# EPA relaxing reporting rules. Is this at all necessary? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 14, 2005, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-relaxing-reporting-rules-is-this-at-all-necessary/335661 "2005-12-14T23:25:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-relaxing-reporting-rules-is-this-at-all-necessary/335661/1 "2005-12-14T23:25:17Z")
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051214/ap\_on\_sc/toxic\_pollutants\_2;\_ylt=AgztUpXJsl9ldml1uLNAhmqB9YMB;\_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUlApparently](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051214/ap_on_sc/toxic_pollutants_2;_ylt=AgztUpXJsl9ldml1uLNAhmqB9YMB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUlApparently) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is pursuing a less exhaustive reporting procedure. > [@](#): > > The agency said in September it wants to reduce its “regulatory burden” on companies by allowing some to use a “short form” when they report their pollution to the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory. > > The inventory program began under a 1986 community right-to-know law. If Congress agrees, the first year the changes could be possible would be 2008. > > Those changes would exempt companies from disclosing their toxic pollution if they claim to release fewer than 5,000 pounds of a specific chemical — the current limit is 500 pounds — or if they store it onsite but claim to release “zero” amounts of the worst pollutants. Those include mercury, DDT, PCBs and other chemicals that persist in the environment and work up the food chain. However, companies must report any storage of dioxin or dioxin-like compounds, even if none are released From a business-owner standpoint, this sounds kinda nice. And hey, if the EPA is relying on self-reporting, it’s pretty open to fraud anyway! So does this just mean those who break the rules can spend less time on lying? (Hey, if it weren’t for Cynicism, I’d have no formal philospohy at all.) What are your thoughts? Pros & cons? ---
**Author:** ![Ghanima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Ghanima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ghanima)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-relaxing-reporting-rules-is-this-at-all-necessary/335661/2 "2005-12-15T00:49:16Z")
I’m guessing EPA is doing this because of budget cuts as well. It will reduce their workload. They probably don’t really care about those companies reporting less than 5000 pounds anyway, so I’d say it’s probably not such a bad idea. And all companies who report to the EPA are usually audited on a regular basis. EPA auditors are trained to sniff out fraud, believe me. That’s their job. Also, it would be a motivator for companies who have no hope of getting below 500 pounds to limit their output to 5000 pounds. Not a bad idea, since the major point sources of pollution would never reach the original limit of 500 and therefore not be motivated to keep output below 5000 pounds. Now they have greater incentive to limit their output of pollutants. Makes some sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-relaxing-reporting-rules-is-this-at-all-necessary/335661/3 "2005-12-15T15:29:52Z")
It’s true that the EPA rules on paperwork can be rather… extreme. They require an immense amount of some businesses. It’s not actually clear what good most of it did. I think **Ghanima** ’s analysis makes sense.