This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-115T 
entitled 'Environmental Right-To-Know: EPA's Recent Rule Could Reduce 
Availability of Toxic Chemical Information Used to Assess Environmental 
Justice' which was released on October 4, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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. 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. 

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: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-115T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Environment and Hazardous Materials, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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. 

What GAO Found: 

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. 

Figure: Impact of EPA's TRI Rule of Form Rs THat Could Convert to Form 
A, by State: 

[See PDF for image] 

Sources: GAO based on 2005 EPA TRI data and Map Info (map). 

[End of figure] 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
GAO-08-115T.
For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or 
stephensonj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

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.[Footnote 1] Additional 
legislation has been introduced that would, among other things, to 
effectively repeal EPA's TRI Burden Reduction Rule.[Footnote 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,[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

My testimony also draws on our February 2007 testimony, in which we 
discussed our then-ongoing work on EPA's TRI program.[Footnote 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: 

* 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.[Footnote 6] 

* 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. 

* 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.[Footnote 7] Specifically, EPA's 
letter stated: 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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: 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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: 

* 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.[Footnote 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. 

* 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.[Footnote 
9] 

* 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."[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.) 

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). 

Minority; Column A: U.S. population: 31.8; 
Column B: Within 1-mile of all facilities that filed a Form R: 41.8; 
Column C: Within 1-mile of facilities that filed a Form R for but could 
have used Form A under proposed rule: 43.5; 
Column D: Within 1-mile of facilities that filed a Form R but could 
have used Form A under final rule: 43.8. 

Below U.S. poverty level; 
Column A: U.S. population: 12.9; 
Column B: Within 1-mile of all facilities that filed a Form R: 16.5; 
Column C: Within 1-mile of facilities that filed a Form R for but could 
have used Form A under proposed rule: 17.0; 
Column D: Within 1-mile of facilities that filed a Form R but could 
have used Form A under final rule: 17.0. 

Source: GAO summary of EPA analysis. 

[End of table] 

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.)[Footnote 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. 

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: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Google Earth based on EPA and Census Bureau data. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

Figure 2: Estimate of Impact Allowed by EPA's Changes on Number of Form 
Rs, by State: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO based on 2005 EPA TRI data and Map Info (map). 

[End of figure] 

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: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO based on 2005 EPA TRI data and Map Info (map). 

[End of figure] 

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: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO based on 2005 EPA TRI data and Map Info (map). 

[End of figure] 

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: 

Option: New PBT chemical eligibility; 
Newly eligible Form Rs: 2,360; 
Eligible facilities: 1,796; 
Burden (hours per form): 15.5; 
Annual burden savings (hours): 36,480; 
Cost savings per form: $748; 
Annual cost savings: $1,764,969. 

Option: Increased eligibility for non-PBT chemicals; 
Newly eligible Form Rs: 9,501; 
Eligible facilities: 5,317; 
Burden (hours per form): 9.1; 
Annual burden savings (hours): 86,924; 
Cost savings per form: 438; 
Annual cost savings: 4,160,239. 

Total; 
Newly eligible Form Rs: 11,861; 
Eligible facilities: 6,670; 
Burden (hours per form): [Empty]; 
Annual burden savings (hours): 123,404; 
Cost savings per form: [Empty]; 
Annual cost savings: $5,925,208. 

Source: EPA based on reporting year 2004 TRI data. 

[End of table] 

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 stephensonj@gao.gov. 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. 

[End of section] 

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 R: Facility Identification Information: 
* TRI Facility ID Number; 
* Reporting year; 
* Trade secret information (if claiming that toxic chemical is trade 
secret); 
* Certification by facility owner/operator or senior management 
official; 
* Facility name, mailing address; 
* Whether form is for entire facility, part of facility, federal 
facility, or contractor at federal facility; 
* Technical contact name, telephone number, Email address; 
* Public contact name, telephone number; 
* North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes; 
* Dun & Bradstreet number; 
* Parent company information (name, Dun & Bradstreet number); 

Form A: Facility Identification Information: 
* TRI Facility ID Number; 
* Reporting year; 
* Trade secret information (if claiming that toxic chemical is trade 
secret); 
* Certification by facility owner/operator or senior management 
official; 
* Facility name, mailing address; 
* Whether form is for entire facility, part of facility, federal 
facility, or contractor at federal facility; 
* Technical contact name, telephone number, Email address; 
* North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes; 
* Dun & Bradstreet number; 
* Parent company information (name, Dun & Bradstreet number). 

Form R: Chemical Specific Information: 
* Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number; 
* EPCRA Section 313 chemical or chemical category name; 
* Generic name; 
* Distribution of each member of the dioxin or dioxin-like compound 
category; 
* Generic name provided by supplier if chemical is component of a 
mixture; 
* Activities and uses of the chemical at facility, whether chemical is: 
- produced or imported for on-site use/processing, for 
sale/distribution, as a byproduct, or as an impurity; 
- processed as a reactant, a formation component, article component, 
repackaging, or as an impurity; 
- otherwise used as a chemical processing aid, manufacturing aid, or as 
an ancillary or other use; 
* Maximum amount onsite at any time during the year; 

Form A: Chemical Specific Information: 
* Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number; 
* EPCRA Section 313 chemical or chemical category name; 
* Generic name. 

Form R: On-site Chemical Release Data: 
* Quantities released on-site to: 
- air as fugitive or non-point emissions; 
- air as stack or point emissions; 
- surface water as discharges to receiving streams or water bodies 
(including names of streams or water bodies); 
- underground injection; 
- land, including RCRA Subtitle C landfills, other landfills, land 
treatment/application farming, RCRA Subtitle C surface impoundments, 
other surface impoundments, other land disposal; 
* Basis for estimates of releases (i.e., monitoring data or 
measurements, mass balance calculations, emissions factors, other 
approaches); 
* Quantity released as a result of remedial actions, catastrophic 
events, or one- time events not associated with production processes; 

Form A: On- site Chemical Release Data: 
Not reported on Form A. 

Form R: On-site Chemical Waste Management Data: 
* Quantities managed on-site through: 
- recycling; 
- energy recovery; 
- treatment; 
* Recycling processes (e.g., metal recovery by smelting, solvent 
recovery by distillation); 
* Energy recovery methods (e.g., kiln, furnace, boiler); 
* Waste treatment methods (e.g., scrubber, electrostatic precipitator) 
for each waste stream (e.g., gaseous, aqueous, liquid non-aqueous, 
solids); 
* On-site waste treatment efficiency; 

Form Am A: On-site Chemical Waste Management Data: 
Not reported on Form A. 

Form R: Off-site Transfers for Release or Other Waste Management: 
* Quantities transferred to any Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW); 
- POTW name(s), address(es); 
* Quantities transferred to other location for disposal or other 
release; 
- underground injection; 
- other land release; 
* Quantities transferred to other location for waste management; 
- treatment; 
- recycling; 
- energy recovery; 
* 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; 
* Off-site location(s) name and address; 
* Basis for estimates for amounts transferred; 
* Whether receiving location(s) is/are under control of reporting 
facility/parent company; 

Form A: Off-site Transfers for Release or Other Waste Management; 
Not reported on Form A. 

Form R: Source Reduction and Recycling Activities: 
Source Reduction and Recycling Activities • Total quantities, for (1) 
the prior and (2) current reporting years and estimated totals for (3) 
the following and (4) second following years for: 
* on-site disposal to underground injection wells, RCRA Subtitle C 
landfills, and other landfills; 
* other on-site disposal or other releases; 
* off-site transfer to underground injection wells, RCRA Subtitle C 
landfills, and other landfills; 
* other off-site disposal or other releases; 
* on-site treatment; 
* on-site recycling; 
* on-site energy recovery; 
* off-site treatment; 
* off-site recycling; 
* off-site energy recovery; 
* Production ratio or activity index; 
* Source reduction activities the facility engaged in during the 
reporting year (e.g., inventory control, spill/leak prevention, product 
modifications); 
* Option to submit additional information on source reduction, 
recycling, or pollution control activities; 

Form A: Source Reduction and Recycling Activities; 
Not reported on Form A. 

Source: EPA TRI Form R and Form A. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

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: 

State: AK; 
Form Rs: Number: 59; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 36.6; 
Chemicals: Number: 8; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 17.0; 
Facilities: Number: 5; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 15.6. 

State: AL; 
Form Rs: Number: 456; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 22.0; 
Chemicals: Number: 34; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 17.1; 
Facilities: Number: 69; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 12.9. 

State: AR; 
Form Rs: Number: 247; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 17.7; 
Chemicals: Number: 18; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 5.8; 
Facilities: Number: 39; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 11.0. 

State: AZ; 
Form Rs: Number: 221; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 27.7; 
Chemicals: Number: 12; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 10.8; 
Facilities: Number: 50; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 15.0. 

State: CA; 
Form Rs: Number: 1,533; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 37.5; 
Chemicals: Number: 36; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 18.2; 
Facilities: Number: 302; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 19.9. 

State: CO; 
Form Rs: Number: 162; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 25.8; 
Chemicals: Number: 11; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 11.1; 
Facilities: Number: 51; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 21.8. 

State: CT; 
Form Rs: Number: 299; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 33.5; 
Chemicals: Number: 16; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 15.4; 
Facilities: Number: 73; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 20.6. 

State: DC; 
Form Rs: Number: 4; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 28.6; 
Chemicals: Number: 2; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 18.2; 
Facilities: Number: 2; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 28.6. 

State: DE; 
Form Rs: Number: 80; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 27.7; 
Chemicals: Number: 24; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 23.3; 
Facilities: Number: 10; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 14.1. 

State: FL; 
Form Rs: Number: 479; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 27.4; 
Chemicals: Number: 19; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 13.2; 
Facilities: Number: 119; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 17.2. 

State: GA; 
Form Rs: Number: 678; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 30.9; 
Chemicals: Number: 60; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 29.1; 
Facilities: Number: 132; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 16.7. 

State: HI; 
Form Rs: Number: 67; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 37.9; 
Chemicals: Number: 12; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 26.1; 
Facilities: Number: 9; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 23.1. 

State: IA; 
Form Rs: Number: 371; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 27.7; 
Chemicals: Number: 34; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 22.2; 
Facilities: Number: 46; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 10.6. 

State: ID; 
Form Rs: Number: 41; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 14.4; 
Chemicals: Number: 8; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 10.4; 
Facilities: Number: 8; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 7.3. 

State: IL; 
Form Rs: Number: 1,155; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 30.0; 
Chemicals: Number: 37; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 16.4; 
Facilities: Number: 171; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 14.3. 

State: IN; 
Form Rs: Number: 900; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 25.6; 
Chemicals: Number: 29; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 14.6; 
Facilities: Number: 143; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 14.4. 

State: KS; 
Form Rs: Number: 291; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 28.3; 
Chemicals: Number: 23; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 16.0; 
Facilities: Number: 41; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 14.0. 

State: KY; 
Form Rs: Number: 490; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 25.7; 
Chemicals: Number: 28; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 15.3; 
Facilities: Number: 63; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 13.4. 

State: LA; 
Form Rs: Number: 665; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 25.6; 
Chemicals: Number: 34; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 13.1; 
Facilities: Number: 46; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 12.4. 

State: MA; 
Form Rs: Number: 574; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 38.0; 
Chemicals: Number: 23; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 20.4; 
Facilities: Number: 119; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 20.1. 

State: MD; 
Form Rs: Number: 221; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 32.6; 
Chemicals: Number: 24; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 22.6; 
Facilities: Number: 34; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 16.6. 

State: ME; 
Form Rs: Number: 105; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 26.1; 
Chemicals: Number: 8; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 11.3; 
Facilities: Number: 14; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 13.7. 

State: MI; 
Form Rs: Number: 965; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 29.7; 
Chemicals: Number: 36; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 19.0; 
Facilities: Number: 145; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 16.1. 

State: MN; 
Form Rs: Number: 263; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 21.0; 
Chemicals: Number: 20; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 15.4; 
Facilities: Number: 55; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 11.5. 

State: MO; 
Form Rs: Number: 498; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 27.3; 
Chemicals: Number: 43; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 21.7; 
Facilities: Number: 80; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 14.2. 

State: MS; 
Form Rs: Number: 265; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 25.0; 
Chemicals: Number: 29; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 18.7; 
Facilities: Number: 37; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 11.8. 

State: MT; 
Form Rs: Number: 61; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 21.8; 
Chemicals: Number: 10; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 13.5; 
Facilities: Number: 7; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 15.2. 

State: NC; 
Form Rs: Number: 705; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 30.1; 
Chemicals: Number: 43; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 24.9; 
Facilities: Number: 148; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 17.8. 

State: ND; 
Form Rs: Number: 29; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 13.8; 
Chemicals: Number: 7; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 11.5; 
Facilities: Number: 6; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 12.5. 

State: NE; 
Form Rs: Number: 116; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 20.3; 
Chemicals: Number: 11; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 7.9; 
Facilities: Number: 24; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 12.9. 

State: NH; 
Form Rs: Number: 98; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 29.1; 
Chemicals: Number: 13; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 17.3; 
Facilities: Number: 23; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 16.1. 

State: NJ; 
Form Rs: Number: 582; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 35.1; 
Chemicals: Number: 34; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 16.0; 
Facilities: Number: 101; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 19.3. 

State: NM; 
Form Rs: Number: 96; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 29.2; 
Chemicals: Number: 11; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 15.3; 
Facilities: Number: 15; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 19.2. 

State: NV; 
Form Rs: Number: 96; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 21.2; 
Chemicals: Number: 14; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 18.9; 
Facilities: Number: 19; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 14.3. 

State: NY; 
Form Rs: Number: 663; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 31.8; 
Chemicals: Number: 33; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 19.1; 
Facilities: Number: 122; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 17.2. 

State: OH; 
Form Rs: Number: 1,557; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 28.5; 
Chemicals: Number: 38; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 12.6; 
Facilities: Number: 218; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 13.8. 

State: OK; 
Form Rs: Number: 273; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 26.1; 
Chemicals: Number: 30; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 23.3; 
Facilities: Number: 50; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 15.2. 

State: OR; 
Form Rs: Number: 236; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 28.6; 
Chemicals: Number: 16; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 15.5; 
Facilities: Number: 47; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 15.5. 

State: PA; 
Form Rs: Number: 1,253; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 29.9; 
Chemicals: Number: 30; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 15.2; 
Facilities: Number: 192; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 14.9. 

State: RI; 
Form Rs: Number: 112; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 39.3; 
Chemicals: Number: 12; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 17.4; 
Facilities: Number: 30; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 23.4. 

State: SC; 
Form Rs: Number: 596; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 29.0; 
Chemicals: Number: 36; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 17.6; 
Facilities: Number: 78; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 15.0. 

State: SD; 
Form Rs: Number: 44; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 19.6; 
Chemicals: Number: 3; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 5.8; 
Facilities: Number: 10; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 10.5. 

State: TN; 
Form Rs: Number: 569; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 27.6; 
Chemicals: Number: 40; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 20.9; 
Facilities: Number: 105; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 16.2. 

State: TX; 
Form Rs: Number: 2,196; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 30.6; 
Chemicals: Number: 29; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 9.3; 
Facilities: Number: 210; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 14.1. 

State: UT; 
Form Rs: Number: 146; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 19.9; 
Chemicals: Number: 11; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 9.9; 
Facilities: Number: 25; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 12.6. 

State: VA; 
Form Rs: Number: 401; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 25.2; 
Chemicals: Number: 23; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 14.8; 
Facilities: Number: 70; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 14.3. 

State: VT; 
Form Rs: Number: 25; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 27.2; 
Chemicals: Number: 9; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 23.7; 
Facilities: Number: 6; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 14.6. 

State: WA; 
Form Rs: Number: 276; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 26.4; 
Chemicals: Number: 22; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 19.8; 
Facilities: Number: 43; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 12.5. 

State: WI; 
Form Rs: Number: 692; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 25.4; 
Chemicals: Number: 31; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 21.2; 
Facilities: Number: 113; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 12.5. 

State: WV; 
Form Rs: Number: 222; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 22.8; 
Chemicals: Number: 40; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 24.1; 
Facilities: Number: 35; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 17.4. 

State: WY; 
Form Rs: Number: 60; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: 23.6; 
Chemicals: Number: 9; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: 14.5; 
Facilities: Number: 5; 
Facilities: Percent of total: 10.9. 

Total; 
Form Rs: Number: 22,193; 
Form Rs: Percent of total: [Empty]; 
Chemicals: Number: [Empty]; 
Chemicals: Percent of total: [Empty]; 
Facilities: Number: 3,565; 
Facilities: Percent of total: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA TRI data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] S. 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). 

[2] S. 595, H.R. 1055. 

[3] The 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. § 372.28 (or a successor regulation). 

[4] GAO, Environmental Justice: EPA Should Devote More Attention to 
Environmental Justice When Developing Clean Air Rules, GAO-05-289 
(Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005). 

[5] GAO, Environmental Information: EPA Actions Could Reduce the 
Availability of Environmental Information to the Public, GAO-07-464T 
(Washington, D.C.: February 5, 2007). 

[6] GAO, Environmental Justice: Measurable Benchmarks Needed to Gauge 
EPA Progress in Correcting Past Problems, GAO-07-1140T (Washington, 
D.C.: July 25, 2007). 

[7] 31 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. 

[8] Specifically, 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. 

[9] 70 Fed. Reg. 57822 (October 4, 2005). 

[10] EPA 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. 

[11] See docket EPA-HQ-TRI-2005-0073-0027, Toxics Release Inventory 
Burden Reduction Proposed Rule (Federal Register Notice Comparison 
Document). 

[12] EPA 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). 

[13] GAO-07-464T. 

[14] We provide our estimates of these impacts, by state, in Appendix 
II.

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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548: