In light of the midterm elections and ongoing pressure from the current Republican controlled Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is changing its views on some plans for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), the nation's premiere environmental right to know program. EPA has announced it will retain annual reporting of toxic pollution, dropping its proposal to shift reporting to every other year. At the same time, however, EPA has not dropped its plans to significantly raise the threshold for detailed reporting under the TRI program, resulting in less information about toxic chemicals in our communities. In Sept. 2005, the EPA announced three planned changes to the TRI reporting requirements:

• Move from the current annual reporting requirement to biennial reporting for all facilities, eliminating half of all TRI data;
• Allow companies to release ten times as much pollution before being required to report the details of how much toxic pollution was produced and where it went;
• Permit facilities to withhold information on low-level production of persistent bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs), including lead and mercury, which are dangerous even in very small quantities because they are toxic, persist in the environment, and build up in people's bodies.

The proposed changes have met serious opposition from a wide range of stakeholders. The agency has received more than 122,000 public comments, with the vast majority voicing strong opposition to all of EPA's plans. The Environmental Council of the States, a national association of state and territorial environmental agency leaders, passed a resolution urging EPA to withdraw its TRI proposals. The EPA's own Science Advisory Board sent an unsolicited letter expressing concern that the TRI changes would "hinder the advances of environmental research used to protect public health and the environment." The House passed an amendment to one of its spending bills to prevent the EPA from spending money to finalize the proposals. In the Senate, opposition to the TRI rollbacks came in the form of a hold from Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) on Molly O’Neill, the nominee for EPA Assistant Administrator in charge of the Office of Environmental Information. In a press release, Lautenberg chided the proposed changes for their potential to "deny thousands of communities - including 160 in New Jersey - full information about the release of hazardous toxic emissions in their neighborhoods." In response to the hold, the midterm elections, which will put Democrats in charge of the Senate, and other mounting opposition, EPA began discussions with the senators over their concerns. Eventually, EPA agreed to drop its plan to change from annual to biennial reporting in exchange for Lautenberg and Menendez lifting their hold on O’Neill. In a letter to the two senators, EPA Administrator Steven Johnson wrote, "You will be pleased to know that I have decided against moving forward with changes to TRI reporting frequency." While not legally binding, the public assurance appeared to be sufficient to convince Lautenberg and Menendez that the agency will no longer pursue the less frequent reporting. However, the problem of higher reporting thresholds remains, and it seems that Lautenberg and Menendez are unlikely to ignore this issue just because EPA has abandoned less frequent reporting. In a Nov. 30 statement, Lautenberg said, "It is welcome news that the Bush Administration is throwing out part of this bad idea, but they still need to get rid of the rest. The Administration’s proposed changes to the Right-to-Know Law would essentially gut it. The Administration’s proposed changes are nothing more than a giveaway to corporate polluters at the cost of everyday Americans’ health. The Democratic Congress is not going to let this kind of irresponsible policy stand. The wise course for the Bush Administration is to drop this entire pro-polluter plan." With this contentious proposal still on the table, OMB Watch will continue to monitor the situation. Sean Moulton, Director of Federal Information Policy for OMB Watch, said: "We are disappointed EPA has not taken this opportunity to drop the entire ill-conceived proposal. Considering the almost unanimous opposition, EPA is going against the will of the American people, and putting the public’s health at risk in the process." It is expected that EPA will issue a final rule on the reporting threshold changes by the end of December.