In response to the growing number of questions and glaring lack of answers, in 1986 Congress established the Toxics Release Inventory program, leading to annual industry reports on the release of more than 600 hazardous substances. And all the information is available to the public.

The Bush administration, however, recently proposed to drastically and dangerously scale back TRI's reporting requirements. And adding insult to injury, the EPA just slammed the door on community health advocates and others attempting to engage the agency in a dialogue about why this could endanger the health of countless Americans. Fortunately, Congress has the opportunity to stop this rollback and rebuke EPA's know-nothing attitude.

Over the past 15 years, I have worked with an array of government agencies and environmental organizations to assist in analyzing TRI data. During that time, toxic releases to the environment tracked by EPA decreased by more than 50 percent, in large part because public disclosure encourages facilities to have less to disclose. These reductions, in many cases, have resulted directly from informed local communities working in partnership with industry.

TRI data also serve important emergency response purposes. Local first responders use TRI data for preplanning inspections, as part of developing appropriate emergency plans. And it's frequently used by federal and state responders as well. Indeed, TRI data was invaluable in identifying toxic substances found in the floodwaters and sediment after hurricane Katrina.

Until now, all changes made to TRI have increased the amount of information available to the public. In September 2005, however, EPA notified Congress that it wanted to alter TRI reporting from an annual requirement to every other year, as if the public would somehow be helped by less knowledge. The only public justification offered was that because data from half of the facilities changes very little from year to year, biennial reporting would save both time and money.

Independent analysis, however, paints a very different picture, and EPA officials have not provided any proof or explanation to back up their claims, going so far as to essentially say they don't intend to do so.

According to current law, the EPA is required to spend a year examining this proposed change, including consulting with all the parties who want to provide input. After that, the agency has another year in which to change the reporting period. If the change doesn't happen then, the cycle starts again.

At a meeting in April with industry and environmental stakeholders, the EPA said that nothing had been decided yet. But on May 3, the agency sent a polite email stating that it has now decided it no longer needs further input. According to Mike Petruska, director of the TRI program division, they have enough, thank you.

Never mind that the purpose of the year-long discussion period was intended to examine issues with all parties at the table, or that less information could prove disastrous for first responders who don't have the luxury of responding to disasters every other year, or that emissions could increase, unnoticed. What's outrageous is that the EPA isn't even giving anyone an opportunity to present analyses that show other results.

In the past, members of community organizations were considered valuable partners in the TRI program. Between us, we have decades of experience using the data, and have developed good working relationships with many of the EPA staff. They count on us for a different perspective and many of us have analytical skills that compliment their work. It's a shame that now, because of short-sighted administration decisions, we won't be meeting to discuss this proposed change again.

EPA may be able to ignore some environmental groups and health advocates, but they can't ignore everyone. A bill scheduled to be introduced on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on May 18 would prevent the agency from changing TRI reporting.

It's time our elected representatives start asking some hard questions. As history has shown us, the price of having too little information on potentially deadly chemicals in our communities is a cost too dear to pay.

Tom Natan is director of research for the National Environmental Trust, and holds a doctorate in chemical engineering. He can be reached at tnatannet.org and his study analyzing proposed TRI changes is available at www.net.org/tri