PROTECT THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW
Vote For the Solis-Pallone Right to Know Amendment
Toxics Release Inventory: Ensuring the Public’s Right-to-Know
Since Congress established it in 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) program has been the nation’s premiere pollution disclosure program by requiring
companies to disclose the pollution they release to our air, water, and land, transfer off site, or dispose in
a waste dump.
TRI Under Attack: Changes Put Us in the Dark
In the fall of 2005, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson proposed significant reductions in TRI reporting,
including:
 A proposed rule that would raise the reporting thresholds by 10 times, potentially allowing large
industrial facilities to release 10 times as much toxic pollution before they are required to report
their releases;
 A proposed rule to allow facilities to withhold information about some of the most dangerous
chemicals, known as PBTs, such as lead and mercury;
 A future proposed rule to change the frequency of reporting pollution releases from every year to
every other year.
Congress Can Protect Its Right to Know Program
Congress established this successful right-to-know program in 1986, which has lead to a 40% reduction
in toxic emissions. Now Congress has a chance to protect this program by voting for the Solis-Pallone
Right to Know Amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill. This amendment simply prohibits EPA
from moving forward with these changes, sending EPA back to the drawing board to actually research the
consequences of the changes.
National Program, Local Impacts
The greatest impact of these proposed changes would be at the local level. Across the country:*
 3,849 facilities would no longer have to report detailed pollution information; and
 One in ten communities would lose all details of TRI pollution in their neighborhoods.
Number of Facilities That Will No Longer Report TRI Information by State
Lost
Lost
Lost
State
State
State
State
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
CA
297
SC
107
KS
41
NV
OH
261
NJ
90
AR
40
ID
TX
217
MO
88
MS
40
NM
PA
216
AL
80
UT
39
SD
IL
207
KY
78
MD
36
DE
MI
156
MN
61
CO
35
HI
IN
145
VA
61
WV
34
AK
NC
140
WA
61
PR
32
VT
FL
135
CT
60
NH
30
MT
NY
135
OR
58
ME
25
WY
GA
134
LA
56
RI
24
DC
MA
125
IA
54
NE
22
ND
WI
119
AZ
51
NV
21
VI
TN
110
OK
48
ID
13
TOTAL
Lost
Facilities
21
13
12
11
10
7
6
6
5
5
2
2
1
3849
*National Environmental Trust and Grassroots Connection provided this analysis.
More than 233 organizations oppose these changes, including American Public Health
Association, United Auto Workers, Calvert Group, LTD., Consumers Union, GreenFaith, Society of
Professional Journalists, and others.
For More Information Contact Meghan Purvis, U.S. PIRG, 202-546-9707, mpurvis@pirg.org
PROTECT THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW
Vote For the Solis-Pallone Right to Know Amendment
Over 110,000 Official Public Comments Oppose Proposed Changes
Official public comments opposing the changes cross all fields – citizens, unions, businesses, elected
officials, state environmental departments, investment managers, and college professors. In fact, every
government agency, elected official, scholar, and college professor that commented opposed the
changes being made. Below are some sample comments from the docket and press releases:
INVESTORS Ingrid S. Dyott, Managing Director Neuberger Berman, A Lehman Brothers
Company: “Quantitative environmental performance data, such as that provided in the Toxics Release
Inventory, is a critical input into many of our evaluations and analyses of corporate performance. Because
current financial disclosure requirements do not reveal all of the risks, liabilities, or advantages associated
with a corporation’s environmental performance, TRI data provides information that is material and
relevant to making informed financial and investment decisions that we often cannot find anywhere else.”
STATE LEGISLATORS Representatives Derek Owen and Betty Hall, New Hampshire House of
Representatives: “TRI has provided crucial information for states and the public… what science
continues to show us is that lower and lower levels of toxics are having dramatic impacts on our health…
It would be negligent and immoral to allow polluting industries from reporting their releases by weakening
the TRI program.”
STATE REGULATORS David J. Shaw; Director, Division of Air Resources, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation: “[T]he proposal fails to address that the additional 12,000
small facilities tend to be located in dense urban areas where EPA and state agencies have been
implementing Environmental Justice (EJ) programs.”
STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte: "If EPA were
to adopt these rollbacks, New Hampshire would lose critical toxic release information from most
companies currently reporting, hindering state and local efforts to protect the public from toxic releases."
STATE REGULATORS New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection: “U.S. EPA should be encouraging manufacturers and other
industrial facilities to make attempts to reduce, if not eliminate, the use of
toxic and hazardous substances by removing them from consumer
products. NJDEP has long recognized that incorporating toxic chemicals
into consumer products is not sound environmental management policy
with respect to human health and environment protection.”
LOCAL UNIONS David W. Campbell, Secretary-Treasurer USW
675, Carson, CA: “The reason for our concern is very simple: workers
and the community need to know about what chemicals are present in their workplaces and in their
communities so that adequate safety precautions can be taken to prevent contamination and to respond
to emergencies.”
PROFESSORS Andrew King, Associate Professor of Business Administration, Tuck School of
Business at Dartmouth College: “In its present form, the TRI includes over 200 chemicals that have
been consistently reported for almost 20 years. This longitudinal database allows use of powerful
statistical techniques. As a result, researchers are uncovering accurate information about the
consequences of business policies and government regulation. Changing the rules will make policy
making much more unpredictable. It will mean that both business managers and policy makers will be
flying blind. In the end, I believe, the new rules will end up costing both business and government more
money.”
More than 233 organizations oppose these changes, including American Public Health
Association, United Auto Workers, Calvert Group, LTD., Consumers Union, GreenFaith, Society of
Professional Journalists, and others.
For More Information Contact Meghan Purvis, U.S. PIRG, 202-546-9707, mpurvis@pirg.org