Chemical-Data Plan Catalyzes Opposition

Kimberly T. Nelson , the EPA's assistant administrator for the Office of Environmental Information , said the effect of increasing use of the short form would be minor. "We would get 99 percent of the information we get today. There is less detailed information, but it's like a rounding error on all the emissions we currently collect." She said the EPA is not "gutting" the program as some opponents have charged.

Meghan Purvis , environmental health advocate for U.S. Public Information Research Group , another nonprofit advocacy group, said an analysis of the rule's effect showed that 922 of the nation's more than 33,000 residential Zip codes would lose 100 percent of detailed pollution data if companies migrated to the short form. Purvis said allowing short-form filing for small amounts of chemicals would not change their dangers.

On Nov. 10, six members the Senate wrote EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson that they were "troubled" about the EPA's intentions to modify the frequency of reporting and to allow the filing of more short forms, especially for certain especially dangerous industrial chemicals.

Environmental and community groups, in particular, consider the reporting program a great success. And it has become even more useful since the agency has required reports on more chemicals and from more industrial sectors, including mining and electrical utilities.

The business community interprets those results in an entirely different way.

Andrew Langer , a lobbyist with the National Federation of Independent Business , said more than half of the facilities that would be affected by more short-form reporting "are really small emitters of anything."

"That gets to the crux of why we are asking for TRI reform. Those at the small end of the spectrum will be really helped," he said.

Walls of the American Chemistry Council said the cost of reporting is in the calculations, not filling out the forms. He said it costs industry about $650 million annually to comply with the program. "Now the question is, are we getting $650 million out of the program and can additional efficiencies be gained?" he asked.