Congress' enactment of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986, TRI has been an essential tool in alerting communities, workers, first responders, and public health officials to the presence of chemicals. The program uses the transparency of public reporting rather than command and control regulations to reduce toxic pollution, while also providing information vital to averting and dealing with life-threatening situations. In the last 5 years annual toxic pollution has dropped by 2.8 billion pounds. In the Senate briefing, Sean Moulton detailed EPA's plans to scale back TRI reporting:

• Allowing companies to release ten times the amount of toxics before detailed reporting is required.
• Creating a first-ever exemption on reporting the most dangerous class of chemicals--Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBTs).
• Moving from annual to biennial reporting, leaving a gap every other year during which companies could pollute as much as they want without reporting.

"If the changes go forward, not only would all numerical data be lost every other year, but during the reporting years, one in 10 communities that have TRI facilities would lose all numerical data about dangerous toxic chemicals," stated Moulton. First Responders and Emergency Preparedness Although not designed primarily as a first responder tool, first responders use TRI information to preplan for emergencies or disasters. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, usefulness of TRI data in emergency response was evidenced, as it served as the best road map of possible toxic hotspots for rescue workers and emergency personnel. As a firefighter and a concerned citizen, Alan Finkelstein told attendees, "I want 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 a chemical release." Finkelstein went on to aver that any reduction in TRI data would likely place first-responders, as well as the public, at greater risk. In addition, he noted that, "the community as a whole is deprived of current information as to what chemicals the facilities in their neighborhoods are creating, transporting and releasing legally. This may have an adverse affect on property values and the economic climate for their communities." Investment Information Accurate and timely information is a necessary component of functional markets, and information is needed for any decision-making process. So, naturally TRI data has been a source of information for investors since its inception. In particular, socially responsible investors use TRI information to make important decisions about which companies to invest in and stand to lose a great deal of data relevant to those decisions if EPA's plans are carried out. This is no small loss: with assets of $2 trillion and growing, socially responsible investments are a significant and increasingly large part of total investments. Julie Fox-Gorte explained that if the EPA's proposals go forward, investors will have to work with two- or three-year-old data that is less comprehensive. Many investment companies throughout the country include TRI among the indicators reviewed for possible financial liabilities and management problems. Calvert Investments avoided the Tyco collapse thanks to TRI information, which the group interpreted as an indication of management problems. Fox-Gorte explained, "These changes not only make it more difficult for citizens and communities to be aware of potential risks to health and environmental safety, but they are also are a significant setback to the advancement of corporate disclosure and accountability." State Impact Attorneys General from 12 states--California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Vermont Wisconsin--sent EPA official public comments challenging the legality of the agency's TRI proposals. Andrew Frank detailed how states rely on TRI information in assessing community risks, identifying bad actors, prioritizing enforcement decisions, tracking pollution across industry sectors, and highlighting industry leaders. Frank 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, state impacts, 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. This is in clear violation of the Environmental Planning and Community Right to Know Act which requires that any change in TRI reporting thresholds maintain reporting for the substantial majority of data for each chemical." Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, the EPA does not need congressional approval to make changes to TRI reporting. However, given the increasing interest among members of both the Senate and House, legislation may soon be introduced to prevent EPA from proceeding with its proposals.