Environmental Information: EPA Actions Could Reduce the 	 
Availability of Environmental Information to the Public 	 
(06-FEB-07, GAO-07-464T).					 
                                                                 
U.S. industry uses billions of pounds of chemicals to produce the
nation's goods and services. Releases of these chemicals during  
use or disposal can harm human health and the environment. The	 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986	 
requires facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use  
more than specified amounts of nearly 650 toxic chemicals to	 
report their releases to water, air, and land. The Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) makes this data available to the public  
in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Since 1995, facilities may
submit a brief certification statement (Form A), in lieu of the  
detailed Form R report, if their releases of specific chemicals  
do not exceed 500 pounds a year. In January 2007, EPA finalized a
proposal to increase that threshold to 2,000 pounds, quadrupling 
what facilities can release before they must disclose their	 
releases and other waste management practices. Today's testimony 
addresses (1) EPA's development of the proposal to change the TRI
Form A threshold from 500 to 2,000 pounds and (2) the impact	 
these changes may have on data available to the public. It also  
provides an update to our 2005 report recommendations on	 
perchlorate. GAO's preliminary observations on TRI are based on  
ongoing work performed from June 2006 through January 2007.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-464T					        
    ACCNO:   A65587						        
  TITLE:     Environmental Information: EPA Actions Could Reduce the  
Availability of Environmental Information to the Public 	 
     DATE:   02/06/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Chemicals						 
	     Contaminants					 
	     Environmental law					 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     Federal regulations				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Government information dissemination		 
	     Industrial facilities				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Perchlorates					 
	     Pollution control					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Toxic substances					 
	     Policies and procedures				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-464T

   

     * [1]Summary
     * [2]Background
     * [3]EPA Does Not Appear to Have Followed Internal Guidelines in
     * [4]Impact of Reporting Changes on Information Available to the
     * [5]A System to Track Perchlorate Sampling and Cleanup Results I
     * [6]Preliminary Observations
     * [7]GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
     * [8]GAO's Mission
     * [9]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [10]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [11]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [12]Congressional Relations
     * [13]Public Affairs

Testimony

Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST

Tuesday, February 6, 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

EPA Actions Could Reduce the Availability of Environmental Information to
the Public

Statement of John B Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment

GAO-07-464T

Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to appear here today before the Committee to discuss our
ongoing work regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) and to provide you with an update on our 2005
report on ammonium perchlorate (perchlorate), a primary ingredient in
solid rocket propellant that recent studies have shown to affect human
health.^1

Each year, U.S. industry uses billions of pounds of toxic chemicals to
produce the nation's goods and services. However, the release of these
chemicals during transport, storage, use, or disposal as waste can
potentially harm human health and the environment. Congress passed the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) to
inform citizens about releases of toxic chemicals to the environment; to
assist governmental agencies, researchers, and other persons in the
conduct of research and data gathering; and to aid in the development of
appropriate regulations, guidelines, and standards. Section 313 of EPCRA
generally requires certain facilities that manufacture, process, or
otherwise more specified amounts of any of 581 individual chemicals and 30
additional chemical categories to annually report the amount of those
chemicals that they released to the environment, including whether those
chemicals were released to the air, soil, or water. EPCRA also requires
EPA to make this information available to the public, which the agency
does through the TRI database. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA)
expanded the TRI by requiring facilities to report certain data about
their waste management practices, including amounts of TRI chemicals
recycled or treated.

Facilities comply with TRI reporting requirements by submitting to EPA,
and their respective state, information for each TRI-listed chemical that
they use in excess of certain thresholds using what are referred to as a
Form R report or a Form A Certification Statement. Form R captures
information about the facility, such as address, parent company, industry
type, and detailed information about the chemicals it released, such as
quantity of the chemical disposed or released onsite to the air, water,
land, and injected underground, or transferred for disposal or release
off-site. Since 1995, EPA has allowed certain facilities to submit
information on a brief Form A in lieu of the detailed Form R report if
they release or manage no more than 500 pounds of a chemical that is not
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (non-PBT) during the year. Form A
provides nearly the same facility identification information as Form R,
along with basic information about the chemical's identity, but it does
not contain any of the detailed information about the quantities of
chemicals used, released, or managed as waste found on Form R.

^1GAO, Perchlorate: A System to Track Sampling and Cleanup Results is
Needed, [14]GAO-05-462 (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2005).

During the past several years, EPA has engaged in a multi-phased effort to
reduce the burden on industry by revising TRI regulations and increasing
Form A eligibility. EPA's Action Development Process (ADP) outlines a
series of steps that the agency is to follow when developing actions such
as regulations, policy statements, and risk assessments. The purpose of
the ADP is ensure that scientific, economic, and policy issues are
adequately addressed at the appropriate stages of action development and
to ensure cross-agency participation until the final action is completed.
ADP steps include (1) chartering a workgroup comprised of representatives
from various internal and regional offices who will develop the action,
(2) preparing and executing an analytic blueprint for analyses needed to
support the action, and (3) conducting final agency review. On December
22, 2006, EPA issued the TRI Burden Reduction proposed rule, an action
that increased the Form A threshold for certain facilities to 2,000 pounds
of releases for a non-PBT chemical. The action also allows, for the first
time, certain facilities to use Form A for non-dioxin, persistent
bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals, such as lead and mercury, provided
that they release none of the PBT chemical to the environment.

My testimony is based on ongoing work that we expect to complete in June
2007 and, therefore, the information I am presenting is preliminary. My
statement today addresses two areas related to EPA's changes in TRI
reporting requirements: (1) the extent to which EPA followed internal
rulemaking guidelines when developing its December 2006 TRI burden
reduction rule and (2) our preliminary estimates of the impact that these
changes will have on TRI data available to the public and on costs to
industry. In addition, as you requested, my statement includes a brief
summary of our May 2005 report on perchlorate and EPA's December 2006
response to our recommendation that the agency develop a tracking system
for perchlorate releases and cleanup efforts across the federal government
and state agencies.

Summary

Although we have not yet completed our review, our preliminary
observations are that EPA did not adhere to all aspects of its rulemaking
guidelines when developing the new TRI reporting requirements. EPA's
Action Development Process outlines a series of steps to help guide the
development of new environmental regulations. Throughout this process,
however, the senior EPA management has the authority to accelerate the
rule development process. Nevertheless, while we continue to pursue a
clearer understanding of EPA's actions, we have identified several
significant differences between the guidelines and the process EPA
followed in this case: (1) late in the rulemaking process, senior EPA
management directed consideration of a burden reduction option that the
TRI workgroup had previously dropped from consideration; (2) EPA developed
this option on an expedited schedule that appears to have provided a
limited amount of time for conducting various impact analyses; and (3)
EPA's decision to expedite Final Agency Review, when EPA's internal and
regional offices determine whether they concur with the final proposal
appears to have limited the amount of input they could provide to senior
EPA management. First, the TRI workgroup charged with identifying options
to reduce reporting burdens on industry identified three possible options
for senior management to consider. The first two options allowed
facilities to use Form A in lieu of Form R for PBT chemicals, provided the
facility has no releases to the environment, and the third created a "no
significant change" reporting option in lieu of Form R for facilities with
releases that changed little from the previous year. Information from a
June 2005 briefing for the Administrator indicated that, while the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) had suggested increasing the Form A
eligibility for non-PBT chemicals from 500 to 5,000 pounds, the TRI
workgroup dropped that option from consideration. Second, although we
could not determine from the documents provided by EPA what actions the
agency took between the June 2005 briefing for the EPA Administrator and
the October 2005 issuance of the TRI proposal in the Federal Register, the
Administrator provided direction after the briefing to expedite the
process in order to meet a commitment to OMB to provide burden reduction
by the end of December 2006.^2 Subsequently, EPA revised its economic
analysis to include consideration of the impact of raising the Form A
eligibility threshold. However, that analysis was not completed before EPA
sent the proposed rule to OMB for review and was only completed just prior
to the proposal being signed by the Administrator and published in the
Federal Register for public comment. Third, the extent to which senior EPA
management sought or received input from internal stakeholders, including
the TRI workgroup, after directing reconsideration of the option to
increase the Form A reporting threshold from 500 to 5,000 pounds for
non-PBT chemicals remains unclear. We have been unable to determine the
extent to which EPA's internal and regional offices had the opportunity
during Final Agency Review to determine whether they concurred with the
proposal to increase the Form A threshold. We will continue to pursue the
answer to this and other questions as we complete our work. Finally, in
response to the public comments on the proposal, nearly all of which were
negative, EPA considered alternative options and revised the proposal,
thereby allowing facilities to report releases of up to 2,000 rather than
5,000 pounds on Form A.

^2Executive Office of the President of the United States, Office of
Management and Budget, Progress in Regulatory Reform: 2004 Report to
Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded
Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities, 2004.

We believe that the TRI reporting changes will likely have a significant
impact on information available to the public about dozens of toxic
chemicals from thousands of facilities in states and communities across
the country. EPA estimated that the TRI reporting changes will affect
reporting on less than 1 percent of the total chemical releases reported
to the TRI annually. While our analysis supports EPA's estimate of this
impact at a national level, it also suggests that changes to TRI reporting
requirements will have a significant impact on the amount and nature of
toxic release data available to some communities, information that is
ultimately much more meaningful to citizens. In addition, preliminary
results from our January 2007 survey of state TRI coordinators indicates
that as many as 23 states believe that EPA's changes to TRI reporting
requirements will have a negative impact on various aspects of TRI. To
develop a more specific picture of the impact of the TRI reporting changes
at a local level, we used 2005 TRI data to estimate, by state, the impact
of EPA's changes. First, we estimated that the detailed information from
more than 22,000 Form R reports may no longer be included in the TRI if
all eligible facilities begin using Form A. More specifically, Alaska,
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode
Island could have 33 percent fewer chemical reports. Second, we estimated
that the number of chemicals for which no information could be reported
under the new rule ranges from 3 chemicals in South Dakota to 60 chemicals
in Georgia. Thirteen states--including Delaware, Georgia, Maryland,
Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Vermont--could have no detailed reports
on more than 20 percent of reported chemicals. Third, we estimated that a
total of 3,565 facilities would no longer have to report quantitative
information about their chemical use to the TRI. In fact, more than 20
percent of facilities in Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and
Rhode Island, could have no detailed information about their chemical use.
Furthermore, citizens living in 75 counties in the United
States--including 11 in Texas, 10 in Virginia, and 6 in Georgia--could
have no quantitative TRI information about local toxic pollution. Finally,
with regard to the impact of the rule change on industry's reporting
burden, EPA estimated that, if all eligible facilities take advantage of
the reporting changes, they could save a total of about $5.9
million--about 4 percent of the annual cost of TRI reporting. This is the
equivalent of less than $900 per facility. However, based on past
experience, not all eligible facilities will use Form A, so the actual
savings to industry are likely to be less.

With regard to your request for an update on our May 2005 report on
perchlorate, it should be noted that perchlorate releases are not reported
to the TRI. Perchlorate, a primary ingredient in propellant, has been used
for decades in the manufacture and firing of rockets and missiles. Other
uses include fireworks, flares, and explosives. Perchlorate is a salt that
is easily dissolved and transported in water and has been found in
groundwater, surface water, drinking water, soil, and food products such
as milk and lettuce across the country. Health studies have shown that
perchlorate can affect the thyroid gland and may cause developmental
delays. We identified more than 400 sites in 35 states where perchlorate
had been found in concentrations ranging from 4 parts per billion to more
that 3.7 million parts per billion, and that more than one-half of the
sites were in California and Texas. However, federal and state agencies
are not required to routinely report perchlorate findings to EPA, and EPA
does not centrally track or monitor perchlorate detections or the status
of cleanup efforts. As a result, a greater number of contaminated sites
than we reported may exist. Although concern over potential health risks
from perchlorate has increased, and at least 9 states have established
non-regulatory action levels or advisories, EPA has not established a
national drinking water standard citing the need for more research on
health effects. We concluded in our report that EPA needed more reliable
information on the extent of sites contaminated with perchlorate and the
status of cleanup efforts, and recommended that EPA work with the
Department of Defense and the states to establish a formal structure for
tracking perchlorate information. In December 2006, EPA reiterated its
disagreement with the recommendation stating that perchlorate information
already exists from a variety of other sources. However, we continue to
believe that the inconsistency and omissions in available data that we
found during the course of our study underscore the need for a more
structured and formal tracking system.

Background

In 1984, a catastrophic accident caused the release of methyl
isocyanate--a toxic chemical used to make pesticides--at a Union Carbide
plant in Bhopal, India, killing thousands of people, injuring many others,
and displacing many more from their homes and businesses. One month later,
it was disclosed that the same chemical had leaked at least 28 times from
a similar Union Carbide facility in Institute, West Virginia. Eight months
later, 3,800 pounds of chemicals again leaked from the West Virginia
facility, sending dozens of injured people to local hospitals. In the wake
of these events, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). Among other things, EPCRA provides
access by individuals and communities to information regarding hazardous
materials in their communities. Section 313 of EPCRA generally requires
certain facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use any of 581
individual chemicals and 30 additional chemical categories to annually
report the amount of those chemicals that they released to the
environment, including information about where they released those
chemicals. EPCRA also requires EPA to make this information available to
the public, which the agency does in a national database known as the
Toxics Release Inventory. The public may access TRI data on EPA's website
and aggregate it by zip code, county, state, industry, and chemical. EPA
also publishes an annual report that summarizes national, state, and
industry data.^3

Figure 1 illustrates TRI reporting using a typical, large coal-fired
electric power plant as an example.^4 The figure notes the chemicals that
the facility may have to report to the TRI. The primary input to this
facility is coal that contains small amounts of a number of toxic
chemicals such as arsenic, chromium, and lead. The facility pulverizes
coal and burns it to generate electricity. As part of its standard
operations, the facility releases TRI chemicals such as hydrochloric acid
and sulfuric acid to the air through its stack. The facility may also send
ash from the burning process to an ash pond or landfill, including TRI
chemicals such as arsenic, lead, and zinc. In addition, the facility may
release chemicals in the water it uses for cooling. The facility will have
to complete a TRI report for air, land, and water releases of each
chemical it uses above a certain threshold.

^3 http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer and http://www.epa.gov/enviro

^4These facilities were not included in the original manufacturing
industries, but EPA began requiring TRI reports from seven new
industries--including electric utilities that burn coal and/or oil for the
purpose of generating electricity--starting in 1998.

Figure 1: TRI Reporting at a Typical Coal-fired Electric Generation
Facility

Owners of facilities subject to EPCRA comply its reporting requirements by
submitting an annual Form R report to EPA, and their respective state, for
each TRI-listed chemical that they release in excess of certain
thresholds. Form R captures information about facility identity, such as
address, parent company, industry type, latitude, and longitude and
detailed information about the toxic chemical, such as quantity of the
chemical disposed or released onsite to air, water, land, and underground
injection or transferred for disposal or release off-site. This
information is labeled as "Disposal or Other Releases" on the left side of
figure 2.

Figure 2: Types of TRI Data Reported on Form R

In the PPA, Congress declared that pollution should be prevented or
reduced at the source whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be
prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, whenever
feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated
in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or other
release into the environment should be employed only as a last resort and
should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner. Consequently, EPA
expanded TRI by requiring facilities to report additional information
about their efforts to reduce pollution at its source, including the
quantities of TRI chemicals they manage in waste, both on- and off-site,
including amounts recycled, burned for energy recovery, or treated. EPA
began capturing this information on Form R in 1991, as illustrated by
"Other Waste Management" on the right side of figure 2.

Beginning in 1995, EPA allowed facilities to use a 2-page Certification
Statement (Form A) to certify that they are not subject to Form R
reporting for a given non-PBT chemical provided that they (1) did not
release more than 500 total pounds and (2) did not manufacture, process,
or otherwise use more than one-million total pounds of the chemical. Form
A contains the facility identification information found on Form R and
basic information about the identity of the chemical being reported.
However, Form A does not contain any of the Form R details about
quantities of chemicals released or otherwise managed as waste.

Beginning with Reporting Year 2001, EPA has provided the Toxics Release
Inventory-Made Easy software (TRI-ME) to assist facilities with their TRI
reporting. TRI-ME leads prospective reporters interactively through a
series of questions that eliminate a good portion of the analysis required
to determine whether a facility needs to comply with the TRI reporting
requirements, including the threshold calculations needed to determine
Form A eligibility. If TRI-ME determines that a facility is required to
report, the software provides guidance for each of the data elements on
the reporting forms. The software also provides detailed guidance for each
step through an integrated assistance library. Prior to submission, TRI-ME
performs a series of validation checks before the facility prints the
forms for mailing, transfers the data to diskette, or submits the
information electronically over the Internet.

Each year, EPA compiles the TRI reports and stores them in a database
known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). In 2004--the latest year for
which data are publicly available--23,675 facilities filed a total of
nearly 90,000 reports, including nearly 11,000 Form As. In total,
facilities reported releasing 4.24 billion pounds of chemicals to the
environment and handling 21.8 billion pounds of chemicals through other
waste management activities.

EPA recently embarked on a three-phase effort to streamline TRI reporting
requirements and reduce the reporting burden on industry. During the first
phase, EPA removed some data elements from Form A and Form R that could be
obtained from other EPA information collection databases to simplify
reporting. As part of the second phase, EPA issued the TRI Burden
Reduction Proposed Rule, which would have allowed a reporting facility to
use Form A for (a) non-PBT chemicals, so long as its releases or other
disposal were not greater than 5,000 pounds, and (b) for PBT chemicals
when there are no releases or other disposal and no more than 500 pounds
of other waste management (e.g., recycling or treatment). The phase III
changes that EPA was considering proposing would have allowed
alternate-year reporting, rather than yearly reporting. The phase II and
III changes generated considerable public concern that they will
negatively impact federal and state governments' and the public's access
to important public health information.

EPA Does Not Appear to Have Followed Internal Guidelines in All Respects When
Developing TRI Rule

Although we have not yet completed our review, our preliminary
observations are that EPA does not appear to have followed its own
rulemaking guidelines in all respects when developing the new TRI
reporting requirements. Throughout the rule development process, senior
EPA management generally has the discretion to depart from the guidelines,
including by accelerating the development of the proposed regulations.
Nevertheless, we discovered several significant differences between the
guidelines and the process EPA followed in this case: (1) late in the
rulemaking process, senior EPA management directed consideration of a
burden reduction option that the TRI workgroup had considered but which
had subsequently been dropped from consideration; (2) EPA developed this
option on an expedited schedule that appears to have provided a limited
amount of time for conducting various impact analyses; and (3) the
expedited schedule afforded little, if any, time for internal stakeholders
to provide input to senior EPA management about the impacts of the
proposal during Final Agency Review.

First, the TRI workgroup charged with identifying options to reduce
reporting burdens on industry identified three possible options for senior
management to consider. The first two options allowed facilities to use
Form A in lieu of Form R for PBT chemicals, provided the facility has no
releases to the environment. Specifically, the workgroup considered and
analyzed options to facilities to:

           o report PBT chemicals using Form A if they have zero releases and
           zero total other waste management activities; or
           o report PBT chemicals using Form A if they have zero releases and
           no more than 500 pounds of other waste management activities.

           The third option was to create a form, in lieu of Form R, for
           facilities to report "no significant change" if their releases
           changed little from the previous year.

           According a June 2005 briefing for the Administrator and
           interviews with senior EPA officials, the Office of Management and
           Budget (OMB) had suggested increasing the Form A eligibility for
           non-PBT chemicals from 500 to 5,000 pounds as a possible burden
           reduction option. However, the TRI workgroup had previously
           dropped that option from consideration. In fact, EPA's economic
           analysis--dated July 2005--did not evaluate the impact of raising
           the Form A reporting threshold because the TRI workgroup pursued
           the "no significant change" option. Nonetheless, by the time the
           TRI burden reduction proposed rule was published in October 2005,
           it included the option to increase Form A reporting eligibility
           from 500 to 5,000 pounds.

           Second, although we could not determine from the documents EPA
           provided or the discussions we held with EPA officials what
           actions the agency took between the June 2005 briefing for the
           Administrator and the October 2005 publication of the TRI proposal
           in the Federal Register, the Administrator provided direction
           after the briefing to expedite the process in order to meet a
           commitment to OMB to provide burden reduction by the end of
           December 2006. Subsequently, EPA staff worked to revise the
           economic analysis to consider the impact of raising the Form A
           reporting threshold. However, that analysis was not completed
           before EPA sent the proposed rule to OMB for review and was only
           completed just prior to the proposal being signed by the
           Administrator on September 21, 2005 and ultimately published in
           the Federal Register for public comment on October 4, 2005.

           Third, it appears that EPA management received limited input from
           internal stakeholders, including the TRI workgroup, after
           directing that the proposed rule include the option to increase
           the Form A reporting threshold from 500 to 5,000 pounds. EPA
           conducted a Final Agency Review burden reduction proposal, as
           provided for in the internal rulemaking guidelines. Final Agency
           Review is the step where EPA's internal and regional offices would
           have discussed with senior management whether they concurred,
           concurred with comment, or did not concur with the final proposal.
           It appears that the review pertained to the "no significant
           change" option rather than increased threshold option. As a
           result, the EPA Administrator or EPA Assistant Administrator for
           Environmental Information likely received limited input from
           internal stakeholders about the increased Form A threshold prior
           to sending the TRI Burden Reduction Proposed Rule to OMB for
           review and publication in the Federal Register for public comment.

           Finally, in response to the public comments to the proposed rule,
           nearly all of which were negative, EPA considered alternative
           options and revised the rule to allow facilities to report
           releases of up to 2,000 pounds on Form A. We continue to review
           EPA documents and meet with EPA officials to understand the
           process EPA followed in developing the TRI burden reduction
           proposal. We expect to have a more complete picture for our report
           in June.
			  
			  Impact of Reporting Changes on Information Available to the Public
			  is Likely to be Significant

           We believe that the impact of EPA's changes to the TRI reporting
           requirements will likely have a significant impact on
           environmental information available to the public. While our
           analysis confirms EPA's estimate that the TRI reporting changes
           could result less than 1 percent of total pounds of chemical
           releases no longer being included in the TRI database, the impact
           on information available to some communities is likely to be more
           significant than these national aggregate totals indicate. EPA
           estimated that these reports amount to 5.7 million pounds of
           releases not being reported to the TRI (only 0.14% of all TRI
           release pounds) and an additional 10.5 million pounds of waste
           management activities (0.06% of total waste management pounds).
           Examined locally, the impact on data available to some communities
           is likely to be more significant than these national totals
           indicate. To understand the potential impact of EPA's changes to
           TRI reporting requirements at the local level, we used 2005 TRI
           data to estimate the number of detailed Form R reports that would
           no longer have to be submitted in each state and the impact this
           could have on data about specific chemicals and facilities. We
           provide a summary of our methodology and estimates of these
           impacts, by state, in Appendix I. In addition, preliminary results
           from our January 2007 survey of state TRI coordinators indicate
           that they believe EPA's changes to TRI reporting requirements will
           have, on balance, a negative impact on various aspects of TRI,
           including environmental information available to the public.

           We estimated that a total of nearly 22,200 Form R reports could
           convert to Form A if all eligible facilities choose to take
           advantage of the opportunity to report under the new Form A
           thresholds. The number ranges by state from 25 Form Rs in Vermont
           (27.2 percent of Form Rs in the state) to 2,196 Form Rs in Texas
           (30.6 percent of Form Rs in the state). As figure 3 shows,
           Arkansas, Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, and South Dakota could lose
           less than 20 percent of the detailed forms, while Alaska,
           California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland,
           Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island,
           and Texas could lose at least 30 percent of Form R reports.

Figure 3: Impact of TRI Reporting Changes on Number of Form R Reports

For each facility that chooses to file a Form A instead of Form R, the
public would no longer receive detailed information about a facility's
releases and waste management practices for a specific chemical that the
facility manufactured, processed, or otherwise used. While both Form R and
Form A capture information about a facility's identity, such as mailing
address and parent company, and information about a chemical's identity,
such its generic name, only Form R captures detailed information about the
chemical, such as quantity disposed or released onsite to air, water, and
land or injected underground, or transferred for disposal or release
off-site. Form R also provides information about the facility's efforts to
reduce pollution at its source, including the quantities managed in waste,
both on- and off-site, such as amounts recycled, burned for energy
recovery, or treated. We provide a detailed comparison of the TRI data on
Form R and Form A in Appendix II.

One way to characterize the impact of the TRI reporting changes on
publicly available data is in terms of information about specific
chemicals at the state level. The number of chemicals for which no
information is likely to be reported under the new rule ranges from 3
chemicals in South Dakota to 60 chemicals in Georgia. That means that all
quantitative information currently reported about those chemicals could no
longer appear in the TRI database. Figure 4 shows that thirteen
states--Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin--could no longer have quantitative information for at least 20
percent of all reported chemicals in the state.

Figure 4: Impact of TRI Reporting Changes on Number of Chemicals Reported
on Form R

The impact of the loss of information from these Form R reports can also
be understood in terms of the number of facilities that could be affected.
We estimated that 6,620 facilities nationwide could chose to convert at
least one Form R to a Form A, and about 54 percent of those would be
eligible to convert all their Form Rs to Form A. That means that
approximately 3,565 facilities would not have to report any quantitative
information about their chemical releases and other waste management
practices to the TRI, according to our estimates. The number of facilities
ranges from 5 in Alaska to 302 in California.^5 As an example, one of
these facilities is ATSC Marine Terminal--a bulk petroleum storage
facility in Los Angeles County, California. In 2005, it reported releases
of 13 different chemicals--including highly toxic benzene, toluene, and
xylene--to the air. Although the facility's releases totaled about 5,000
pounds, it released less than 2,000 pounds of each chemical. As figure 5
shows, more than 10 percent of facilities in each state except Idaho would
no longer have to report any quantitative information to the TRI. The most
affected states are Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia,
Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, where more than 20 percent of
facilities could choose to not disclose the details of their chemical
releases and other waste management practices. Furthermore, our analysis
found that citizens living in 75 counties in the United States--including
11 in Texas, 10 in Virginia, and 6 in Georgia--could have no quantitative
TRI information about local toxic pollution.

^5Appendix I provides the number of affected facilities for each state.

Figure 5: Impact of TRI Reporting Changes on Number of Facilities
Reporting on Form R

The Environmental Protection and Community Right-to-Know Act requires that
facilities submit their annual TRI data directly to their respective
state, as well as to EPA. Last month, we surveyed the TRI program contacts
in the 50 states and the District of Columbia to gain their perspective on
the TRI, including an understanding of how TRI is used by the states. We
also asked for their beliefs about how EPA's increase in the Form A
eligibility threshold would affect TRI-related aspects in their state,
such as information available to the public, efforts to protect the
environment, emergency planning and preparedness, and costs to facilities
for TRI reporting. Although our analysis of the survey is not final,
preliminary results from 49 states and the District of Columbia show that
the states generally believe that the change will have a negative impact
on various aspects of TRI in their states.^6 Very few states reported that
the change will have a positive impact. The states reported that the TRI
changes will have a negative impact on such TRI aspects as information
available to the public and efforts to protect the environment.
Specifically, 23 states--including California, Maryland, New York, and
Oklahoma--responded that the changes will negatively impact information
available to the public, 14 states--including Louisiana, Ohio, and
Wyoming--reported no impact, and one state, Virginia, reported a generally
positive impact. Similarly, 22 states responded that the change will
negatively impact efforts to protect the environment, 11 reported no
impact, and 5 said it will have a positive impact. States also responded
that raising the eligibility threshold will have no impact on TRI aspects
such as emergency planning and preparedness efforts and the cost to
facilities for TRI reporting. For example, 22 states responded that the
change will have no impact on the cost to facilities for TRI reporting, 12
said it will have a positive impact, and no states said it will have a
negative impact. The totals do not always sum to 50 because some states
responded that they were uncertain of the impact on some aspects of TRI.

Finally, we evaluated EPA's estimates of the burden reduction impacts that
the new TRI reporting rules would likely have on industry's reporting
costs, the primary rationale for the rule changes. EPA estimated that the
TRI reporting changes will result in an annual cost savings of
approximately $5.9 million. (See table 1.) This amounts to about 4 percent
of the $147.8 million total annual cost to industry, according to our
calculations.

^6Survey results from those states responding as of February 1, 2007.

Table 1: EPA Estimates of Annual Savings from Changes to TRI Reporting
Requirements

                                         Burden  Annual                       
                        Newly            (hours  burden     Cost              
                     eligible   Eligible    per savings  savings  Annual cost 
Option             Form Rs facilities  form) (hours) per form      savings 
New PBT chemical                                                           
eligibility          2,360      1,796   15.5  36,480     $748   $1,764,969 
Increased                                                                  
eligibility for                                                            
non-PBT chemicals    9,501      5,317    9.1  86,924      438    4,160,239 
Total               11,861      6,670        123,404            $5,925,208 

Source: EPA based on reporting year 2004 TRI data.

This amounts to an average savings of less than $900 annually for each
facility. EPA also projected that not all eligible facilities will chose
to use Form A, based on the agency's experience from previous years.
Furthermore, according to industry groups, much of the reporting burden
comes from the calculations required to determine and substantiate Form A
eligibility, rather than from the amount time required to complete the
forms. As a result, EPA's estimate of nearly $6 million likely
overestimates the total cost savings (i.e., burden reduction) that will be
realized by reporting facilities.

We are continuing to review EPA documentation and meet with EPA officials
to understand the process they followed in developing the TRI burden
reduction proposal. We expect to have a more complete picture for our
report later this year.

A System to Track Perchlorate Sampling and Cleanup Results Is Still Needed

Perchlorate is a salt that is easily dissolved and transported in water
and has been found in groundwater, surface water, drinking water, soil,
and food products such as milk and lettuce across the country. Health
studies have shown that perchlorate can affect the thyroid gland and may
cause developmental delays during pregnancy and early infancy. In February
2005, EPA established a new safe exposure level, or reference dose, for
perchlorate, equivalent to 24.5 parts per billion in drinking water.^7
However, EPA has not established a national drinking water standard,
citing the need for more research on health effects. As a result,
perchlorate, like other unregulated contaminants, is not subject to TRI
reporting. In May 2005 we issued a report that identified (1) the
estimated extent of perchlorate found in the United States; (2) what
actions the federal government, state governments, and responsible parties
have taken to clean up or eliminate the source of perchlorate; and (3)
what studies of the potential health risks from perchlorate have been
conducted and, where presented, the author's conclusions or findings on
the health effects of perchlorate.

Perchlorate has been found by federal and state agencies in groundwater,
surface water, soil, or public drinking water at almost 400 sites in the
United States. However, because there is not a standardized approach for
reporting perchlorate data nationwide, a greater number of sites than we
identified may already exist in the United States. Perchlorate has been
found in 35 states, the District of Columbia, and 2 commonwealths of the
United States, where the highest concentrations ranged from 4 parts per
billion to more than 3.7 million parts per billion. (At some sites,
federal and state agencies detected perchlorate concentrations as low as 1
part per billion or less, yet 4 parts per billion is the minimum reporting
level of the analysis method most often used.) More than 50 percent of all
sites were found in California and Texas, and sites in Arkansas,
California, Texas, Nevada, and Utah had some of the highest concentration
levels. However, roughly two-thirds of sites had concentration levels at
or below 18 parts per billion, the upper limit of EPA's provisional
cleanup guidance, and almost 70 percent of sites had perchlorate
concentrations less than 24.5 parts per billion, the drinking water
concentration calculated on the basis of EPA's recently established
reference dose (see fig. 6).

^7The reference dose of 0.0007 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per
day is equivalent to 2 liters of drinking water per day containing 24.5
parts per billion of perchlorate when consumed by an adult weighing 70
kilograms (or 154 pounds), assuming that all perchlorate exposure comes
from drinking water.

Figure 6: Maximum Perchlorate Concentrations Reported in any Media and
Number of Sites, January 2005

At more than one-quarter of the sites, propellant manufacturing, rocket
motor testing, and explosives disposal were the most likely sources of
perchlorate. Public drinking water systems accounted for more than
one-third of the sites where perchlorate was found. EPA sampled more than
3,700 public drinking water systems and found perchlorate in 153 systems
across 26 states and 2 commonwealths of the United States. Perchlorate
concentration levels found at public drinking water systems ranged from 4
to 420 parts per billion. However, only 14 of the 153 public drinking
water systems had concentration levels above 24.5 parts per billion. EPA
and state officials told us they had not cleaned up these public drinking
water systems, principally because there was no federal drinking water
standard or specific federal requirement to clean up perchlorate. Further,
EPA currently does not centrally track or monitor perchlorate detections
or the status of cleanup activities. In fact, several EPA regional
officials told us they did not always know when states had found
perchlorate, at what levels, or what actions were taken. As a result, it
is difficult to determine the extent of perchlorate in the United States
or the status of cleanup actions, if any.

Although there is no specific federal requirement to clean up perchlorate
or a specific perchlorate cleanup standard, EPA and state environmental
agencies have investigated, sampled, and cleaned up unregulated
contaminants, such as perchlorate, under various federal environmental
laws and regulations. EPA and state agency officials have used their
authorities under these laws and regulations, as well as under state laws
and action levels, to sample and clean up and/or require the sampling and
cleanup of perchlorate by responsible parties. For example, according to
EPA and state officials, at least 9 states have established non-regulatory
action levels or advisories, ranging from under 1 part per billion to 18
parts per billion. Where these action levels or advisories are in effect,
responsible parties have been required to sample and clean up perchlorate.
Further, certain environmental laws and programs require private companies
to sample for contaminants, which can include unregulated substances such
as perchlorate, and report to environmental agencies. According to EPA and
state officials, private industry and public water suppliers have
generally complied with regulations requiring sampling for contaminants
and agency requests to sample or clean up perchlorate. DOD has sampled and
cleaned up when required by specific environmental laws and regulations
but has been reluctant to sample on or near active installations, unless a
perchlorate release due to DOD activities is suspected and a complete
human exposure pathway is likely to exist. Finally, EPA, state agencies,
and/or responsible parties are currently cleaning up or planning cleanup
at 51 of the almost 400 sites where perchlorate has been found. The
remaining sites are not being cleaned up for a variety of reasons. The
reason most often cited by EPA and state officials was that they were
waiting for a federal requirement to do so.

We identified and summarized 90 studies of perchlorate health risks
published since 1998. EPA and DOD sponsored the majority of these studies,
which used experimental, field study, and data analysis methodologies. For
26 of the 90 studies, the findings indicated that perchlorate had an
adverse effect. Eighteen of these studies found adverse effects on fetal
or child development resulting from maternal exposure to perchlorate.
Although the studies we reviewed examined whether and how perchlorate
affected the thyroid, most of the studies of adult populations were unable
to determine whether the thyroid was adversely affected. Adverse effects
of perchlorate on the adult thyroid are difficult to evaluate because they
may happen over longer time periods than can be observed in a research
study. However, adverse effects of perchlorate on fetal or child
development can be studied and measured within study time frames. We also
found some studies considered the same perchlorate dose amount but
identified different effects. The precise cause of the differences remains
unresolved but may be attributed to an individual study's design type or
the physical condition of the subjects, such as their age. Such unresolved
questions are one of the bases for the differing conclusions among EPA,
DOD, and academic studies on perchlorate dose amounts and effects.

In January 2005, NAS issued its report on the potential health effects of
perchlorate. The NAS report evaluated many of the same health risk studies
included in our review. NAS reported that certain levels of exposure may
not adversely affect healthy adults but recommended that more studies be
conducted on the effects of perchlorate exposure in children and pregnant
women. NAS also recommended a perchlorate reference dose, which is an
estimated daily exposure level from all sources that is expected not to
cause adverse effects in humans, including the most sensitive populations.
The reference dose of 0.0007 milligrams per kilogram of body weight is
equivalent to a drinking water exposure level of 24.5 parts per billion,
if all exposure comes from drinking water. In January 2006, EPA issued
guidance stating that this exposure level is a preliminary cleanup goal
for environmental cleanups involving perchlorate.

We concluded that EPA needed more reliable information on the extent of
sites contaminated with perchlorate and the status of cleanup efforts, and
recommended that EPA work with the Department of Defense, other federal
agencies and the states to establish a formal structure for better
tracking perchlorate information. In December 2006, EPA reiterated its
disagreement with the recommendation stating that perchlorate information
already exists from a variety of other sources. However, we found that the
states and federal agencies do not always report perchlorate detections to
EPA and as a result EPA and the states do not have the most current and
complete accounting of perchlorate as an emerging contaminant of concern.
We continue to believe that the inconsistency and omissions in the
available data that we found during the course of our study underscore the
need for a more structured and formal system, and that such a system would
serve to better inform the public and others about the locations of
perchlorate releases and the status of clean ups.

Preliminary Observations

Contrary to EPA's assertions, in our view EPA's recent changes to the
Toxics Release Inventory significantly reduce the amount of information
available to the public about toxic chemicals in their communities. EPA's
portrayal of the potential impacts of the TRI reporting rule changes in
terms of a national amount of pollution is quite misleading and runs
contrary to the legislative intent of EPCRA and the principles of the
public's right-to-know. TRI is designed to provide states and public
citizens with information about the releases of toxic chemicals by
facilities in their local communities. Citizens drink water from local
sources, spend much of their time on land near their homes and places of
business, and breathe the air over their local communities. We believe
that the likely reduction in publicly availability data about specific
chemicals and facilities in local communities should be considered in
light of the relatively small cost savings to industry afforded by the TRI
reporting changes.

Madam Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you and Members of the Committee may have.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

For further information about this testimony, please contact me, John
Stephenson, at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this statement. Contributors to this testimony include J.
Erin Lansburgh, Assistant Director, and Terrance Horner, Senior Analyst;
Mark Braza, John Delicath, Karen Febey, Edward Kratzer, Richard Johnson,
and Jennifer Popovic also made key contributions.

Appendix I: GAO Estimates of the Impact of Reporting Changes on TRI Data

We analyzed 2005 TRI data provided by EPA to estimate the number of Form
Rs that could no longer be reported in each state and determine the
possible impacts that this could have on data about specific chemicals and
facilities.^1 Table 2 provides our estimates of the total number of Form
Rs eligible to convert to Form A, including the percent of total Form Rs
submitted by facilities in each state. The table also provides our
estimates of the number of unique chemicals for which no quantitative
information would have to be reported in each state, including the percent
of total chemicals reported in each state. The last two columns provide
our estimates for the number of facilities that would no longer have to
provide quantitative information about their chemical releases and waste
management practices, including the percent of total facilities reporting
in each state.

Table 2: Estimated Impact of TRI Reporting Changes on Number of Form Rs,
Chemicals, and Facilities, by State

                Form Rs            Chemicals               Facilities         
                    Percent of        Percent of        Percent of            
State  Number         total Number      total Number      total            
AK         59          36.6      8       17.0      5       15.6            
AL        456          22.0     34       17.1     69       12.9            
AR        247          17.7     18        5.8     39       11.0            
AZ        221          27.7     12       10.8     50       15.0            
CA      1,533          37.5     36       18.2    302       19.9            
CO        162          25.8     11       11.1     51       21.8            
CT        299          33.5     16       15.4     73       20.6            
DC          4          28.6      2       18.2      2       28.6            
DE         80          27.7     24       23.3     10       14.1            
FL        479          27.4     19       13.2    119       17.2            
GA        678          30.9     60       29.1    132       16.7            
HI         67          37.9     12       26.1      9       23.1            
IA        371          27.7     34       22.2     46       10.6            
ID         41          14.4      8       10.4      8        7.3            
IL      1,155          30.0     37       16.4    171       14.3            
IN        900          25.6     29       14.6    143       14.4            
KS        291          28.3     23       16.0     41       14.0            
KY        490          25.7     28       15.3     63       13.4            
LA        665          25.6                34   13.1               46 12.4 
MA        574          38.0                23   20.4              119 20.1 
MD        221          32.6                24   22.6               34 16.6 
ME        105          26.1                 8   11.3               14 13.7 
MI        965          29.7                36   19.0              145 16.1 
MN        263          21.0                20   15.4               55 11.5 
MO        498          27.3                43   21.7               80 14.2 
MS        265          25.0                29   18.7               37 11.8 
MT         61          21.8                10   13.5                7 15.2 
NC        705          30.1                43   24.9              148 17.8 
ND         29          13.8                 7   11.5                6 12.5 
NE        116          20.3                11    7.9               24 12.9 
NH         98          29.1                13   17.3               23 16.1 
NJ        582          35.1                34   16.0              101 19.3 
NM         96          29.2                11   15.3               15 19.2 
NV         96          21.2                14   18.9               19 14.3 
NY        663          31.8                33   19.1              122 17.2 
OH      1,557          28.5                38   12.6              218 13.8 
OK        273          26.1                30   23.3               50 15.2 
OR        236          28.6                16   15.5               47 15.5 
PA      1,253          29.9                30   15.2              192 14.9 
RI        112          39.3                12   17.4               30 23.4 
SC        596          29.0                36   17.6               78 15.0 
SD         44          19.6                 3    5.8               10 10.5 
TN        569          27.6                40   20.9              105 16.2 
TX       2196          30.6                29    9.3              210 14.1 
UT        146          19.9                11    9.9               25 12.6 
VA        401          25.2                23   14.8               70 14.3 
VT         25          27.2                 9   23.7                6 14.6 
WA        276          26.4                22   19.8               43 12.5 
WI        692          25.4                31   21.2              113 12.5 
WV        222          22.8                40   24.1               35 17.4 
WY         60          23.6                 9   14.5                5 10.9 
Total  22,193                                                   3,565      

^1The EPA anticipates issuing the 2005 TRI Public Data Release in April,
2007.

Source: GAO analysis of EPA 2005 TRI data.

Appendix II: Comparison of TRI Data on Form R and Form A

Form R                                      Form A                         
                                               Facility Identification        
Facility Identification Information         Information                    
      o TRI Facility ID Number                    o TRI Facility ID Number    
      o Reporting year                            o Reporting year            
      o Trade secret information (if claiming     o Trade secret information  
      that toxic chemical is trade secret)        (if claiming that toxic     
      o Certification by facility                 chemical is trade secret)   
      owner/operator or senior management         o Certification by facility 
      official                                    owner/operator or senior    
      o Facility name, mailing address            management official         
      o Whether form is for entire facility,      o Facility name, mailing    
      part of facility, federal facility, or      address                     
      contractor at federal facility              o Whether form is for       
      o Technical contact name, telephone         entire facility, part of    
      number, Email address                       facility, federal facility, 
      o Public contact name, telephone number     or contractor at federal    
      o Standard Industrial Classification        facility                    
      (SIC) code                                  o Technical contact name,   
      o Dun & Bradstreet number                   telephone number, Email     
      o Parent company information (name, Dun     address                     
      & Bradstreet number)                                                    
                                                  o Standard Industrial       
                                                  Classification (SIC) code   
                                                  o Dun & Bradstreet number   
                                                  o Parent company            
                                                  information (name, Dun &    
                                                  Bradstreet number)          
Chemical Specific Information               Chemical Specific Information  
      o Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)          o Chemical Abstracts        
      registry number                             Service (CAS) registry      
      o EPCRA Section 313 chemical or chemical    number                      
      category name                               o EPCRA Section 313         
      o Generic name                              chemical or chemical        
      o Distribution of each member of the        category name               
      dioxin or dioxin-like compound category     o Generic name              
      o Generic name provided by supplier if                                  
      chemical is component of a mixture                                      
      o Activities and uses of the chemical at                                
      facility, whether chemical is:                                          
                                                                              
              o produced or imported for                                      
              on-site use/processing, for                                     
              sale/distribution, as a                                         
              byproduct, or as an impurity                                    
              o processed as a reactant, a                                    
              formation component, article                                    
              component, repackaging, or as an                                
              impurity                                                        
              o otherwise used as a chemical                                  
              processing aid, manufacturing                                   
              aid, or as an ancillary or other                                
              use                                                             
                                                                              
      o Maximum amount onsite at any time                                     
      during the year                                                         

Form R                                                    Form A           
On-site Chemical Release Data                             On-site Chemical 
                                                             Release Data     
      o Quantities released on-site to:                      Not reported on  
                                                             Form A           
              o air as fugitive or non-point emissions                        
              o air as stack or point emissions                               
              o surface water as discharges to receiving                      
              streams or water bodies (including names of                     
              streams or water bodies)                                        
              o underground injection                                         
              o land, including RCRA Subtitle C landfills,                    
              other landfills, land treatment/application                     
              farming, RCRA Subtitle C surface impoundments,                  
              other surface impoundments, other land                          
              disposal                                                        
                                                                              
      o Basis for estimates of releases (i.e., monitoring                     
      data or measurements, mass balance calculations,                        
      emissions factors, other approaches)                                    
      o Quantity released as a result of remedial actions,                    
      catastrophic events, or one-time events not associated                  
      with production processes                                               
On-site Chemical Waste Management Data                    On-site Chemical 
                                                             Waste Management 
                                                             Data             
      o Quantities managed on-site through:                  Not reported on  
                                                             Form A           
              o recycling                                                     
              o energy recovery                                               
              o treatment                                                     
                                                                              
      o Recycling processes (e.g., metal recovery by                          
      smelting, solvent recovery by distillation)                             
      o Energy recovery methods (e.g., kiln, furnace,                         
      boiler)                                                                 
      o Waste treatment methods (e.g., scrubber,                              
      electrostatic precipitator) for each waste stream                       
      (e.g., gaseous, aqueous, liquid non-aqueous, solids)                    
      o On-site waste treatment efficiency                                    

Form R                                              Form A                 
Off-site Transfers for Release or Other Waste       Off-site Transfers for 
Management                                          Release or Other Waste 
                                                       Management             
      o Quantities transferred to any Publicly Owned   Not reported on Form A 
      Treatment Works (POTW)                                                  
                                                                              
              o POTW name(s), address(es)                                     
                                                                              
      o Quantities transferred to other location for                          
      disposal or other release                                               
                                                                              
              o underground injection                                         
              o other land release                                            
                                                                              
      o Quantities transferred to other location for                          
      waste management                                                        
                                                                              
              o treatment                                                     
              o recycling                                                     
              o energy recovery                                               
                                                                              
      o Quantity transferred off-site for release,                            
      treatment, recycling, or energy recovery that                           
      resulted from remedial actions, catastrophic                            
      events, or one-time events not associated with                          
      production processes                                                    
      o Off-site location(s) name and address                                 
      o Basis for estimates for amounts transferred                           
      o Whether receiving location(s) is/are under                            
      control of reporting facility/parent company                            
Source Reduction and Recycling Activities           Source Reduction and   
                                                       Recycling Activities   
      o Total quantities, for (1) the prior and (2)    Not reported on Form A 
      current reporting years and estimated totals for                        
      (3) the following and (4) second following years                        
      for:                                                                    
                                                                              
              o on-site disposal to underground                               
              injection wells, RCRA Subtitle C                                
              landfills, and other landfills                                  
              o other on-site disposal or other                               
              releases                                                        
              o off-site transfer to underground                              
              injection wells, RCRA Subtitle C                                
              landfills, and other landfills                                  
              o other off-site disposal or other                              
              releases                                                        
              o on-site treatment                                             
              o on-site recycling                                             
              o on-site energy recovery                                       
              o off-site treatment                                            
              o off-site recycling                                            
              o off-site energy recovery                                      
                                                                              
      o Production ratio or activity index                                    
      o Source reduction activities the facility                              
      engaged in during the reporting year (e.g.,                             
      inventory control, spill/leak prevention,                               
      product modifications)                                                  
      o Option to submit additional information on                            
      source reduction, recycling, or pollution                               
      control activities                                                      

Sources: EPA TRI Form R and Form A.

(360796)

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( [www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-464T .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected].

Highlights of [24]GAO-07-464T , a testimony before the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate

February 6, 2007

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

EPA Actions Could Reduce the Availability of Environmental Information to
the Public

U.S. industry uses billions of pounds of chemicals to produce the nation's
goods and services. Releases of these chemicals during use or disposal can
harm human health and the environment. The Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 requires facilities that manufacture,
process, or otherwise use more than specified amounts of nearly 650 toxic
chemicals to report their releases to water, air, and land. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) makes this data available to the
public in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Since 1995, facilities may
submit a brief certification statement (Form A), in lieu of the detailed
Form R report, if their releases of specific chemicals do not exceed 500
pounds a year. In January 2007, EPA finalized a proposal to increase that
threshold to 2,000 pounds, quadrupling what facilities can release before
they must disclose their releases and other waste management practices.

Today's testimony addresses (1) EPA's development of the proposal to
change the TRI Form A threshold from 500 to 2,000 pounds and (2) the
impact these changes may have on data available to the public. It also
provides an update to our 2005 report recommendations on perchlorate.

GAO's preliminary observations on TRI are based on ongoing work performed
from June 2006 through January 2007.

Although we have not yet completed our evaluation, our preliminary
observations indicate that EPA did not adhere to its own rulemaking
guidelines in all respects when developing the proposal to change TRI
reporting requirements. We have identified several significant differences
between the guidelines and the process EPA followed. First, late in the
process, senior EPA management directed the inclusion of a burden
reduction option that raised the Form R reporting threshold, an option
that the TRI workgroup charged with analyzing potential options, had
dropped from consideration early in the process. Second, EPA developed
this option on an expedited schedule that appears to have provided a
limited amount of time for conducting various impact analyses. Third, the
decision to expedite final agency review, when EPA's internal and regional
offices determine whether they concur with the final proposal, appears to
have limited the amount of input they could provide to senior EPA
management.

We believe that the TRI reporting changes will likely have a significant
impact on information available to the public about dozens of toxic
chemicals from thousands of facilities in states and communities across
the country. First, we estimate that detailed information from more than
22,000 Form Rs could no longer be reported to the TRI if all eligible
facilities choose to use Form A, affecting more than 33 percent of reports
in California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Second, we estimate that
states could lose all quantitative information about releases of some
chemicals, ranging from 3 in South Dakota to 60 in Georgia. Third, we
estimate that 3,565 facilities--including 50 in Oklahoma, 101 in New
Jersey, and 302 in California--would no longer have to report any
quantitative information to the TRI. In addition, preliminary results from
our survey of state TRI coordinators indicate that many believe the
changes will negatively impact information available to the public and
efforts to protect the environment. Finally, EPA estimates facilities
could save a total of $5.9 million as a result of the increased Form A
eligibility--about 4 percent of the total annual cost of TRI reporting.
According to our estimates, facilities will save less than $900 a year, on
average. Because not all eligible facilities will utilize the increased
eligibility, actual savings to industry are likely to be less.

In our May 2005 perchlorate report, we identified over 400 sites in 35
states where perchlorate has been found in concentrations ranging from 4
parts per billion to more than 3.7 million parts per billion. We concluded
that EPA needed more reliable information on the extent of contaminated
sites and the status of cleanup efforts, and recommended that EPA work
with the Department of Defense and the states to establish a way to track
perchlorate information. In December 2006, EPA reiterated its disagreement
with our recommendation. We continue to believe that the inconsistency and
omissions in available perchlorate data underscore the need for a tracking
system to better inform the public and others about the locations of
perchlorate releases and the status of cleanups.

References

Visible links
  14. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-462
  24. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-464T
*** End of document. ***