Environmental Right-To-Know: EPA's Recent Rule Could Reduce
Availability of Toxic Chemical Information Used to Assess
Environmental Justice (04-OCT-07, GAO-08-115T).
A 1994 Executive Order sought to ensure that minority and
low-income populations are not subjected to disproportionately
high and adverse health or environ-mental effects from agency
activities. In a July 2005 report, GAO made several
recommendations to improve the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) adherence to these environmental justice principles. The
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986
(EPCRA) requires certain facilities that use toxic chemicals to
report their releases to EPA, which makes the information
available in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Since 1995,
facilities may submit a brief statement (Form A) in lieu of the
more detailed Form R if releases of a chemical do not exceed 500
pounds a year. In January 2007, EPA finalized the TRI Burden
Reduction Rule, quadrupling to 2,000 pounds what facilities can
release before having to disclose details using Form R. Congress
is considering codifying the Executive Order and requiring EPA to
implement GAO's environ-mental justice recommendations. Other
legislation would amend EPCRA to, among other things, revert the
Form A threshold to 500 pounds or less. In this testimony, GAO
discusses (1) EPA's response to GAO's environmental justice
recommendations, (2) the extent to which EPA followed internal
guidelines when developing the TRI rule and (3) the impact of the
rule on communities and facilities.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-08-115T
ACCNO: A77049
TITLE: Environmental Right-To-Know: EPA's Recent Rule Could
Reduce Availability of Toxic Chemical Information Used to Assess
Environmental Justice
DATE: 10/04/2007
SUBJECT: Accountability
Environmental impact statements
Environmental law
Environmental legislation
Environmental policies
Facility management
Government information dissemination
Internal controls
Policy evaluation
Regulatory agencies
Reporting requirements
Toxic substances
Waste management
Policies and procedures
EPA Toxic Release Inventory
******************************************************************
** 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-08-115T
* [1]EPA's Response to Our Environmental Justice Recommendations
* [2]EPA's TRI Rulemaking Deviated From Key Internal Guidelines,
* [3]EPA Actions Reduce the Amount of Information About Toxic Che
* [4]Concluding Observations
* [5]Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
* [6]GAO's Mission
* [7]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [8]Order by Mail or Phone
* [9]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [10]Congressional Relations
* [11]Public Affairs
Testimony
Before the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, Committee
on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
For Release on Delivery
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT
Thursday, October 4, 2007
ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHT-TO-KNOW
EPA's Recent Rule Could Reduce Availability of Toxic Chemical Information
Used to Assess Environmental Justice
Statement of John B. Stephenson, Director
Natural Resources and Environment
GAO-08-115T
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on two related issues.
The first issue is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
consideration of environmental justice in the development of new rules.
Environmental justice generally refers to efforts to identify and address
the disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
impacts that air pollution and other environmental risks pose to specific
populations--usually minority and low-income communities. The second issue
is EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Burden Reduction rule, which
recently changed how much information some facilities are required to
report to the public about their use and release of certain toxic
chemicals. A key use of the TRI is for environmental justice purposes, and
EPA used that rule as an example of how the agency has improved
consideration of environmental justice issues in its rule development
process. Specifically, information about toxic chemical use, transport,
storage, and release captured in the TRI has been useful for determining
whether minority and low-income populations bear disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of EPA programs,
policies, and activities. Hence, while a change to TRI reporting
requirements may not affect how much toxic waste is released to the
environment, it could affect how much information communities will know
about those toxic releases.
In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, which stated that
EPA and other federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, shall make achieving environmental justice part of their
missions by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, the
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects
of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and
low-income populations in the United States. To implement the order, EPA
developed guidance for incorporating environmental justice into its
programs, such as the enforcement of the Clean Air Act, which is intended
in part, to control emissions that harm human health. A key to ensuring
that environmental justice is sufficiently accounted for in agency
decisions and operations is that it be considered at each point in the
rule development process--including the point when agency workgroups
typically consider regulatory options, perform economic analyses of
proposed rules' costs, make proposed rules available for public comment,
and finalize them before implementation.
Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of
1986 (EPCRA) to help inform citizens about releases of toxic chemicals to
the environment; to help governmental agencies, researchers, and others
conduct research and gather data; 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 handle 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. 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 a Form R report. Since 1995, EPA has allowed
certain facilities to submit information on a brief Form A certification
statement (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. 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 as 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 of waste it manages both on- and off-site, and how it manages
waste, 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 I.
On December 22, 2006, EPA issued the TRI Burden Reduction rule, which
sought to reduce industry's reporting burden by: (1) quadrupling the Form
A threshold from 500 to 2,000 pounds of releases for a non-PBT chemical,
and (2) allowing 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. The rule went into effect for reporting calendar year 2006
releases, which were due by July 1, 2007. Because EPA typically releases
TRI data to the public in the spring following the due date, the most
currently available data are for calendar year 2005; the 2006 data are
expected in spring of 2008.
The Congress is considering legislation to codify Executive Order 12898,
relating to environmental justice, to require the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to fully implement the
recommendations that GAO made in 2005.^1 Additional legislation has been
introduced that would, among other things, effectively repeal EPA's TRI
Burden Reduction Rule.^2 Specifically, the bills would amend EPCRA to (1)
require the Administrator of EPA to establish the eligibility threshold
for use of Form A at not greater than 500 pounds for non-PBT chemicals,
(2) prohibit use of Form A for PBT chemicals,^3 and (3) repeal a provision
of EPCRA allowing the Administrator of EPA to modify the frequency of
toxic chemical release reporting.
My testimony this morning is based, in part, on a July 2007 update to our
2005 report on environmental justice, which recommended that EPA devote
more attention to environmental justice when developing clean air rules.^4
Our 2005 report examined how EPA considered environmental justice during
the drafting of three air rules and concluded that the manner in which EPA
had incorporated environmental justice into its air rulemaking process
fell short of the goals set forth in Executive Order 12898. In that
report, we recommended four actions to help EPA resolve the problems we
identified. Specifically, we called on:
1. EPA's rulemaking workgroups to devote attention to
environmental justice while drafting and finalizing clean air
rules;
2. the EPA Administrator to enhance workgroups' ability to
identify potential environmental justice issues by (1) providing
workgroup members with guidance and training to help them identify
potential environmental justice problems and (2) involving
environmental justice coordinators in the workgroups when
appropriate;
3. the EPA Administrator improve assessments of potential
environmental justice impacts in economic reviews by identifying
the data and developing the modeling techniques needed to assess
such impacts; and
4. the EPA Administrator to direct cognizant officials to respond
more fully to public comments on environmental justice by, for
example, better explaining the rationale for EPA's beliefs and by
providing supporting data.
^1S. 642, H.R. 1103. The bills would also codify recommendations that
EPA's Inspector General made in a report on EPA's environmental justice
activities. EPA Office of Inspector General, EPA Needs To Conduct
Environmental Justice Reviews of Its Programs, Policies And Activities,
Report No. 2006-P-00034 (Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2006).
^2S. 595, H.R. 1055.
^3The bills specifically prohibits the use of Form A with respect to any
chemical identified by the Administrator as a chemical of special concern
under 40 C.F.R. S 372.28 (or a successor regulation).
^4GAO, Environmental Justice: EPA Should Devote More Attention to
Environmental Justice When Developing Clean Air Rules, [12]GAO-05-289
(Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005).
My testimony also draws on our February 2007 testimony, in which we
discussed our then-ongoing work on EPA's TRI program.^5 We expect to
publish the final results of our evaluation later this month. My statement
today provides: (1) EPA's responses to the recommendations we made to EPA
to address the environmental justice problems we identified in 2005, (2)
our assessment of the extent to which EPA followed internal rule
development guidelines when developing its TRI Burden Reduction Rule,
including its implications for environmental justice, and (3) estimates of
the impact of the TRI Burden Reduction Rule on communities and facilities.
In summary:
o In commenting on the draft of our July 2005 environmental
justice report, EPA initially disagreed with our recommendations,
saying it was already paying appropriate attention to
environmental justice. A year later, in a letter to the
Comptroller General, EPA responded more positively to our
recommendations and committed to taking a number of actions to
address them. However, based on information that EPA has
subsequently provided regarding the recommendations we made in
that report, we concluded in our July 2007 testimony that EPA's
actions to date suggest the need for measurable benchmarks to
achieve environmental justice goals and to hold agency officials
accountable for making meaningful progress.^6
o As I discussed in our February 2007 testimony, we found that EPA
did not follow key aspects of its internal guidelines--including
some related to environmental justice--in developing the TRI
Burden Reduction Rule. We found that EPA's deviations from its
guidelines were due, in part, to pressure from the Office of
Management and Budget to significantly reduce industry's TRI
reporting burden by the end of December 2006. Throughout this
process, senior EPA management has the authority to depart from
the guidelines. Nevertheless, we have identified several
significant differences between the guidelines and the process EPA
followed for this case, which was widely criticized by the public,
including attorneys general from 12 states. Specifically, EPA did
not follow key steps in its guidelines intended to ensure that
scientific, economic, and policy issues were adequately addressed
at the appropriate stages of development and to ensure
cross-agency participation until the final action is completed.
For example, the draft rule and supporting analyses are to be
circulated for final agency review, a key step when EPA's internal
and regional offices should have discussed with senior management
whether they concurred with the rule. However, their input was
limited at this stage because the review package addressed the "no
significant change" option rather than the increased Form A
threshold option that was subsequently included in the proposed
rule and ultimately finalized. With regard to environmental
justice, EPA asserted that the TRI rule would not have
environmental justice impacts; however, the agency did not explain
a key assumption it used in arriving at this conclusion. This is
particularly significant because, according to EPA data that we
examined, facilities that report to the TRI are more likely to be
located near minority and low-income communities. Therefore any
reduction in the availability of TRI data seems likely to
disproportionately affect them.
^5GAO, Environmental Information: EPA Actions Could Reduce the
Availability of Environmental Information to the Public, [13]GAO-07-464T
(Washington, D.C.: February 6, 2007).
^6GAO, Environmental Justice: Measurable Benchmarks Needed to Gauge EPA
Progress in Correcting Past Problems, [14]GAO-07-1140T (Washington, D.C.:
July 25, 2007).
o EPA's TRI Burden Reduction Rule will reduce the amount of
information about toxic chemical releases previously available to
the public. EPA asserted that the final rule would not result in
the loss of critical information and would significantly reduce
industry's reporting burden. With regard to EPA's assertion that
critical information would not be lost, the agency estimated that
less than 1 percent of the total pounds of chemical releases would
no longer be reported to the TRI. However, we found the impact on
data available to many communities could be more significant than
EPA's national totals indicate, particularly at the local level.
We estimated that a total of nearly 22,200 Form R reports are
eligible to convert to Form A under the revised TRI reporting
thresholds, ranging from 25 in Vermont to 2,196 in Texas. The
number of chemicals for which only Form A information may be
reported under the TRI rule ranges from 3 chemicals in South
Dakota to 60 chemicals in Georgia. Taken by facility, some 3,500
facilities would no longer have to report any quantitative
information about their chemical use and releases to the TRI,
ranging from 5 in Alaska to 302 in California. With regard to
EPA's assertion that the final rule will result in significant
reduction in industry's reporting burden, EPA estimated that the
rule would save $5.9 million at most, which we calculated would
amount to savings of less than $900 per facility.
EPA's Response to Our Environmental Justice Recommendations Suggests a Need for
Clear Benchmarks to Measure Progress
As we testified in July 2007, EPA's actions in response to our
previous recommendations suggest the need for measurable
benchmarks--both to serve as goals to strive for in achieving
environmental justice in its rulemaking process, and to hold
cognizant officials accountable for making meaningful progress. In
commenting on our draft 2005 report, EPA disagreed with the four
recommendations we made, saying it was already paying appropriate
attention to environmental justice. A year later, in its August
24, 2006 letter to the Comptroller General, EPA responded more
positively to our recommendations and committed to taking a number
of actions to address these issues.^7 Specifically, EPA's letter
stated:
o In response to our first recommendation, calling upon EPA's
rulemaking workgroups to devote attention to environmental justice
while drafting and finalizing clean air rules, EPA responded that,
to ensure consideration of environmental justice in the
development of regulations, its Office of Environmental Justice
was made an ex officio member of the agency's Regulatory Steering
Committee, the body that oversees regulatory policy for EPA and
the development of its rules. EPA also said that (1) the agency's
Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation (responsible in part
for providing support and guidance to EPA's program offices and
regions as they develop their regulations) had convened an
agency-wide workgroup to consider where environmental justice
might be considered in rulemakings and (2) it was developing
"template language" to help rule writers communicate findings
regarding environmental justice in the preamble of rules. In
addition, EPA officials emphasized that its Tiering Form--a key
form completed by workgroup chairs to alert senior managers to the
potential issues related to compliance with statutes, executive
orders, and other matters--would be revised to include a question
on environmental justice.
^731 U.S.C. 720 requires the head of a federal agency to submit a written
statement of the actions taken on our recommendations to the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations within specified timeframes.
o In response to our second recommendation, calling on EPA to
provide workgroup members with guidance and training to help them
identify potential environmental justice problems and involve
environmental justice coordinators in the workgroups when
appropriate, EPA said it was creating a comprehensive curriculum
to meet the needs of agency rule writers. Specifically, EPA
explained that its Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation was
focusing on how best to train agency staff to consider
environmental justice during the regulation development process
and that its Office of Air and Radiation had already developed
environmental justice training tailored to the specific needs of
that office. Among other training opportunities highlighted in the
letter was a new on-line course offered by its Office of
Environmental Justice to address a broad range of environmental
justice issues. EPA also cited an initiative by the Office of Air
and Radiation's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to
use a regulatory development checklist to ensure that potential
environmental justice issues and concerns are considered and
addressed at each stage of the rulemaking process. In response to
our call for greater involvement of Environmental Justice
coordinators in workgroup activities, EPA said that as an ex
officio member of the Regulatory Steering Committee, the Office of
Environmental Justice would keep the program office environmental
justice coordinators informed about new and ongoing rulemakings
with potential environmental justice implications via monthly
conference calls with the environmental justice coordinators.
o In response to our third recommendation, calling on the EPA
Administrator to identify the data and develop the modeling
techniques needed to assess potential environmental justice
impacts in economic reviews, EPA responded that its Office of Air
and Radiation was reviewing information in its air models to
assess which demographic data could be analyzed to predict
possible environmental justice effects. EPA also stated it was
considering additional guidance to address methodological issues
typically encountered when examining a proposed rule's impacts on
subpopulations highlighted in the executive order. Specifically,
EPA discussed creating a handbook that would discuss important
methodological issues and suggest ways to properly screen and
conduct more thorough environmental justice analyses. Finally, it
noted that the Office of Air and Radiation was assessing models
and tools to (1) determine the data required to identify
communities of concern, (2) quantify environmental health, social
and economic impacts on these communities, and (3) determine
whether these impacts are disproportionately high and adverse.
o In response to our fourth recommendation, calling on the EPA
Administrator to direct cognizant officials to respond more fully
to public comments on environmental justice by, for example,
better explaining the rationale for EPA's beliefs and by providing
supporting data, EPA said that as a matter of policy, the agency
includes a response to comments in the preamble of a final rule or
in a separate "Response to Comments" document in the public docket
for its rulemakings. The agency noted, however, that it will
re-emphasize the need to respond to comments fully, to include the
rationale for its regulatory approach, and to better describe its
supporting data.
However, more recent information from agency officials indicates
that EPA's handling of environmental justice issues continues to
fall short of our recommendations and the goals set forth in
Executive Order 12898. In July 2007, we met with EPA officials to
obtain current information on EPA's environmental justice
activities, focusing in particular on those most relevant to our
report's recommendations. Specifically:
o Regarding our first recommendation that workgroups consider
environmental justice while drafting and finalizing regulations,
the Office of Environmental Justice has not participated directly
in any of the 103 air rules that have been proposed or finalized
since EPA's August 2006 letter. According to EPA officials, the
Office of Environmental Justice did participate in one workgroup
of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and provided
comments on the final agency review for the Toxic Release
Inventory Reporting Burden Reduction Rule. In addition, EPA
explained that the inclusion of environmental justice on its
Tiering Form has been delayed because it is only one of several
issues being considered for inclusion in the tiering process.
o Regarding our second recommendation to improve training and
include Environmental Justice coordinators in workgroups when
appropriate, our latest information on EPA's progress shows mixed
results. On the one hand, EPA continues to provide an
environmental justice training course that began in 2002, and has
included environmental justice in recent courses to help rule
writers understand how environmental justice ties into the
rulemaking process. On the other hand, some training courses that
were planned have not yet been developed. Specifically, the Office
of Policy, Economics, and Innovation has not completed the planned
development of training on ways to consider environmental justice
during the regulation development process. In addition, officials
from EPA's Office of Air and Radiation told us in July that they
were unable to develop environmental justice training--training
EPA told us in 2006 that it had already developed--due to staff
turnover and other reasons. Regarding our recommendation to
involve the Environmental Justice coordinators in rulemaking
workgroups when appropriate, EPA officials told us that active,
hands-on participation by Environmental Justice coordinators in
rulemakings has yet to occur.
o Regarding our third recommendation that EPA identify the data
and develop modeling techniques to assess potential environmental
justice impacts in economic reviews, EPA officials said that their
data and models have improved since our 2005 report, but that
their level of sophistication has not reached their goal for
purposes of environmental justice considerations. EPA officials
said that to understand how development of a rule might affect
environmental justice for specific communities, further
improvements are needed in modeling, and more specific data are
needed about the socio-economic, health, and environmental
composition of communities. Only when they have achieved such
modeling and data improvements can they develop guidance on
conducting an economic analysis of environmental justice issues.
According to EPA, among other things, economists within the Office
of Air and Radiation are continuing to evaluate and enhance their
models in a way that will further improve consideration of
environmental justice during rulemaking. For example, EPA
officials told us that a contractor would begin to analyze the
environmental justice implications of a yet-to-be-determined
regulation to control a specific air pollutant in July 2007. EPA
expects that the study, due in June 2008, will give the agency
information about what socio-economic groups experience the
benefits of a particular air regulation, and which ones bear the
costs. EPA expects that the analysis will serve as a prototype for
analyses of other pollutants.
o Regarding our fourth recommendation that the Administrator
direct cognizant officials to respond more fully to public
comments on environmental justice, EPA officials cited one example
of an air rule in which the Office of Air and Radiation received
comments from tribes and other commenters who believed that the a
proposed air quality standard raised environmental justice
concerns. According to the officials, the agency discussed the
comments in the preamble to the final rule and in the associated
response-to-comments document. Nonetheless, the officials with
whom we met said they were unaware of any memoranda or revised
guidance that would encourage more global, EPA-wide progress on
this important issue.
As we testified in July 2007, EPA's actions to date were
sufficiently incomplete that measurable benchmarks are needed to
achieve environmental justice goals and hold agency officials
accountable for making meaningful progress on environmental
justice issues.
EPA's TRI Rulemaking Deviated From Key Internal Guidelines,
Including Some Related to Environmental Justice
As I discussed in our February 2007 testimony, EPA deviated from
key internal guidelines in developing the TRI Burden Reduction
Rule. EPA's Action Development Process provides a sequence of
steps designed to ensure that scientific, economic, and policy
issues are adequately addressed at the appropriate stages of rule
development and to ensure cross-agency participation until the
final rule is completed. Some of those steps relate to
environmental justice issues. We found that EPA's deviations were
caused, in part, by pressure from the Office of Management and
Budget to reduce industry's TRI reporting burden by the end of
December 2006. Throughout this process, senior EPA management has
the authority to depart from the guidelines. Nevertheless, we
identified several significant differences between the guidelines
and the process that EPA followed in developing the TRI rule.
Specifically:
o EPA did not follow a key element of its guidelines that is
intended to identify and selection the options that best achieve
the goal of the rulemaking. Specifically, an internal workgroup
was charged with identifying and assessing options to reduce TRI
reporting burden on industry and providing EPA management with a
set of options from which management makes the final selection.
However, in this case EPA management selected an altogether
different option than the ones identified and assessed by the TRI
workgroup. The TRI workgroup identified three options from a
larger list of possible options that had been identified through a
public stakeholder process, and the workgroup had scoped out these
options' costs, benefits, and feasibility. The first two options
allowed facilities to use Form A in lieu of Form R for PBT
chemicals, provided the facility had no releases to the
environment.^8 The third option would have created a new form, in
lieu of Form R, for facilities to report "no significant change"
if their releases changed little from the previous year. Under
this element of EPA's guidelines, senior management then selects
the option(s) that best achieve the rule's goals. However, based
on our review of documents from the June 2005 options selection
briefing for the Administrator and subsequent interviews with
senior EPA officials, EPA deviated from this process.
Specifically, it appears that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) suggested an alternate option--increasing the Form A
eligibility for non-PBT chemicals from 500 to 5,000 pounds--as a
way of providing what OMB considered significant burden reduction.
Yet the TRI workgroup had previously dropped this option from
further consideration because of its impact on the TRI. In
addition to reviving this burden reduction option, the
Administrator directed EPA staff to expedite the rule development
process after the briefing in order to meet a commitment to OMB to
reduce the TRI reporting burden by the end of December 2006.
o Second, we found problems with the extent to which the agency
sought input from internal stakeholders. EPA's rule development
guidelines are designed to ensure cross-agency participation until
the rule is completed. For example, a key step in the guidelines
provides for the draft rule and supporting analyses to be
circulated for final agency review, when EPA's internal and
regional offices should have discussed with senior management
whether they concurred with the rule. As provided for in its
guidelines, EPA conducted a final agency review for the rule in
July 2005. However, the draft rule and accompanying economic
analysis that was circulated for review did not discuss or
evaluate the impact of raising the Form A non-PBT threshold above
500 pounds because the economic analysis for this option was not
yet completed. In fact, such an analysis was not completed until
after EPA sent the proposed rule to OMB for review. Because the
final agency review package addressed to the "no significant
change" option rather than the increased Form A threshold option,
the EPA Administrator and the EPA Assistant Administrator for
Environmental Information likely received limited input from
internal stakeholders about the option to increase the Form A
non-PBT threshold prior to sending the proposed rule to OMB for
official review. Indeed, a measure of how rushed the process
became is that the economic analysis for the proposed rule was
completed just days before the proposal was signed by the
Administrator on September 21, 2005 for publication in the Federal
Register.^9
^8Specifically, the workgroup considered and analyzed options to
facilities to (1) report PBT chemicals using Form A if they have zero
releases and zero total other waste management activities or (2) report
PBT chemicals using Form A if they have zero releases and no more than 500
pounds of other waste management activities.
^970 Fed. Reg. 57822 (October 4, 2005).
o Third, our review of EPA's rule development process found that
the agency did not conduct an environmental justice analysis to
substantiate its assertion that the TRI rule would not have
environmental justice impacts. In its proposed rule, EPA stated
that it had "no indication that either option [changing reporting
requirements for non-PBT and PBT chemicals] will
disproportionately impact minority or low-income communities."^10
EPA concluded that it "believes that the data provided under this
proposed rule will continue to provide valuable information that
fulfills the purposes of the TRI program..." and that "the
principal consequence of finalizing today's action would be to
reduce the level of detail available [to the public] on some toxic
chemical releases or management." However, the reason EPA said it
had no indication about environmental justice impacts is because
the agency did not complete an environmental justice assessment
before it published the rule for comment in the Federal Register.
Furthermore, we found that the statement concerning
disproportionate impacts in the proposed rule was not written by
EPA; rather, it was added by the Office of Management and Budget
during its official review of the rule.^11
After publication of the TRI rule in the Federal Register, EPA
received over 100,000 comments during the rule's public comment
period. Most commenters opposed EPA's rule because of its impact
on the TRI, and some commenters, including the attorneys general
of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
Vermont, and Wisconsin, questioned whether EPA had evaluated
environmental justice issues. In addition, three members of the
House Committee on Government Reform wrote to EPA Administrator
Stephen Johnson in December 2005 asking that he substantiate EPA's
conclusion that the TRI rule would not disproportionately impact
minority and low-income communities.
In March 2006, EPA provided Congress with an environmental justice
analysis showing that it had evaluated affected areas by zip codes
and by proximity to facilities reporting to TRI. Table 1
summarizes the results of that analysis, which found that
communities within 1 mile of facilities that reported to the TRI
were about 42 percent minority, on average, compared to about 32
percent for the country as a whole. In addition those same
communities are about 17 percent below the poverty level, compared
to about 13 percent for the country as a whole. (Compare table 1,
columns A and B.)
^10EPA proposed two options allowing a reporting facility to use the brief
Form A for (1) a non-PBT chemical, so long as the annual report amount was
not greater than 5,000 pounds, and (2) for PBT chemicals when there are no
releases and the annual reportable amount is no more than 500 pounds. 70
Fed. Reg. 57822 (October 2, 2005). The annual reportable amount is the
combined total quantity released at the facility, treated at the facility,
recovered at the facility as a result of recycle operations, combusted for
the purpose of energy recovery at the facility, and amounts transferred
from the facility to off-site locations for the purpose of recycling,
energy recovery, treatment, and/or disposal.
^11See docket EPA-HQ-TRI-2005-0073-0027, Toxics Release Inventory Burden
Reduction Proposed Rule (Federal Register Notice Comparison Document).
Table 1: Minority and Poverty Demographics of the U.S. Population Compared
to Communities within 1-mile of a Facility that Filed at Least One TRI
Form R Report for 2003
(Percent)
Column A Column B Column C Column D
Within 1-mile
of facilities
Within 1-mile Within 1-mile of that filed a
of all facilities that filed Form R but
facilities a Form R for but could could have used
U.S. that filed a have used Form A under Form A under
population Form R proposed rule final rule
Minority 31.8 41.8 43.5 43.8
Below U.S. 12.9 16.5 17.0 17.0
poverty
level
Source: GAO summary of EPA analysis.
EPA concluded that the results showed little variance in minority or
poverty concentration near facilities currently reporting to the TRI
compared to facilities that would be affected by the rule. (Compare table
1, columns B and C.) EPA argued that "while there is a higher proportion
of minority and low-income communities in close proximity to some TRI
facilities than in the population generally, the rule does not appear to
have a disproportionate impact on these communities, since facilities in
these communities are no more likely than elsewhere to become eligible to
use Form A as a result of the rule." However, EPA's analysis indicates
that TRI facilities are in communities that are one-third more minority
and one-quarter more low-income, on average, than the U.S. population as a
whole. Therefore, in comparison to the country at large, those populations
would likely be disproportionately affected by an across-the-board
reduction in TRI information. (Compare table 1, columns A and C.).^12
Thus, EPA assumed that although minority and low-income communities
disproportionately benefit from TRI information, this fact was irrelevant
to its environmental justice analysis. However, the agency did not explain
or provide support for this assumption.
^12EPA also argued that while the TRI program "provides important
information that may indirectly lead to improved health and environmental
conditions on the community level, it is not an emissions release control
regulation that could directly affect health and environmental outcomes in
a community." 71 Fed. Reg. 76944 (emphasis added). This statement
overlooks EPA's own repeated assertions that the TRI program has resulted
in substantial reductions in chemical releases. E.g., 2001 Toxic Release
Inventory Public Data Release Report at 1-1 (2003); 1996 Toxic Release
Inventory Public Data Release Report at 1 (1998).
I would like to illustrate the impact of EPA's rule on the TRI using a new
tool that can help the public better understand environmental issues in
their communities. Google Earth is a free geographic mapping tool that
overlays various content, including TRI data from EPA, onto satellite
photos and maps. Using this tool, the public can combine EPA's TRI and
various demographic data to view the environmental justice impacts of
EPA's TRI rule. As an example, Figure 1 shows a satellite image of
southern California, including Los Angeles County and part of Orange
County. The small dots indicate TRI facilities eligible for burden
reduction under the TRI rule (i.e., eligible for reduced reporting on Form
A). On top of every facility is a cylinder that indicates the demographic
details of the people living within 1 mile of the facilities.
Specifically, the cylinders' color shows the percent of that population
that is minority (e.g., red cylinders indicate a community that is 80% or
more minority). The cylinders' height shows the percent of that population
living below the poverty level (e.g., taller cylinders indicate poorer
communities). As the height and color of the cylinders shows, the
communities in southern California near TRI-reporting facilities that are
eligible for reduced reporting under EPA's rule, are disproportionately
minority and low-income.
Figure 1: Minority- and Poverty-levels of Communities Within One Mile of
Facilities in Southern California That Are Eligible for Burden Reduction
As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, EPA's latest response to our
environmental justice recommendations used TRI as an example of how the
agency has improved its handling of environmental justice in the rule
development process. However, our analysis shows that EPA did not complete
an environmental justice assessment before concluding that the proposed
TRI rule did not disproportionately affect minority and low-income
populations. Even after EPA completed its analysis--in response to
pressure from Members of Congress and the public--the agency concluded
that the rule had no environmental justice implications despite the fact
that TRI facilities are, on average, more likely to be minority and
low-income than the U.S. as a whole; therefore, in comparison to the
population at large, those populations would likely be disproportionately
affected by an across-the-board reduction in TRI information.
EPA Actions Reduce the Amount of Information About Toxic Chemical Releases
Previously Available to the Public
EPA asserted that its TRI Burden Reduction Rule will result in significant
burden reduction without losing critical information, but our analyses
show otherwise. We found that the rule, which went into effect for the
reports that were due by July 1st of this year, reduces the quantity and
detail of information currently available to many communities about toxic
chemicals used, transported, or released in their environment.^13 For each
facility that chooses to file a Form A instead of Form R, the public will
no longer have available quantitative information about a facility's
releases and waste management practices for a specific chemical that the
facility manufactured, processed, or otherwise used. Appendix I shows the
data that is contained on Form R compared to Form A. It is not possible to
precisely quantify how much information will no longer be reported to the
TRI on the detailed Form R because not all eligible facilities will take
advantage of rule allowing them to submit the brief Form A. But using the
most recent available data for calendar year 2005, it is possible to
estimate what currently-reported information no longer has to be reported
under EPA's revised TRI reporting requirements.
Our analysis shows that EPA's TRI rule could, by increasing the number of
facilities that may use Form A, significantly reduce the amount of
information currently available to many communities about toxic chemicals
used, transported, or released into their environment. EPA estimated that
the impact of its change to TRI would be minimal; amounting to less than 1
percent of total pounds of chemicals released nationally that no longer
would have to be reported to the TRI. However, we found that the impact on
individual communities is likely to be more significant than these
national aggregate totals indicate. Specifically, EPA estimated that the
Form R reports that could convert to Form A account for 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). However, to
understand the potential impact of EPA's changes to TRI reporting
requirements more locally, 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 found that nearly 22,200 Form R reports (28 percent) could
convert to Form A under EPA's new Form A thresholds.^14 The number of
possible conversions ranges by state from 25 in Vermont (27.2 percent of
all Form Rs formerly filed in the state) to 2,196 Form Rs in Texas (30.6
percent of Form Rs formerly filed in the state). As figure 2 shows,
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.
^13 [15]GAO-07-464T .
^14We provide our estimates of these impacts, by state, in Appendix II.
Figure 2: Estimate of Impact Allowed by EPA's Changes on Number of Form
Rs, by State
Another way to characterize the impact of the TRI burden reduction rule is
to examine what currently-available public data may no longer be reported
about specific chemicals at the state level. The number of chemicals for
which only Form A information may be reported under the TRI rule ranges
from 3 chemicals in South Dakota to 60 chemicals in Georgia. That means
that the specific quantitative information currently reported about those
chemicals may no longer appear in the TRI database. Figure 3 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 about at least 20
percent of TRI-reported chemicals in the state.
Figure 3: Estimate of Percent of Chemicals For Which Facilities Could
Report on Form A, by State
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. For example, in 2005, the
ATSC Marine Terminal, bulk petroleum storage facility in Los Angeles
County, California, 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, and therefore would no longer have to file
Form Rs for them. As figure 4 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 by submitting a Form A in lieu of a Form R. 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.
Figure 4: Estimate of Percent of Facilities That Could Convert All Form Rs
to Form A, by State
With regard to EPA's assertion that the TRI rule will result in
significant reduction in industry's reporting burden--the primary
rationale for the rule--the agency estimated that the rule would save, at
most, $5.9 million. (See table 2.) According to our calculations, these
costs savings amount to only 4 percent of the $147.8 million total annual
cost to industry of TRI reporting. Also, as we testified in February 2007,
EPA's estimate likely overestimates the total cost savings (i.e., burden
reduction) that will be
realized by reporting facilities because not all eligible facilities will
choose to file a Form A in lieu of Form R.
Table 2: 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.
Concluding Observations
Environmental justice and the TRI are related and mutually dependent. Our
assessment shows that EPA did not fully consider important impacts of its
TRI rule, including environmental justice impacts on communities, when
evaluating the rule's costs and benefits. That is, EPA's recent changes to
TRI reporting requirements will reduce the amount and specificity of toxic
chemical information that facilities have to report to the TRI and that
will, in turn, impact communities' ability to assess environmental justice
and other issues. It is unlikely that the TRI rule provides, as EPA
asserts, significant reduction in industry's reporting burden without
losing critical environmental information.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or members of the Subcommittee may have
at this time.
Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. For further
information about this testimony, please contact John Stephenson at (202)
512-3841 or [16][email protected] . Key contributors to this testimony
were Steven Elstein, Terrance Horner, Richard Johnson, and Daniel Semick.
Other contributors included Mark Braza, Karen Febey, Kate Cardamone,
Alison O'Neill, and Jennifer Popovic.
Appendix I: Comparison of Information Collected on the TRI Form R and Form
A Certification Statement
Facilities must submit a detailed Form R report for each designated
chemical that they use in excess of certain thresholds, or certify that
they are not subject to the reporting requirement by submitting a brief
Form A certification statement. Form A captures general information about
the facility, such as address, parent company, industry type, and basic
information about the chemical or chemicals it released. Form R includes
the same information, but also requires facilities to provide details
about the quantity of the chemical they disposed or released onsite to the
air, water, land, and injected underground, or transferred for disposal or
release off-site. Table 3 provides details about the specific information
the facilities provide on the Form R and Form A.
Table 3: Information Collected on the TRI Form R and Form A Certification
Statement
Form RR Form Am A
Facility Identification Information Facility Identification
Information
o TRI Facility ID Number
o Reporting year o TRI Facility ID
o Trade secret information (if claiming that Number
toxic chemical is trade secret) o Reporting year
o Certification by facility owner/operator o Trade secret
or senior management official information (if
o Facility name, mailing address claiming that toxic
o Whether form is for entire facility, part chemical is trade
of facility, federal facility, or contractor secret)
at federal facility o Certification by
o Technical contact name, telephone number, facility owner/operator
Email address or senior management
o Public contact name, telephone number official
o North American Industry Classification o Facility name,
System (NAICS) codes mailing address
o Dun & Bradstreet number o Whether form is for
o Parent company information (name, Dun & entire facility, part
Bradstreet number) of facility, federal
facility, or contractor
at federal facility
o Technical contact
name, telephone number,
Email address
o North American
Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes
o Dun & Bradstreet
number
o Parent company
information (name, Dun
& Bradstreet number)
Chemical Specific Information Chemical Specific
Information
o Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry
number o Chemical Abstracts
o EPCRA Section 313 chemical or chemical Service (CAS) registry
category name number
o Generic name o EPCRA Section 313
o Distribution of each member of the dioxin chemical or chemical
or dioxin-like compound category category name
o Generic name provided by supplier if o Generic name
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
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
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 Treatment Works (POTW) Not reported on Form A
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 Not reported on Form A
(2) 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.
Appendix II: GAO Estimates of the Possible Impact of Reporting Changes on
TRI Data
We analyzed 2005 TRI data provided by EPA to estimate the number of Form
Rs that could convert to Form A in each state and determined the possible
impacts that this could have on data about specific chemicals and
facilities. EPA released the 2005 data in March 2007; 2006 data is
expected in spring of 2008. Table 4 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
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 4: 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 2,196 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
Source: GAO analysis of EPA TRI data.
(360898)
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 ( [17]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
[18]www.gao.gov and select "E-mail 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,
DC 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: [19]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [20][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [21][email protected] , (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548
Public Affairs
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [22][email protected] , (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
DC 20548
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on [23]GAO-08-115T .
For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected].
Highlights of [24]GAO-08-115T , a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Environment and Hazardous Materials, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives
October 4, 2007
ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHT-TO-KNOW
EPA's Recent Rule Could Reduce Availability of Toxic Chemical Information
Used to Assess Environmental Justice
A 1994 Executive Order sought to ensure that minority and low-income
populations are not subjected to disproportionately high and adverse
health or environ-mental effects from agency activities. In a July 2005
report, GAO made several recommendations to improve the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) adherence to these environmental justice
principles.
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA)
requires certain facilities that use toxic chemicals to report their
releases to EPA, which makes the information available in the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI). Since 1995, facilities may submit a brief
statement (Form A) in lieu of the more detailed Form R if releases of a
chemical do not exceed 500 pounds a year. In January 2007, EPA finalized
the TRI Burden Reduction Rule, quadrupling to 2,000 pounds what facilities
can release before having to disclose details using Form R.
Congress is considering codifying the Executive Order and requiring EPA to
implement GAO's environ-mental justice recommendations. Other legislation
would amend EPCRA to, among other things, revert the Form A threshold to
500 pounds or less. In this testimony, GAO discusses (1) EPA's response to
GAO's environmental justice recommendations, (2) the extent to which EPA
followed internal guidelines when developing the TRI rule and (3) the
impact of the rule on communities and facilities.
EPA initially disagreed with GAO's July 2005 environmental justice
recommendations, saying it was already paying appropriate attention to the
issue. GAO called on EPA to improve the way it addresses environmental
justice in its economic reviews and to better explain its rationale by
providing data to support the agency's decisions. A year later, EPA
responded more positively to the recommendations and committed to a number
of actions. However, based on information that EPA has subsequently
provided, GAO concluded in a July 2007 testimony that EPA's actions to
date were incomplete and that measurable benchmarks were needed to hold
agency officials accountable for achieving environmental justice goals.
In developing the TRI rule, EPA did not follow key aspects of its internal
guidelines, including some related to environmental justice. EPA did not
follow guidelines to ensure that scientific, economic, and policy issues
are addressed at appropriate stages of rule development. For example, EPA
asserted that the rule would not have environmental justice impacts;
however, it did not support this assertion with adequate analysis. The
omission is significant because many TRI facilities that no longer have to
submit Form R reports are located in minority and low-income communities;
and the reduction in toxic chemical information could disproportionately
affect them.
EPA's TRI rule will reduce the amount of information about toxic chemical
releases without providing significant savings to facilities. A total of
nearly 22,200 Form R reports from some 3,500 facilities are eligible to
convert to Form A under the rule. While EPA says the aggregate impact of
these conversions will be minimal, the effect on individual states and
communities may be significant, as illustrated below. Although making
significantly less information available to communities, GAO estimated
that the rule would save companies little--an average of less than $900
per facility.
Impact of EPA's TRI Rule on Percent of Form Rs That Could Convert to Form
A, by State
References
Visible links
12. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-289
13. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-464T
14. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1140T
15. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-464T
16. mailto:[email protected]
17. http://www.gao.gov/
18. http://www.gao.gov/
19. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
20. mailto:[email protected]
21. mailto:[email protected]
22. mailto:[email protected]
23. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-115T
24. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-115T
*** End of document. ***