Congress takes on toxics...again

Congressman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) has introduced a bill to reverse the rollback to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) set in place in 2006 by the Bush administration. The introduction of legislation to strengthen the rule coincides with the continuing lawsuit brought by thirteen states against EPA to restore the old reporting rules. Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, legislation to strengthen the TRI reporting process would be a welcome improvement.

The new bill (H.R. 776) would restore the pre-2006 thresholds for reporting of toxic pollution by industry and eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator's power to change the frequency of reporting. OMB Watch has been involved with a coalition of state and national groups that has been fighting against the Bush rules for years.

The EPA finalized the rules in December 2006 despite enormous opposition to the changes. The changes raised the threshold for the amount of pollution facilities can release before they need to report on it in detail. As documented in an OMB Watch report, of the more than 122,000 public comments submitted in response to EPA's plans to cut TRI reporting, more than 99.9 percent opposed the agency's proposals.

The new bill is identical to legislation introduced in 2007 by Mr. Pallone. That bill managed to get a hearing, but never made it to a vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The Senate's plans for dealing with TRI are unclear.

In addition to restoring the old thresholds, there are several other measures that would improve the effectiveness of TRI. Mandatory electronic reporting by polluters, something already required with other EPA programs, would not only improve the quality of the data, but would also reduce the "burden" on facilities, which was EPA's original purported goal for the rule change. Electronic reporting would also speed up the process. Faster release of pollution data to the public allows for faster action to reduce pollution.

Among additional improvements to TRI, the congress and the EPA should consider adding climate change causing greenhouse gases to the list of reportable chemicals. Although a comprehensive greenhouse gas registry is needed to deal with any forthcoming climate change actions, the TRI could track global warming gases from emitters not included in climate change legislation.

There are numerous other improvements to TRI that should be considered. Currently the program does not include toxic emissions from cars and trucks, nor from the majority of sources of releases of pesticides, volatile organic compounds, fertilizers, and many other non-industrial sources. Expanding TRI's scope would strengthen the public's ability to protect their communities.

The EPA should also provide the public with expanded analyses of trends in TRI data, including identifying potential risks to public health caused by releases. Recently USA Today published the results of an investigation into the exposure risks of children at schools near emitting facilities. The study used TRI data and EPA's Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model to rank school sites around the country. Such analyses should be prepared regularly by EPA and actions taken to further investigate potential major health risks.