Toxic Chemical Releases
EPA Actions Could Reduce Environmental Information Available to Many Communities Gao ID: GAO-08-128 November 30, 2007Federal law requires certain facilities that manufacture, process, or use any of 581 toxic chemicals to report annually to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their state on the amount of those chemicals released into the air, water, or soil. It also requires EPA to make this information available to the public electronically through the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database. Facilities must either (1) submit a detailed TRI Form R for each designated chemical that they use in excess of certain thresholds or (2) file a simpler Form A certifying that they need not do so. To reduce companies' burden, EPA issued a rule in December 2006 intended to expand Form A eligibility for certain facilities and chemicals. GAO was asked to analyze (1) how EPA and others use TRI data, (2) whether EPA followed internal guidelines in developing its rule, (3) the rule's impact on information available to the public, and (4) the extent of burden reduction that is likely to result from EPA's changes.
TRI data are used widely by nearly all EPA program offices in carrying out their missions, and by other federal agencies, the states, and the public at large. The Internal Revenue Service, for example, uses the data to identify companies that release chlorofluorocarbons (chemicals that deplete the earth's ozone layer) to enforce a tax to help phase out their use. States use TRI data, among other things, to design pollution prevention initiatives, to calculate fees on emitting facilities, and to assist in emergency planning. Key users among the public include researchers, who use TRI data to assess environmental policies and strategies for pollution reduction, and individual citizens and local advocacy groups, who use it to learn about the type and quantity of toxic chemicals released in their communities. EPA did not follow key steps in agency guidelines designed to ensure that it conducts appropriate scientific, economic, and policy analyses and receives adequate input from relevant program offices before finalizing a major rule. This occurred, in part, because EPA expedited the rule-making process in an effort to meet a commitment to the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) to provide burden reduction by the end of 2006. The schedule did not allow it to meet the guideline's provisions to complete economic analyses; evaluate the costs and benefits of the changes; or seek adequate input from EPA program offices that rely heavily on TRI data. For example, although EPA held a Final Agency Review for program offices to state their position on the proposed rule, the review package did not include the burden reduction option, and supporting analysis, that was proposed and adopted. GAO concluded that, while EPA estimated that its rule would affect reporting on less than 1 percent of the total release pounds nationwide, this aggregate national estimate masked the disproportionately large impact the rule would have on individual communities across the country. GAO's analysis indicated that EPA would allow more than 3,500 facilities to no longer report detailed information about their toxic chemical releases and waste management practices. As a result, more than 22,000 of the nearly 90,000 TRI reports could no longer be available to hundreds of communities in states throughout the country. In addition, many commenters including the attorneys general of 12 states and EPA's Science Advisory Board stated that the changes will significantly reduce the amount of useful TRI information. EPA's estimated savings from the reduced reporting burden associated with the TRI rule--3 percent of total annual burden hours, worth about $6 million annually--are likely overstated. EPA's projected savings are based on OMB-approved estimates of burden hours associated with completing Form R and Form A, but these estimates are based on outdated data. EPA's more recent engineering estimates--developed from a systematic examination of the amount of time needed to collect and report the data on Form R and Form A--suggest a lower overall burden associated with current TRI reporting and, consequently, 25 percent lower burden savings from the new rule.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-128, Toxic Chemical Releases: EPA Actions Could Reduce Environmental Information Available to Many Communities
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-128
entitled 'Toxic Chemical Releases: EPA Actions Could Reduce
Environmental Information Available to Many Communities' which was
released on December 13, 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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
November 2007:
Toxic Chemical Releases:
EPA Actions Could Reduce Environmental Information Available to Many
Communities:
GAO-08-128:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-128, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Federal law requires certain facilities that manufacture, process, or
use any of 581 toxic chemicals to report annually to EPA and their
state on the amount of those chemicals released into the air, water, or
soil. It also requires EPA to make this information publicly available
through the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database.
Facilities must either (1) submit a detailed TRI Form R for each
designated chemical used in excess of certain thresholds or (2) file a
simpler Form A certifying that they need not do so. To reduce
companies‘ burden, EPA issued a December 2006 rule to expand Form A
eligibility for certain facilities and chemicals. GAO analyzed (1) how
EPA and others use TRI data, (2) whether EPA followed internal
guidelines in developing its rule, (3) the rule‘s impact on information
available to the public, and (4) the burden reduction from EPA‘s
changes.
What GAO Found:
TRI data are used widely by nearly all Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) program offices in carrying out their missions, and by other
federal agencies, the states, and the public at large. The Internal
Revenue Service, for example, uses the data to identify companies that
release chlorofluorocarbons (chemicals that deplete the earth‘s ozone
layer) to enforce a tax to help phase out their use. States use TRI
data, among other things, to design pollution prevention initiatives,
to calculate fees on emitting facilities, and to assist in emergency
planning. Key users among the public include researchers, who use TRI
data to assess environmental policies and strategies for pollution
reduction, and individual citizens and local advocacy groups, who use
it to learn about the type and quantity of toxic chemicals released in
their communities.
EPA did not follow key steps in agency guidelines designed to ensure
that it conducts appropriate scientific, economic, and policy analyses
and receives adequate input from relevant program offices before
finalizing a major rule. This occurred, in part, because EPA expedited
the rule-making process in an effort to meet a commitment to the Office
of Management & Budget (OMB) to provide burden reduction by the end of
2006. The schedule did not allow it to meet the guideline‘s provisions
to complete economic analyses; evaluate the costs and benefits of the
changes; or seek adequate input from EPA program offices that rely
heavily on TRI data. For example, although EPA held a Final Agency
Review for program offices to state their position on the proposed
rule, the review package did not include the burden reduction option,
and supporting analysis, that was proposed and adopted.
GAO concluded that, while EPA estimated that its rule would affect
reporting on less than 1 percent of the total release pounds
nationwide, this aggregate national estimate masked the
disproportionately large impact the rule would have on individual
communities across the country. GAO‘s analysis indicated that EPA‘s
rule would allow more than 3,500 facilities to no longer report
detailed information about their toxic chemical releases and waste
management practices. As a result, more than 22,000 of the nearly
90,000 TRI reports could no longer be available to hundreds of
communities in states throughout the country. In addition, many
commenters including the attorneys general of 12 states and EPA‘s
Science Advisory Board stated that the changes will significantly
reduce the amount of useful TRI information.
EPA‘s estimated savings from the reduced reporting burden associated
with the TRI rule”3 percent of total annual burden hours, worth about
$6 million annually”are likely overstated. EPA‘s projected savings are
based on OMB-approved estimates of burden hours associated with
completing Form R and Form A, but these estimates are based on outdated
data. EPA‘s more recent engineering estimates”developed from a
systematic examination of the amount of time needed to collect and
report the data on Form R and Form A”suggest a lower overall burden
associated with current TRI reporting and, consequently, 25 percent
lower burden savings from the new rule.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO provided the draft report to EPA and excerpts to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), for comment. EPA rejected a recommendation
in the draft report that it more fully and adequately evaluate the
costs and benefits from increased Form A use, and so GAO now states
that Congress should consider legislation to reverse EPA‘s expansion of
Form A eligibility. OMB questioned GAO‘s characterization of its role
in approving TRI data collections and in reviewing EPA‘s TRI rule.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-128]. To view the survey results, click
on GAO-08-129SP. For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202)
512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The TRI Is Widely Used by Federal Agencies, States, and the Public:
EPA Did Not Follow Key Steps for Developing the TRI Burden Reduction
Rule:
EPA Changes Could Significantly Limit the TRI Data Available to Many
Communities:
Changes to the TRI Will Likely Do Little to Reduce Industry's Reporting
Burden:
Congressional Interest and Actions to Reverse EPA's Changes:
Conclusions:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO Estimates of the Impact of Reporting Changes on the
TRI:
Appendix III: Comparison of Information Collected on the Form R and the
Form A Certification Statement:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
GAO Comments:
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Key Characteristics of State TRI Programs:
Table 2: Comparison of Average Annual TRI Burden Estimates by Activity:
OMB-approved Versus Engineering Analysis:
Table 3: Estimated Impact of TRI Reporting Changes on Number of Form
Rs, Chemicals, and Facilities, by State:
Table 4: Information Collected on the TRI Form R and Form A
Certification Statement:
Figures:
Figure 1: Summary of Information Reported on TRI Form R:
Figure 2: TRI Activities Reported by States:
Figure 3: Estimate of Impact Allowed by EPA's Changes on Number of Form
Rs, by State:
Figure 4: Estimate of Percentage of Chemicals for Which Facilities
Could Report on Form A, by State:
Figure 5: Estimate of Percentage of Chemicals for Which Facilities
Could Report on Form A, by County:
Figure 6: Estimate of Percentage of Facilities That Could Convert All
Form Rs to Form A, by State:
Figure 7: Result of GAO Survey of State TRI Coordinators' Views about
Impact of EPA's Changes on Various State Activities:
Figure 8: Burden Savings for Each PBT Chemical and Non-PBT Chemical
Report:
Abbreviations:
ADP: Action Development Process:
CAS: Chemical Abstracts Service:
e-FDR: Electronic Facility Data Release:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
EPCRA: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986:
Form A: Form A Certification Statement:
Form R: Form R report:
GIS: geographic information system:
ICR: Information Collection Request:
IRIS: Integrated Risk Information System:
IRS: Internal Revenue Service:
NAICS: North American Industry Classification System:
NGO: non-governmental organization:
NSC: No Significant Change:
OEI: Office of Environmental Information:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPEI: Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation:
PBT: Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic:
POTW: Publicly Owned Treatment Works:
PPA: Pollution Prevention Act of 1990:
PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act:
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act:
RSEI: Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators:
RTK Net: Right-to-Know Network:
SAB: Science Advisory Board:
TRI: Toxics Release Inventory:
TRI-ME: Toxics Release Inventory-Made Easy:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 30, 2007:
The Honorable Barbara Boxer:
Chairman:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg:
nited States Senate:
The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe:
United States Senate:
Each year, U.S. industry uses billions of pounds of toxic chemicals to
produce the nation's goods and services. The release of these chemicals
during transport, storage, use, or disposal as waste, can potentially
harm human health and the environment. In 1984, a catastrophic accident
caused the release of methyl isocyanate--a toxic chemical used to make
pesticides--at a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, killing
thousands of people, injuring many others, and displacing many more
from their homes and businesses. One month later, it was disclosed that
the same chemical had leaked at least 28 times from a similar Union
Carbide facility in Institute, West Virginia. Eight months later, 3,800
pounds of chemicals again leaked from the West Virginia facility,
sending dozens of injured people to local hospitals. In the wake of
these events, the Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) to inform citizens about releases of
toxic chemicals to the environment in their communities.
Certain facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use any of
581 individual chemicals and 30 chemical categories must report
annually to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their
respective state, the amount of those chemicals that they released to
air, soil, or water. EPCRA further requires EPA to make this
information available to the public, which the agency does
electronically through the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database. The
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 requires facilities that report to the
TRI to also provide certain information about their waste management
practices, including amounts of chemicals recycled or treated. The
purpose of making this information available is to inform citizens
about releases of toxic chemicals to the environment; to assist
governmental agencies, researchers, and other persons in the conduct of
research and data gathering; and to aid in the development of
appropriate regulations, guidelines, and standards. Using EPA's Web
site, the public and others can search the TRI for information by
state, county, zip code, chemical, and type of facility, among other
options.
Facilities must submit a detailed Form R report (Form R) for each
designated chemical that they manufactured, processed, and/or otherwise
used 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). 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 on-
site to the air, water, land, and injected underground, or transferred
for disposal or release off-site. Since 1995, EPA has allowed certain
facilities to submit a Form A in lieu of Form R if they release or
manage no more than 500 pounds of any chemical that is not considered
to be a persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemical. PBTs are toxic
chemicals such as lead, mercury, and dioxins that remain in the
environment for long periods of time, are not readily destroyed, and
accumulate in body tissue.
During the past several years, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has encouraged EPA to engage in a multiphased effort to reduce
the reporting burden on industry, particularly small business, by
revising TRI reporting regulations to eliminate redundant items on Form
A and Form R and to expand Form A eligibility. On December 22, 2006,
EPA issued the TRI Burden Reduction Final Rule, an action that expanded
Form A eligibility for certain facilities by raising the release
threshold from 500 pounds to 2,000 pounds for any non-PBT
chemical.[Footnote 1] The rule also allows, for the first time, certain
facilities to use Form A to report nondioxin PBT chemicals, provided
that the facilities do not release the chemicals into the
environment.[Footnote 2] The burden reduction rule goes into effect for
reporting 2006 releases.
EPA's Action Development Process is internal guidance that outlines a
series of steps that the agency is to follow when it develops actions
such as policy statements, risk assessments, and regulations--including
the TRI Burden Reduction Rule. The purpose of the process is to ensure
that scientific, economic, and policy issues are adequately addressed
at the appropriate stages of action development and to ensure adequate
stakeholder participation across EPA's offices (e.g., Office of Air,
Office of Water) until the final action is completed. Steps in the
process include, among others, (1) chartering a workgroup comprised of
representatives from various EPA headquarters and regional offices to
develop the action; (2) preparing and executing an analytic blueprint,
which identified the analyses needed to support the action; and (3)
conducting final agency review by senior EPA management.
In February 2007, we testified on our preliminary assessment of the
process EPA followed in developing the TRI Burden Reduction Rule and
its impact on TRI data.[Footnote 3] As you requested, this report
provides the final results of our work on (1) how EPA and other federal
agencies, the states, and the public use the TRI; (2) the extent to
which EPA followed its action development guidelines in developing the
burden reduction rule; (3) the impact of the changed reporting
requirements on the amount of environmental information available to
the public; and (4) the burden reduction that is likely to result from
EPA's changes.
To address these four objectives, we analyzed documents pertaining to
the development of the TRI Burden Reduction Rule (including stakeholder
comments in the public docket for the proposed rule), EPA's report on
uses of TRI data, annual TRI public data release reports, and EPA
guidance for facilities reporting to TRI. For the first objective, we
reviewed documentation from EPA, other federal agencies, the states,
nongovernmental organizations, and businesses about their uses of TRI
data. We obtained further information from states through a Web-based
survey of state TRI coordinators that achieved 100 percent response
from the 50 states and the District of Columbia. This report does not
contain all the results from the survey. The survey and a more complete
tabulation of the results can be viewed at GAO-08-129SP. For the second
objective, we interviewed EPA officials who served on the TRI workgroup
that developed the TRI rule and reviewed internal EPA documents that
detailed the workgroup's process and EPA's decisions. For the third
objective, we used 2005 TRI data to estimate the impact of changes to
the TRI reporting requirements on the information provided by
facilities about their chemical releases. We performed a reliability
assessment of the data we analyzed and determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. For the fourth
objective, we reviewed EPA's economic analysis of the costs and impacts
of expanding eligibility for Form A and other relevant documents, and
we interviewed EPA officials about their burden reduction analyses. A
more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology is included in
appendix I. We conducted our work from August 2006 to September 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The TRI is used widely by EPA and other federal agencies, the states,
and the public for a variety of purposes. Nearly all of EPA's program
offices depend on TRI data to inform their decision making about toxic
releases. For example, EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances used TRI data to develop its Risk-Screening Environmental
Indicators (RSEI) model, which incorporates detailed facility data from
the TRI, toxicity information from EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (also known as IRIS), population data from the U.S. Census, and
other EPA data to develop human health hazard and risk-related
perspectives on long-term (chronic) exposures to TRI chemicals. Many
other federal agencies also use the TRI. For example, the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) uses TRI data to identify companies that release
chlorofluorocarbons (chemicals that deplete the earth's ozone layer) to
enforce a tax to help phase out their use. In addition, state TRI
coordinators reported that their states use the TRI to carry out a
variety of pollution prevention initiatives, assess fees on facilities,
and assist with emergency preparedness functions, among other uses. The
public also uses the TRI for a variety of activities. For example,
researchers use TRI data to assess environmental policies and
strategies for pollution reduction, and investment companies use the
data to determine socially-responsible investment options. Individual
citizens and local advocacy organizations also use TRI data to learn
about the type and quantity of toxic chemicals used and released in
their communities.
When developing the TRI Burden Reduction Rule, EPA did not follow
several important steps from its Action Development Process--guidelines
designed to ensure that the agency conducts appropriate analyses and
receives adequate input before the rule is finalized. According to EPA
documents that we reviewed and program officials who we interviewed, in
mid-2006, senior EPA management directed inclusion of a burden
reduction option--a 10-fold increase in eligibility for reporting non-
PBT chemicals on Form A--in response to direction from OMB. The TRI
workgroup that was charged with developing the rule had previously
dropped the non-PBT option from consideration because of its impact on
the TRI and, consequently, had not conducted an economic analysis to
assess its costs and benefits. Those documents also showed that the EPA
Administrator expedited the process in order to meet a commitment to
OMB to provide burden reduction by the end of December 2006. The
expedited schedule did not provide time for EPA to complete the
economic analyses necessary to evaluate the costs and benefits of the
option or request input from the EPA program offices that rely on the
TRI data for decision making. Specifically, although EPA held a Final
Agency Review for program offices to state their position on the
proposed rule, the review package that we viewed did not include the
non-PBT option for their review and comment. These deviations from
EPA's rule-development process resulted in inadequate justification for
the proposed rule. As a result, a substantial majority of public
comments expressed opposition to EPA's rule, whereas few commenters
supported the rule. EPA finalized the rule in December 2006 with a
fourfold increase in Form A eligibility threshold--allowing facilities
to use it for releases up to 2,000 pounds of a non-PBT toxic chemical.
Our analysis of the latest TRI data shows that, by increasing the
number of facilities that may use Form A, the TRI Burden Reduction Rule
could significantly reduce environmental information available to the
public on dozens of toxic chemicals released from thousands of
facilities across the country. EPA estimated that expanding Form A
eligibility would eliminate detailed reports for less than 1 percent of
the total release pounds reported annually to the TRI. Therefore, the
agency concluded that the changes will not compromise the usefulness of
the TRI to the public. However, EPA's estimate of the impact in terms
of national-level aggregate pounds masks the impact on important toxic
chemical information available to many individual communities and
states. We analyzed the impact of EPA's new Form A thresholds at the
local level and found they would allow more than 3,500 facilities
currently submitting Form R to submit Form A instead. As a result,
detailed information about toxic chemical releases and waste management
practices from more than 22,000 of the nearly 79,000 Form Rs could no
longer be available to communities throughout the country. We found
that Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, and Rhode Island could receive up to one-third fewer detailed
reports if eligible facilities opt to begin using Form A instead of
Form R. As a result, those states and others may no longer receive
detailed information for a number of chemicals, ranging from 3
chemicals in South Dakota to 60 in Georgia. Finally, we estimated that
as many as 3,565 facilities would no longer have to report any specific
quantitative information about their chemical releases and other waste
management practices to the TRI.
EPA's estimated savings from the reduced reporting burden associated
with the TRI rule--3 percent of total annual burden hours, worth about
$6 million annually--are likely overstated. EPA's estimated savings
from the new rule are based on OMB-approved estimates of total burden
hours associated with completing Form R and Form A that are based on
outdated and unreliable data. EPA's more recent engineering estimates-
-developed from a systematic examination of the amount of time needed
to collect and report each data element on Form R and Form A--suggest a
significantly lower overall burden associated with current TRI
reporting and, consequently, about 25 percent lower burden savings from
the new rule. In addition, the OMB-approved burden estimates do not
give EPA credit for burden reduction efforts already completed or under
way--efforts that, taken together, go further to reduce reporting
burden than the TRI Burden Reduction Rule, and which do not reduce
toxic release information to the public. For example, EPA estimated
that its Toxics Release Inventory-Made Easy (TRI-ME) software, which
helps facilities determine TRI requirements and submit forms
electronically, has reduced the burden associated with reporting by 15
percent without reducing the amount of information available to the
public. Similarly, EPA's Central Data Exchange, a computer system that
receives electronic submissions from facilities and disseminates them
to participating states automatically, virtually eliminates time-
consuming handling, coding, and reconciling of TRI forms at the federal
and state levels, and thereby reduces the number of errors that
facilities later have to correct.
In a draft of this report, we recommended that EPA thoroughly evaluate
the costs and benefits anticipated to communities and reporting
industries from increased use of TRI Form A and report the agency's
findings to relevant congressional committees within 30 days, along
with its determination as to whether it will reconsider the TRI
rulemaking. In commenting on the draft, EPA's Assistant Administrator
for Environmental Information and Chief Information Officer disagreed
with our recommendation regarding the need for such an analysis and
determination, noting that EPA believes that all appropriate and
necessary analyses were conducted in the rulemaking process. Because
EPA did not agree to implement the recommendation, and in light of the
significant problems with the TRI rule that we identified in this
report, we believe the Congress should consider legislation
specifically addressing EPA's expansion of Form A eligibility. EPA's
letter and our detailed response to it are contained in appendix IV.
EPA also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated into
this report, as appropriate.
We also provided excerpts of the draft report that discuss OMB's role
in EPA's development of the TRI Burden Reduction Rule. In commenting on
the excerpts, OMB's Deputy Administrator of Information and Regulatory
Affairs raised concerns related to our characterization of OMB's role
in reviewing EPA's burden estimates for the TRI information collections
and OMB's role in EPA's decision to include a burden reduction option
to raise the Form A eligibility threshold in the rule. We acknowledge
OMB's concerns, and have made minor clarifications in the report as
appropriate. However, no new information was provided by OMB that
changes the findings, conclusions, or recommendations. OMB's letter and
our detailed response to it are contained in appendix V.
Background:
In 1984, a catastrophic accident caused the release of methyl
isocyanate--a toxic chemical used to make pesticides--at a Union
Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, killing approximately 4,000 people,
injuring thousands of others, and displacing many more from their homes
and businesses. One month later, it was disclosed that the same
chemical had leaked at least 28 times from a similar Union Carbide
facility in Institute, West Virginia. Eight months later, 3,800 pounds
of chemicals again leaked from the West Virginia facility, sending
dozens of injured people to local hospitals. In the wake of these
events, the Congress passed EPCRA.
Among other things, EPCRA provides individuals and communities with
access to information regarding chemical releases in their communities.
Specifically, Section 313 generally requires certain facilities that
manufacture, process, or otherwise use any of 581 individual chemicals,
and 30 additional chemical categories, to report annually the amount of
those chemicals that they released to the environment and whether they
were released into the air, water, or soil.
Owners of facilities that are subject to EPCRA comply with its
reporting requirements by submitting an annual Form R to EPA and the
state in which they are located for each TRI-listed chemical that they
manufactured, processed, and/or otherwise used in excess of certain
thresholds during the previous calendar year. These reports must be
submitted on or before July 1 of the following year. Form R captures
information about facility identity, such as address, parent company,
industry type, and detailed information about the toxic chemical, such
as quantity of the chemical disposed or released on-site to air, water,
and land or injected underground, or transferred off-site for release
or disposal. This information is labeled as "Disposal or Other
Releases" on the left half of figure 1. In 2005, facilities reported a
total of 4.5 billion pounds of disposal or other releases on Form R.
In the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA), the Congress declared
that (1) pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source
whenever feasible, (2) pollution that cannot be prevented should be
recycled in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible, (3)
pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an
environmentally safe manner whenever feasible, and (4) disposal or
other release into the environment should be employed only as a last
resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner.
Consequently, beginning with reports for calendar year 1991, EPA
expanded TRI to require facilities to report about their efforts to
reduce pollution at its source, including the quantities of TRI
chemicals they manage through other waste management activities such as
recycling, energy recovery, or treatment. In 2005, facilities reported
20.1 billion pounds of "Other Waste Management," as shown on the right
half of figure 1.
Figure 1: Summary of Information Reported on TRI Form R:
[See PDF for image]
This illustration depicts a summary of information reported on TRI Form
R, as follows:
Total production related waste: 25.1 billion pounds;
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA): 4.5 billion pounds;
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA): 20.6 billion pounds.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA):
Disposal of other releases:
Onsite:
* Underground injection;
* Land;
* Air;
* Surface water.
Off-site transfers:
* Underground injection;
* Land;
* POTW metals.
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA): Other waste management:
Onsite:
* recycling;
* Energy recovery;
* Treatment.
Off-site transfers:
* Recycling;
* Energy Recovery;
* Treatment;
* POTW nonmetals.
Source: GAO based on 2005 EPA TRI data and Art Explosion (clip art).
[End of figure]
Beginning in 1995, EPA allowed facilities to use a two-page Form A
Certification Statement (Form A) to certify that they are not subject
to Form R reporting for a given chemical provided that they (1) did not
release more than 500 total pounds that year and (2) did not
manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than 1 million total pounds
of the chemical.[Footnote 4] Form A includes general information
identifying the facility and the chemical(s) being reported but does
not contain details about the specific quantities of chemicals released
or otherwise managed as waste. EPA considers Form A to be a range
report, indicating that a facility's chemical release was between 0
pounds and the maximum allowable amount. For the purpose of
representing range report amounts in the TRI database, EPA uses the
midpoint of the allowable range. Therefore, until reporting year 2006,
the midpoint of the Form A range was 250 pounds. Under EPA's TRI Burden
Reduction Rule, the midpoint became 1,000 pounds for non-PBT chemicals.
EPCRA requires EPA to make toxic chemical release information available
to the public, and EPA compiles the reports and stores them in a
national database that can be accessed on the agency's Web
site.[Footnote 5] In addition, about 3 months after facility TRI
reports are due, EPA publishes individual facility submissions in its
publicly available Electronic Facility Data Release (e-FDR). In spring
of the following year, after EPA has completed its data quality checks
and analysis, the agency issues the official Public Data Release. The
public may access TRI data on EPA's Web site and aggregate it by zip
code, county, state, industry, and chemical. EPA also publishes an
annual report that summarizes national, state, and industry data. In
2005, the latest year for which data are publicly available, 23,461
facilities filed a total of nearly 90,000 forms, including nearly
11,000 Form As.
In September 2002, EPA initiated a stakeholder dialog process to
identify improvements to the TRI and to develop opportunities to reduce
the burden on reporting facilities. As part of the process, EPA issued
a white paper with five specific options and one general category of
other burden reduction options. At the time, EPA stated that it was
looking to more fully explore these broadly outlined options with the
intention of identifying a specific burden reduction initiative that
effectively lessens the burden on facilities but at the same time
ensures that TRI continues to provide communities with the same high
level of significant chemical release and other waste management
information. Each option included in the white paper was, according to
EPA "intended to encourage thoughtful comment to help the agency
develop a meaningful burden reduction initiative that is technically,
practically, and legally feasible."
At OMB's urging, EPA embarked on a three-phase regulatory effort to
streamline TRI reporting requirements and reduce the reporting burden
on industry. During the first phase, EPA removed some data elements
from the Form R and Form A that could be obtained from other EPA
information collection databases, streamlined other TRI data elements,
and eliminated a few data elements from the Form R. As part of the
second phase--and the focus of this report--EPA proposed a rule that
would have allowed a reporting facility to use Form A for (1) non-PBT
chemicals, so long as its total annual waste management (i.e.,
releases, recycling, energy recovery, and treatment for destruction)
was not greater than 5,000 pounds, and (2) for PBT chemicals if there
were no releases or other disposal of the chemical and the annual
reportable amount was not greater than 500 pounds.[Footnote 6] The
phase III changes that EPA had considered proposing would have allowed
alternate-year reporting, rather than yearly reporting.
The phase II and III proposals generated considerable public concern
about the negative impact the changes would have on federal and state
governments' and the public's access to important public health
information. EPA received well over 100,000 commenters, representing
about 5,000 distinct comments. The vast majority expressed opposition
to EPA's proposed changes, whereas about 30 commenters expressed
support for the proposals. EPA decided not to pursue phase III in the
wake of overwhelmingly negative reaction from stakeholders--including
members of Congress, various state attorneys general, and researchers-
-but the agency continued to pursue the phase II burden reduction
rule.[Footnote 7] On December 2006, EPA finalized the rule, extending
Form A to PBT chemicals as it had proposed. However, in the final rule,
the agency moderated its proposed increase in the Form A non-PBT
threshold from 500 to 5,000 pounds, thereby allowing Form A for a non-
PBT chemical provided the release comprises no more than 2,000 pounds
of the overall 5,000 pound total waste management limit.
EPA's Action Development Process is a 70-page guidance document
designed to improve how the agency develops actions such as the TRI
Burden Reduction Rule.[Footnote 8] According to EPA, the process
contains the following five goals:
* planning sound scientific and economic analysis to support the action;
* developing and selecting regulatory and nonregulatory options based
on relevant scientific, economic, and policy analysis;
* involving affected headquarters and regional managers early in
development and until the final action is completed;
* ensuring active and appropriate cross-agency participation; and:
* encouraging appropriate and meaningful consultation with stakeholders
through substantive consultative procedures.
To accomplish these goals, the Action Development Process outlines five
major stages, each with multiple steps that are to be followed. A
critical step early in the process is chartering a workgroup comprised
of representatives from interested EPA headquarters offices and regions
to develop the action. The various steps provided in the Action
Development Process are directed to the workgroup and their managers
who provide policy direction and ensure the integrity of the process.
Throughout the rule development process, senior EPA management
generally has the discretion to depart from the guidelines, including
by accelerating the development of the proposed regulations.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), a federal agency may not
conduct or sponsor the collection of information unless OMB has
approved the agency's information collection request.[Footnote 9]
Information collection requests lacking current OMB approval are
invalid under the PRA.[Footnote 10] Accordingly, EPA submits an
information collection request for the TRI program to OMB every 1 to 2
years. Before approving information collections, OMB is required to
determine that the agency's collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility.[Footnote 11] As
part of EPA's information collection requests for the TRI, OMB approves
the agency's estimates of the burden associated with completing the
Form R and Form A.
The TRI Is Widely Used by Federal Agencies, States, and the Public:
Numerous EPA offices, other federal agencies, the states, and the
public use the TRI for a wide range of activities, from assessing fees
on regulated facilities to identifying the location of toxic releases
in local communities. One of the TRI's most notable attributes is the
applicability of its data across air, water, solid waste, and other
media, making it useful to a wide range of federal and state agencies
and the public.
EPA Offices and Other Federal Agencies Use the TRI for Multiple
Purposes:
EPA and other federal agencies use TRI data for a variety of purposes,
including developing guidelines, standards, and programs for
controlling pollution from regulated entities, assessing the
effectiveness of environmental regulations, and planning office
priorities. Some agencies may rely solely on TRI data while others,
particularly the agency's media program offices, have used its data to
supplement their own data for a variety of purposes.
EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, for
example, used TRI data to create its RSEI model that estimates the
impacts associated with air and water releases from TRI facilities,
taking into account the human health hazard and risk associated with
different chemical substances. RSEI's models use TRI data on the
location and amount of chemical releases, adjusting for key factors
such as the toxicity of the chemicals, their destination and transport
through the environment, the route and potential extent of human
exposure, and the number of people potentially affected. RSEI then
creates numerical values that can be added and compared in different
ways to assess the human health hazards and related risks of chemicals,
facilities, regions, industries, and other parameters.
Similarly, EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI)
uses the TRI to, among other things, measure trends in the
environmental performance of industries participating in its Sector
Strategies program, an industry-EPA partnership administered by OPEI's
Office of Business and Community Innovation that seeks innovative ways
to improve environmental performance among participating industry
sectors. That office then includes the data in its Sector Strategies
Performance Report, which informs the public about changes in
environmental performance of these sectors.
In addition, EPA's key media programs, including its Office of Air and
Radiation, Office of Water, and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, use TRI data to supplement their own data to fulfill key core
responsibilities. Specifically:
* Office of Air and Radiation uses TRI data as a quality assurance tool
when filling in missing data in its triennial National Emissions
Inventory, which provides data on air emissions from about 85,000
sources and is used to assess risks from hazardous air pollutants at
the local, regional, and national levels. The program has also used TRI
data to assist in the development of emission standards required by the
Clean Air Act.
* Office of Water compares TRI facilities with those in its Permit
Compliance System, a database that tracks facilities permitted to
discharge releases into water. Among other things, the office also uses
TRI data as an input in its watershed analysis software, allowing it
and other stakeholders to analyze water quality at a select stream site
or throughout an entire watershed.
* Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response uses TRI data in its
National Priority Chemicals Trends Report, which analyzes and evaluates
24 highly toxic chemicals found in industrial wastes in the United
States. This report tracks progress toward achieving EPA's national
goal to reduce the amount of highly toxic chemicals in waste and to
identify these chemicals through a variety of methods.
* Other key EPA offices making wide use of the TRI include the Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, which has used TRI data to
locate pollution sources that may be out of compliance (among other
purposes) and the agency's regional offices, which use the data
extensively in their interactions with both their regulated entities
and the public at large.
Finally, other federal agencies that make use of the TRI include (1)
the IRS, which has used TRI data to identify companies that release
chlorofluorocarbons (known to deplete the earth's ozone layer), and to
enforce a tax on those releases as part of a plan to phase out these
environmentally hazardous chemicals; (2) the Census Bureau's Center for
Economic Studies, which has included TRI data in reports that highlight
changes in the U.S. economy; (3) the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which
has used TRI data on air and water releases in its local-level health
consultations and assessments; and (4) the Small Business
Administration, which uses TRI data for evaluating other environmental
regulations.
Most States Have TRI Programs and Use TRI Data for a Range of
Activities:
EPCRA requires that facilities submit their TRI forms to EPA and their
state. We surveyed TRI coordinators in the 50 states and the District
of Columbia to better understand how states use the TRI data they
receive[Footnote 12]. We found that the states have TRI programs that
carry out a range of TRI-related activities. The state programs vary on
several key parameters, including whether they have statutory
requirements for chemical release reporting, how they fund TRI-related
activities, how much they spend annually on TRI-related activities, and
whether they assess fees on facilities that report to the TRI. Table 1
shows these key characteristics for each state. We provide a complete
tabulation of the results of our survey in an electronic
supplement.[Footnote 13]:
Table 1: Key Characteristics of State TRI Programs:
State: Alabama;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: $50,001-$150,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Alaska;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: dedicated;
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Arizona;
Statute: [check];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Arkansas;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: $50,001-$150,000;
Assess fees: [check].
State: California;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: dedicated;
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Colorado;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [check].
State: Connecticut;
Statute: [check];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: n/a;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Delaware;
Statute: [check];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: $50,001-$150,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: District of Columbia;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Florida;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: $25,000-$50,000;
Assess fees: [check].
State: Georgia;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: dedicated;
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [check].
State: Hawaii;
Statute: [check];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Idaho;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: n/a;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Illinois;
Statute: [check];
Source of funds: dedicated;
Annual expenditures[A]: $25,000-$50,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Indiana;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: $25,000-$50,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Iowa;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Kansas;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: $25,000-$50,000;
Assess fees: [check].
State: Kentucky;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Louisiana;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: n/a;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Maine;
Statute: [check];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [check].
State: Maryland;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [check].
State: Massachusetts;
Statute: [check][B];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: $250,000;
Assess fees: [check].
State: Michigan;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: dedicated;
Annual expenditures[A]: n/a;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Minnesota;
Statute: [check][B];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: $50,001-$150,000;
Assess fees: [check].
State: Mississippi;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: $50,001-$150,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
Statute: [check];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Montana;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Nebraska;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: $25,000-$50,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [check].
State: New Hampshire;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: n/a;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: New Jersey;
Statute: [check][B];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: $25,000-$50,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: New York;
Statute: [check][B];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: n/a;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: North Carolina;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: n/a;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: North Dakota;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: n/a;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
Statute: [check];
Source of funds: dedicated;
Annual expenditures[A]: $150,001-$250,000;
Assess fees: [check].
State: Oklahoma;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: $50,001-$150,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: dedicated;
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Pennsylvania;
Statute: [check];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: $50,001-$150,000;
Assess fees: [check].
State: Rhode Island;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: n/a;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: South Carolina;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: South Dakota;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: n/a;
Assess fees: [check].
State: Tennessee;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: $50,001-$150,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Texas;
Statute: [check];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [check].
State: Utah;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: $50,001-$150,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Vermont;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Virginia;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: $25,000-$50,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Washington;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: dedicated;
Annual expenditures[A]: $50,001-$150,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: West Virginia;
Statute: [check];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Wisconsin;
Statute: [check];
Source of funds: [Empty];
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
State: Wyoming;
Statute: [Empty];
Source of funds: general;
Annual expenditures[A]: Less than $25,000;
Assess fees: [Empty].
Source: GAO survey of state TRI coordinators.
[A] $=Less than $25,000; $$=$25,000-$50,000; $$$=$50,001-$150,000;
$$$$=$150,001-$250,000; $$$$$=more than $250,000; n/a=no answer
provided.
[B] State has statute that requires facilities to report additional
chemicals or provide information not required by EPCRA.
[End of table]
As table 1 also shows, officials in 17 states reported that their
states have statutes that have similar requirements to EPCRA for toxic
release reporting elements. Of note are four states with statutes that
require facilities to report additional chemicals or provide
information not required by EPCRA--Massachusetts, Minnesota, New
Jersey, and New York. For example, Massachusetts officials stated that
facilities must report information, such as the risk of chemicals used
at the facility or present in products, and the number of employees at
the facility. In addition, New Jersey officials stated that facilities
must report on their chemical use, including information about how
chemicals travel through the facility's processes. The states also vary
in how they fund TRI programs, with 25 states using general funds and 8
states using dedicated funds for TRI. With regard to total amount spent
on TRI-related activities, most states (29) reported spending $50,000
or less in fiscal year 2006, and 12 states spent more than $50,000.
Fourteen states reported assessing fees on facilities that submit to
the TRI, 11 of which dedicated those funds to their TRI programs.
States base their fees on one or more of the following criteria: which
TRI form is submitted (Form R or Form A); the number of employees at
the facility; the amount of a chemical reported; the type of chemical
reported; and when the form is submitted. As a consequence, changes to
federal TRI reporting requirements that affect any of those criteria
may consequently impact a source of state funding for TRI-related
activities.
We also asked the TRI coordinators to describe how their state uses the
information from the TRI forms that it receives. Although a few states
reported doing little or nothing with the reports, many states make
wide use of the data contained therein. Figure 2 provides their
responses, which fall into one of three categories: (1) chemical
identification or pollution prevention, (2) compliance assistance or
program enforcement, and (3) public information or other data services.
This page intentionally left blank:
Figure 2: TRI Activities Reported by States:
[See PDF for image]
Chemical Identification or pollution prevention: Activities:
1. Monitor facility pollution prevention efforts:
Alabama: [check];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [check];
Arkansas: [empty];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [empty];
Connecticut: [check];
Delaware: [check];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [empty];
Georgia: [empty];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [check];
Indiana: [check];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [empty];
Kentucky: [empty];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [check];
Maryland: [check];
Massachusetts: [check];
Michigan: [empty];
Minnesota: [check];
Mississippi: [check];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [check];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [check];
New Jersey: [empty];
New Mexico: [check];
New York: [check];
North Carolina:
North Dakota:
Ohio: [check];
Oklahoma: [check];
Oregon: [check];
Pennsylvania: [check];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [empty];
South Dakota: [check];
Tennessee: [empty];
Texas: [check];
Utah: [check];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [check];
Washington: [check];
West Virginia: [check];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [check];
TRI Activity totals: 26.
2. Monitor facility performance in a pollution reduction program.
Alabama: [empty];
Alaska: [check];
Arizona: [check];
Arkansas: [check];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [empty];
Connecticut: [check];
Delaware: [empty];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [empty];
Georgia: [empty];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [empty];
Indiana: [empty];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [empty];
Kentucky: [empty];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [check];
Maryland: [check];
Massachusetts: [check];
Michigan: [empty];
Minnesota: [check];
Mississippi: [check];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [check];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [check];
New Jersey: [check];
New Mexico: [check];
New York: [check];
North Carolina: [empty];
North Dakota: [check];
Ohio: [empty];
Oklahoma: [check];
Oregon: [empty];
Pennsylvania: [check];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [check];
South Dakota: [empty];
Tennessee: [check];
Texas: [empty];
Utah: [empty];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [check];
Washington: [empty];
West Virginia: [check];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [check];
TRI Activity totals: 21.
3. Identify the location of chemical hazards:
Alabama: [check];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [check];
Arkansas: [check];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [empty];
Connecticut: [check];
Delaware: [empty];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [empty];
Georgia: [empty];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [empty];
Indiana: [empty];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [empty];
Kentucky: [check];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [check];
Maryland: [empty];
Massachusetts: [check];
Michigan: [empty];
Minnesota: [check];
Mississippi: [empty];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [check];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [check];
New Jersey: [empty];
New Mexico: [check];
New York: [empty];
North Carolina: [empty];
North Dakota: [empty];
Ohio: [check];
Oklahoma: [check];
Oregon: [check];
Pennsylvania: [check];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [empty];
South Dakota: [empty];
Tennessee: [empty];
Texas: [check];
Utah: [check];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [check];
Washington: [check];
West Virginia: [check];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 20.
4. Identify the location of health risks:
Alabama: [check];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [empty];
Arkansas: [check];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [check];
Connecticut: [check];
Delaware: [empty];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [empty];
Georgia: [empty];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [empty];
Indiana: [check];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [empty];
Kentucky: [check];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [empty];
Maryland: [check];
Massachusetts: [check];
Michigan: [empty];
Minnesota: [empty];
Mississippi: [empty];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [check];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [check];
New Jersey: [check];
New Mexico: [check];
New York: [check];
North Carolina:
North Dakota:
Ohio: [empty];
Oklahoma: [empty];
Oregon: [empty];
Pennsylvania: [check];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [empty];
South Dakota: [empty];
Tennessee: [empty];
Texas: [empty];
Utah: [empty];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [check];
Washington: [check];
West Virginia: [check];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 17.
5. Publicly recognize facilities that reduce pollution:
Alabama: [check];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [empty];
Arkansas: [empty];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [empty];
Connecticut: [empty];
Delaware: [empty];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [empty];
Georgia: [empty];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [check];
Indiana: [check];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [empty];
Kentucky: [empty];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [empty];
Maryland: [check];
Massachusetts: [check];
Michigan: [empty];
Minnesota: [check];
Mississippi: [check];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [empty];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [check];
New Jersey: [empty];
New Mexico: [empty];
New York: [check];
North Carolina: [empty];
North Dakota: [empty];
Ohio: [empty];
Oklahoma: [check];
Oregon: [empty];
Pennsylvania: [empty];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [empty];
South Dakota: [empty];
Tennessee: [empty];
Texas: [empty];
Utah: [check];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [empty];
Washington: [empty];
West Virginia: [empty];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 11.
6. Establish state permit limits:
Alabama: [empty];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [empty];
Arkansas: [empty];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [check];
Connecticut: [empty];
Delaware: [check];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [empty];
Georgia: [empty];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [empty];
Indiana: [empty];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [empty];
Kentucky: [empty];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [empty];
Maryland: [empty];
Massachusetts: [empty];
Michigan: [empty];
Minnesota: [empty];
Mississippi: [empty];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [empty];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [empty];
New Jersey: [empty];
New Mexico: [empty];
New York: [check];
North Carolina: [empty];
North Dakota: [empty];
Ohio: [empty];
Oklahoma: [empty];
Oregon: [empty];
Pennsylvania: [empty];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [empty];
South Dakota: [empty];
Tennessee: [empty];
Texas: [empty];
Utah: [empty];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [empty];
Washington: [empty];
West Virginia: [empty];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 3.
Compliance assistance or program enforcement: Activities:
7. Compare state TRI data with other databases:
Alabama: [check];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [check];
Arkansas: [empty];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [check];
Connecticut: [check];
Delaware: [check];
District of Columbia: [check];
Florida: [check];
Georgia: [check];
Hawaii: [check];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [empty];
Indiana: [check];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [check];
Kentucky: [empty];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [check];
Maryland: [empty];
Massachusetts: [check];
Michigan: [empty];
Minnesota: [empty];
Mississippi: [check];
Missouri: [check];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [check];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [empty];
New Jersey: [check];
New Mexico: [empty];
New York: [check];
North Carolina:
North Dakota: [check];
Ohio: [check];
Oklahoma: [check];
Oregon: [check];
Pennsylvania: [check];
Rhode Island: [check];
South Carolina: [check];
South Dakota: [check];
Tennessee: [empty];
Texas: [check];
Utah: [check];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [check];
Washington: [check];
West Virginia: [check];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 31.
8. Evaluate facility compliance with state pollution permits:
Alabama: [empty];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [empty];
Arkansas: [empty];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [empty];
Connecticut: [check];
Delaware: [check];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [check];
Georgia: [empty];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [empty];
Indiana: [check];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [empty];
Kentucky: [empty];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [check];
Maryland: [empty];
Massachusetts: [check];
Michigan: [empty];
Minnesota: [empty];
Mississippi: [check];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [empty];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [check];
New Jersey: [empty];
New Mexico: [check];
New York: [check];
North Carolina: [empty];
North Dakota: [empty];
Ohio: [check];
Oklahoma: [check];
Oregon: [check];
Pennsylvania: [check];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [empty];
South Dakota: [check];
Tennessee: [empty];
Texas: [check];
Utah: [empty];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [check];
Washington: [check];
West Virginia: [check];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 19.
9. Identify facilities that must comply with state environmental
regulations:
Alabama: [empty];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [check];
Arkansas: [check];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [empty];
Connecticut: [check];
Delaware: [empty];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [check];
Georgia: [check];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [empty];
Indiana: [check];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [empty];
Kentucky: [empty];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [empty];
Maryland: [empty];
Massachusetts: [check];
Michigan: [empty];
Minnesota: [check];
Mississippi: [check];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [check];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [check];
New Jersey: [check];
New Mexico: [check];
New York: [empty];
North Carolina: [empty];
North Dakota: [empty];
Ohio: [check];
Oklahoma: [empty];
Oregon: [empty];
Pennsylvania: [check];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [empty];
South Dakota: [check];
Tennessee: [empty];
Texas: [check];
Utah: [empty];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [empty];
Washington: [empty];
West Virginia: [empty];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 18.
10. Target facilities for other state environmental inspections:
Alabama: [empty];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [check];
Arkansas: [empty];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [empty];
Connecticut: [empty];
Delaware: [check];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [empty];
Georgia: [empty];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [empty];
Indiana: [empty];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [empty];
Kentucky: [empty];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [empty];
Maryland: [empty];
Massachusetts: [check];
Michigan: [empty];
Minnesota: [check];
Mississippi: [empty];
Missouri: [check];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [empty];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [empty];
New Jersey: [check];
New Mexico: [empty];
New York: [check];
North Carolina: [check];
North Dakota: [empty];
Ohio: [check];
Oklahoma: [empty];
Oregon: [check];
Pennsylvania: [empty];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [empty];
South Dakota: [check];
Tennessee: [empty];
Texas: [empty];
Utah: [empty];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [empty];
Washington: [check];
West Virginia: [check];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 17.
11. Evaluate facilities' emergency preparedness plans:
Alabama: [empty];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [check];
Arkansas: [empty];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [empty];
Connecticut: [check];
Delaware: [check];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [empty];
Georgia: [check];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [empty];
Indiana: [empty];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [check];
Kentucky: [empty];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [check];
Maryland: [empty];
Massachusetts: [check];
Michigan: [empty];
Minnesota: [empty];
Mississippi: [check];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [check];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [empty];
New Jersey: [empty];
New Mexico: [check];
New York: [check];
North Carolina: [empty];
North Dakota: [check];
Ohio: [empty];
Oklahoma: [empty];
Oregon: [empty];
Pennsylvania: [empty];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [empty];
South Dakota: [empty];
Tennessee: [empty];
Texas: [empty];
Utah: [check];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [check];
Washington: [empty];
West Virginia: [empty];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 9.
12. Target facilities for state TRI inspections:
Alabama: [empty];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [check];
Arkansas: [empty];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [empty];
Connecticut: [check];
Delaware: [check];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [empty];
Georgia: [empty];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [empty];
Indiana: [empty];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [empty];
Kentucky: [empty];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [empty];
Maryland: [empty];
Massachusetts: [empty];
Michigan: [empty];
Minnesota: [empty];
Mississippi: [empty];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [empty];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [empty];
New Jersey: [empty];
New Mexico: [check];
New York: [empty];
North Carolina: [empty];
North Dakota: [empty];
Ohio: [check];
Oklahoma: [empty];
Oregon: [empty];
Pennsylvania: [check];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [empty];
South Dakota: [empty];
Tennessee: [empty];
Texas: [empty];
Utah: [empty];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [empty];
Washington: [empty];
West Virginia: [empty];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 7.
Public information or other data services: Activities:
13. Respond to data requests from the public:
Alabama: [check];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [check];
Arkansas: [check];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [check];
Connecticut: [check];
Delaware: [check];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [check];
Georgia: [check];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [empty];
Indiana: [check];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [check];
Kentucky: [check];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [check];
Maryland: [check];
Massachusetts: [check];
Michigan: [check];
Minnesota: [check];
Mississippi: [check];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [check];
Nebraska: [check];
Nevada: [check];
New Hampshire: [check];
New Jersey: [check];
New Mexico: [check];
New York: [check];
North Carolina: [check];
North Dakota: [check];
Ohio: [check];
Oklahoma: [check];
Oregon: [check];
Pennsylvania: [check];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [check];
South Dakota: [empty];
Tennessee: [check];
Texas: [check];
Utah: [check];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [check];
Washington: [check];
West Virginia: [check];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 38.
14. Respond to data requests from other programs:
Alabama: [check];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [empty];
Arkansas: [check];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [check];
Connecticut: [check];
Delaware: [check];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [check];
Georgia: [check];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [empty];
Indiana: [check];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [check];
Kentucky: [check];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [check];
Maryland: [check];
Massachusetts: [check];
Michigan: [check];
Minnesota: [check];
Mississippi: [check];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [check];
Nebraska: [check];
Nevada: [check];
New Hampshire: [check];
New Jersey: [check];
New Mexico: [check];
New York: [check];
North Carolina: [check];
North Dakota: [check];
Ohio: [check];
Oklahoma: [check];
Oregon: [check];
Pennsylvania: [check];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [empty];
South Dakota: [empty];
Tennessee: [check];
Texas: [check];
Utah: [check];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [check];
Washington: [check];
West Virginia: [check];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 35.
15. Reconcile EPA TRI dataset with your state's TRI dataset:
Alabama: [check];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [empty];
Arkansas: [check];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [check];
Connecticut: [empty];
Delaware: [check];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [check];
Georgia: [check];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [empty];
Indiana: [check];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [check];
Kentucky: [check];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [check];
Maryland: [empty];
Massachusetts: [check];
Michigan: [check];
Minnesota: [empty];
Mississippi: [check];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [check];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [empty];
New Jersey: [check];
New Mexico: [empty];
New York: [empty];
North Carolina: [empty];
North Dakota: [empty];
Ohio: [check];
Oklahoma: [check];
Oregon: [check];
Pennsylvania: [check];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [check];
South Dakota: [empty];
Tennessee: [empty];
Texas: [empty];
Utah: [check];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [check];
Washington: [check];
West Virginia: [check];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 24.
16. Integrate TRI data with GIS/other mapping capabilities:
Alabama: [check];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [empty];
Arkansas: [empty];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [empty];
Connecticut: [empty];
Delaware: [empty];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [check];
Georgia: [empty];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [check];
Indiana: [check];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [check];
Kentucky: [empty];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [empty];
Maryland: [check];
Massachusetts: [empty];
Michigan: [empty];
Minnesota: [empty];
Mississippi: [empty];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [check];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [empty];
New Jersey: [check];
New Mexico: [empty];
New York: [check];
North Carolina: [empty];
North Dakota: [empty];
Ohio: [empty];
Oklahoma: [check];
Oregon: [empty];
Pennsylvania: [check];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [empty];
South Dakota: [empty];
Tennessee: [check];
Texas: [empty];
Utah: [check];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [empty];
Washington: [check];
West Virginia: [empty];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 14.
17. Make environmental justice assessments:
Alabama: [check];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [empty];
Arkansas: [empty];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [empty];
Connecticut: [empty];
Delaware: [empty];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [empty];
Georgia: [empty];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [check];
Indiana: [empty];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [empty];
Kentucky: [empty];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [empty];
Maryland: [empty];
Massachusetts: [check];
Michigan: [empty];
Minnesota: [empty];
Mississippi: [empty];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [empty];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [empty];
New Jersey: [check];
New Mexico: [empty];
New York: [check];
North Carolina: [empty];
North Dakota: [empty];
Ohio: [empty];
Oklahoma: [empty];
Oregon: [empty];
Pennsylvania: [check];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [empty];
South Dakota: [empty];
Tennessee: [empty];
Texas: [empty];
Utah: [empty];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [empty];
Washington: [check];
West Virginia: [empty];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 7.
18. Other:
Alabama: [empty];
Alaska: [empty];
Arizona: [empty];
Arkansas: [empty];
California: [empty];
Colorado: [empty];
Connecticut: [empty];
Delaware: [empty];
District of Columbia: [empty];
Florida: [empty];
Georgia: [empty];
Hawaii: [empty];
Idaho: [empty];
Illinois: [empty];
Indiana: [empty];
Iowa: [empty];
Kansas: [empty];
Kentucky: [empty];
Louisiana: [empty];
Maine: [empty];
Maryland: [empty];
Massachusetts: [empty];
Michigan: [empty];
Minnesota: [empty];
Mississippi: [empty];
Missouri: [empty];
Montana: [empty];
Nebraska: [empty];
Nevada: [empty];
New Hampshire: [empty];
New Jersey: [empty];
New Mexico: [empty];
New York: [empty];
North Carolina: [empty];
North Dakota: [empty];
Ohio: [empty];
Oklahoma: [empty];
Oregon: [empty];
Pennsylvania: [empty];
Rhode Island: [empty];
South Carolina: [empty];
South Dakota: [empty];
Tennessee: [empty];
Texas: [empty];
Utah: [empty];
Vermont: [empty];
Virginia: [empty];
Washington: [empty];
West Virginia: [empty];
Wisconsin: [empty];
Wyoming: [empty];
TRI Activity totals: 0.
State activity totals:
Alabama: 10;
Alaska: 0;
Arizona: 9;
Arkansas: 7;
California: 0;
Colorado: 6;
Connecticut: 11;
Delaware: 10;
District of Columbia: 1;
Florida: 7;
Georgia: 6;
Hawaii: 1;
Idaho: 0;
Illinois: 4;
Indiana: 10;
Iowa: 0;
Kansas: 6;
Kentucky: 5;
Louisiana: 9;
Maine: 9;
Maryland: 8;
Massachusetts: 13;
Michigan: 3;
Minnesota: 8;
Mississippi: 10;
Missouri: 2;
Montana: 2;
Nebraska: 11;
Nevada: 2;
New Hampshire: 9;
New Jersey: 11;
New Mexico: 9;
New York: 14;
North Carolina: 3;
North Dakota: 5;
Ohio: 10;
Oklahoma: 10;
Oregon: 9;
Pennsylvania: 12;
Rhode Island: 1;
South Carolina: 4;
South Dakota: 5;
Tennessee: 4;
Texas: 7;
Utah: 9;
Vermont: 1;
Virginia: 10;
Washington: 11;
West Virginia: 10;
Wisconsin: 0;
Wyoming: 2.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Chemical Identification or Pollution Prevention Activities:
States reported using TRI data for chemical identification or pollution
prevention activities such as identifying which facilities release
large volumes of chemicals or the location of chemical releases posing
the greatest risk to public health. States also reported using TRI data
to monitor facility pollution prevention efforts, establish state
permit limits, monitor facility performance in a pollution reduction
program, and publicly recognize facilities that reduce pollution. State
coordinators provided us with specific examples of pollution prevention
programs that used TRI data. Following are examples:
* Oklahoma used TRI data to identify companies that used hazardous
chemicals as inputs in their manufacturing processes and work with them
to substitute less hazardous chemicals.
* New Jersey used TRI data to identify facilities that reported
releasing high volumes of reproductive toxics (i.e., chemicals that can
damage human reproductive systems) for participation in a pollution
reduction program.
* Colorado used TRI data to identify the state's 40 largest toxic
chemical releasers to participate in the Governor's Pollution Reduction
Challenge. The program encourages facilities to optimize their
production processes to reduce emissions, improve their recycling
capabilities, and add pollution control technology, and it has resulted
in reductions in overall emissions.
Compliance Assistance or Program Enforcement:
The second most common category of state TRI-related activities relates
to compliance assistance and program enforcement. Most states helped
facilities comply with TRI reporting requirements in some way,
including answering facilities' questions via phone or e-mail (48
states) or referring facilities to EPA for assistance (46 states). Over
half the states informed facilities about reporting requirements (37
states), distributed TRI forms or materials (31 states), or
participated in EPA-sponsored information or training sessions (30
states). About one-third of states conducted state-sponsored
information or training sessions (16 states) or visited reporting
facilities (14 states). In addition to compliance assistance for TRI
reporting, states used TRI data to assist with enforcement of other
state environmental regulations by, for example, comparing TRI data
with other databases and identifying facilities that must comply with
state environmental regulations. For example, Ohio has cross-checked
facilities' TRI submissions with their Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) reports, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permits, and air permits to check for possible noncompliance
violations and to target facilities for inspection. Forty-one states
reported using TRI data for at least one of the enforcement activities
listed in figure 2.
Public Information or Other Data Services:
States most commonly reported using TRI data to provide information
about toxic chemical releases to the general public and for providing
data services to other state programs. Forty-one states reported
providing TRI-related information or referrals to the public through
annual TRI reports, TRI Web pages, state TRI data files, data analyses
conducted upon request, copies of Form Rs from individual facilities,
public reading rooms with TRI information, EPA TRI documents, referrals
to EPA regional TRI contacts, and other means (not listed as a response
option on the survey) such as printed fact sheets, audio for radio
interviews, and TRI-related CDs. For example, Ohio prepares a report
listing the facilities with the greatest releases, the most common TRI
chemicals, and the counties with the largest releases. Indiana
correlates TRI releases and waste management practices with its gross
state product, a measure of the state's economic output, to provide
better context for the public to understand TRI data. The state TRI
coordinator for Colorado reported using the TRI as part of a state
mercury program that sought, in part, to increase public awareness of
mercury releases to inform the public about possible health hazards of
mercury, a PBT. In addition, more than two-thirds of states reported
responding to data requests from other state programs (36 states) or
comparing state TRI data with other databases (31 states). States also
integrated TRI data with a geographic information system (GIS) or other
state mapping capabilities (14 states), or used TRI data to make
environmental justice assessments (7 states).
The Public Uses the TRI for a Variety of Purposes:
Academic researchers, environmental groups, educational organizations,
businesses, and public interest groups use the TRI for a variety of
purposes. The public can generally access TRI data from EPA's Web site,
as well as from nonprofit organizations' Web sites. EPA officials told
us that the public accessed the TRI database through its Web site
829,682 times during the 12-month period ending March 2007.
Academic researchers. According to an EPA summary of TRI users,
universities and research institutions used TRI data as a means for
"examining environmental policies and strategies, and clarifying risks
associated with toxic chemicals at the state and local level." Through
an EPA program called Science to Achieve Results that awards grants to
scientific researchers, 25 grantees have used the TRI to study
environmental performance. For example, one grantee used TRI data to
study areas with cancer risks and found that high-risk areas are
concentrated around certain aluminum and cement industries. In
addition, a public policy researcher used TRI data to study the
accuracy of self-reported regulatory programs. This researcher found a
strong correlation between estimated cancer cases in a region, rates of
voter turnout, and the likelihood that facilities in that region reduce
emissions.
Educational organizations. According to EPA, various education
institutions have integrated the TRI into curricula so students can use
it in the classroom. For example, the National Science Teachers
Association included the TRI in an instructional resource guide for
high school teachers as an example of how science can be used in an
everyday context. In addition, the Delaware Department of Natural
Resources designed lessons for high school and middle school students
to learn about the effects of emissions on air quality and how to
locate facilities that report air emissions to the TRI.
Private business. Businesses also use the TRI to assist with decision
making and chemical release monitoring. Businesses within the regulated
community that report to the TRI have used their own reports to achieve
gains in cost reduction and performance management. For example, Dupont
lists its TRI data on its Web site and uses its progress in emissions
reductions as a marketing tool. Boeing also tracks its progress at
reducing TRI emissions and invests in pollution prevention technology
that has resulted in more than 81 percent reductions in emissions since
1991. For some managers and operators at these businesses, TRI
reporting has increased their awareness of the quantity of chemicals
released from their facilities, and they have used TRI to set goals for
reducing their chemical releases, sometimes resulting in increased
efficiency, greater profits, identification of pollution prevention
opportunities, and evidence of a public commitment to reduce those
releases. Labor unions that represent employees who work at TRI
facilities have used TRI data to support demands for safer working
conditions and have trained their members to access and interpret TRI
data. Outside of the regulated community, investment companies have
used TRI data to advise clients who want to invest in companies with a
record of reducing environmental releases. An adviser at one investment
firm told us that TRI data have been useful in measuring companies'
overall environmental performance, which includes their compliance with
regulations and their overall emissions.
Public interest groups. Many organizations use the TRI to educate
citizens about toxic releases in their communities and to empower
citizens to take actions that can reduce those releases. At the local
and state levels, for example, the Citizen's Environmental Coalition in
New York maintains a Web site with an interactive mapping tool for
citizens to view areas that may be cause for environmental concern,
including the location of TRI facilities. In Wisconsin, the Oneida
Environmental Resources Board used TRI data to convince leaders in the
Oneida tribe to find cleaner ways to manufacture pulp and paper. At the
national level, Environmental Defense uses TRI data in its Web-based
"pollution locator," which allows users to compare states and
communities by criteria such as the presence of lead concentrations,
chemicals known to cause birth defects, and chemicals known to cause
cancer. OMB Watch, an organization that seeks to increase government
transparency, maintains the Right-to-Know Network (RTK Net), a Web site
that provides links to 11 environmental databases, including the TRI.
The National Environmental Trust, an organization that seeks to inform
citizens about environmental problems and the effects of those problems
on human health, conducts TRI data analyses and tracks TRI program
developments, information it makes publicly available on its Web site.
Physicians for Social Responsibility, a nonprofit health and
environmental advocacy organization, has used TRI data in reports that
describe the threats that children face from different types of
pollution.
EPA Did Not Follow Key Steps for Developing the TRI Burden Reduction
Rule:
EPA did not follow key steps from its Action Development Process (ADP)
when developing the proposed TRI Burden Reduction Rule. This process
guides the internal development of proposed EPA regulations through a
series of milestones to ensure that the agency uses sound information
to support its actions, and that it adequately addresses scientific,
economic, and policy issues. Throughout the rule development process,
senior EPA management generally has the discretion to depart from the
guidelines, including by accelerating the development of the proposed
regulations. However, in reviewing the process EPA followed when
developing the rule, we found several significant differences that
resulted in inadequate input from internal stakeholders and
insufficient analytical support for the proposed rule's burden
reduction options.
Internal Stakeholders Had No Opportunity to Comment on Effects of
Selected Rulemaking Option:
As part of the first stage in ADP, the agency assigns an action to one
of three tiers that determine the process the agency uses when
developing the rule. On March 30, 2004, EPA approved the TRI rule as a
tier 2 action--targeting it for extensive cross media or cross-agency
involvement and resting primary decision authority with the Assistant
Administrator for Environmental Information. Next, EPA charters a
workgroup to develop the specific action. The workgroup that was
assembled to shepherd the TRI Burden Reduction Rule through the ADP was
chartered in late May 2004 and led by a representative of EPA's Office
of Environmental Information (OEI), which manages the TRI program.
Other workgroup members included at least one representative from EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 3 of the 10 Regional
Offices, the Office of General Counsel, and several additional
representatives from OEI.
In December 2004, pursuant to ADP, the TRI workgroup completed a
Preliminary Analytic Blueprint, a document that outlined the five
burden reduction options they planned to consider. These options were
the following:
* a higher reporting threshold for small businesses;
* a higher reporting threshold for categories of facilities or classes
of chemicals with small reportable amounts;
* expanded eligibility for Form A (by raising the maximum release
threshold for non-PBTs from 500 to 5,000 pounds);
* a new No Significant Change (NSC) Certification Statement for
facilities with releases that changed less than a specified amount; and:
* use of range reporting on Form R for releases and waste management
practices (e.g., indicating that releases were between 100 and 499
pounds).
In April 2005, pursuant to the ADP, workgroup members submitted a
Detailed Analytic Blueprint, which narrowed the list to three options
for which they would prepare further analyses, seek internal
stakeholder input, and forward to senior management for final
consideration. Importantly, none of these three options would have
expanded Form A eligibility for non-PBT chemicals.
The first two options would have allowed facilities to use Form A in
lieu of Form R for PBT chemicals, provided the facility had no releases
to the environment. The only difference between the two options was
whether the facility could have a limited quantity of other waste
management activities (e.g., recycling). Specifically, these two
options were to allow facilities to:
* report PBT chemicals using Form A if they have zero releases and zero
total other waste management activities, or:
* report PBT chemicals using Form A if they have zero releases and no
more than 500 pounds of other waste management activities.
These PBT options received general approval from the EPA offices
involved in the workgroup because they would have little effect on the
TRI. That is, the public would not have less information about releases
because neither option allowed facilities to use Form A if they
released any of the chemical. However, the PBT options did not provide
the bulk of the anticipated burden reduction.
The third option--which provided significantly more burden reduction--
would have created a new NSC Certification Statement, in lieu of Form
R, for facilities whose releases changed little from the previous year.
Facilities eligible to file the NSC Certification Statement could do so
during alternate years if their releases and waste management practices
did not change by more than 10 percent or if less than 40 percent of
their combined releases and waste management practices were releases.
According to EPA officials on the TRI workgroup, NSC was the most
discussed option, and the one that the workgroup had the highest
expectations for significant burden reduction.
In accordance with the ADP, the TRI workgroup presented their three
options to the EPA Administrator during an "Options Selection
Briefing." However, based on internal documents that we reviewed,
senior EPA management not involved with the workgroup or its analyses
had begun considering a different option than the ones the workgroup
had presented. Specifically, the briefing slides for the Administrator
stated that OMB's preferred burden reduction option was to increase the
Form A eligibility threshold for non-PBT chemicals from 500 to 5,000
pounds. The TRI workgroup had dropped that option from consideration,
at an earlier step in the ADP, because of its impact on the TRI. An
internal memorandum that we reviewed stated that OMB preferred a 10-
fold increase in the non-PBT threshold to show a "demonstrable
threshold increase" as a way of achieving a "sizable reduction" in
reporting burden beyond expansion of Form A reporting for PBT
chemicals. Those documents also showed that, after the Options
Selection Briefing, the Administrator directed that the process be
expedited through Final Agency Review in order to meet EPA's commitment
to OMB to provide burden reduction by the end of December 2006.
The next milestone in EPA's ADP is Final Agency Review, a meeting for
internal and regional EPA offices and senior management (i.e.,
representatives of EPA's Assistant Administrators) to review the draft
proposed rule and discuss whether they concur, concur with comment, or
do not concur with it. To meet the EPA Administrator's deadline, the
final agency review package--including the draft text of the proposed
rule--was distributed to internal stakeholders to obtain their comments
on June 17, 2005. At the June 29, 2005, Final Agency Review meeting,
all Assistant Administrators (or their representatives) concurred with
EPA's proposed rule. However, the proposed rule that was circulated in
the final agency review package contained only the options that the
workgroup had developed and advanced. Consequently, the Final Agency
Review discussion and concurrence pertained to the PBT and NSC options
that the TRI workgroup had developed, rather than the increased non-PBT
threshold option that OMB favored.
By the time EPA held the Final Agency Review meeting, the TRI workgroup
was working to create the NSC form and establish eligibility criteria
to determine which facilities could use it. This option was based on
the premise that the information on many facilities' Form Rs does not
change much from year to year, especially as a percentage of reported
releases. However, the workgroup's internal analysis also showed that
Form Rs do change from year to year, especially for facilities with
large releases and large quantities of managed waste. That analysis
showed that, for facilities with large quantities of releases or other
waste management practices, a 5 or 10 percent increase would represent
a significant change in the absolute quantity of release or other waste
management. Moreover, Form R captures the location of facilities' off-
site transfers for disposal or recycling to a different location.
Therefore, changes in waste management practices during the "no
significant change year" would no longer be available to the public.
The workgroup also was considering incentives to allow facilities
participating in EPA's pollution prevention/reduction program to file
two consecutive NSC Certification Statements before having to file a
new Form R.
At the senior management level, discussions about increasing the Form A
threshold from 500 to 5,000 pounds continued through July with little,
if any, input from the TRI workgroup, according to internal documents
we reviewed and interviews with staff from EPA's Office of
Environmental Information. Consequently, the economic analysis that the
workgroup finalized in late July 2005 did not examine burden reduction
option to raise the non-PBT threshold to 5,000 pounds. In early August,
the final package for the proposed rule was circulated to the
workgroup, but the rule did not include the non-PBT option or an
analysis of the option. As a result, TRI workgroup members, and other
internal stakeholders from the program offices, did not have the
opportunity for input because the senior EPA management had already
decided which options would and would not be in the proposed rule that
went to OMB for review on August 26, 2005.
EPA program staff ultimately revised the economic analysis so as to
consider the impact of raising the Form A reporting threshold. However,
their analysis was neither completed before EPA sent the proposed rule
to OMB for review nor was it circulated for review. Instead, the
analysis was completed just prior to the September 21, 2005, date when
the EPA Administrator signed the proposed rule for increasing Form A
reporting eligibility from 500 to 5,000 pounds. EPA published this
proposal in the Federal Register for public comment on October 4, 2005.
The accompanying economic analysis did not adequately support EPA's
stated benefits or costs. Specifically, although EPA stated in the
proposed rule that it provided significant incentives for facilities to
reduce or eliminate releases (of PBT chemicals, especially), the
agency's economic analysis did not attempt to estimate those incentives
quantitatively, citing lack of data. Moreover, EPA's analysis did not
estimate the value of the information that would no longer be reported
to the TRI.
Public Comments on EPA's Proposed Rule Were Overwhelmingly Negative:
The agency received well over 100,000 comments in response to the
proposed rule, most of which were overwhelmingly negative. Some
commenters supported EPA's proposed option to extend Form A to PBT
chemicals because it would provide burden relief, but no actual release
data would be lost. Some commenters also stated that the proposal would
not compromise public health or reduce the ability to plan for
emergency responses and that most people are interested solely in
releases to the environment. Other commenters suggested that EPA's
proposal would encourage pollution prevention, as facilities would work
to eliminate releases and minimize waste generation of PBT chemicals in
order to quality for Form A. However, as EPA pointed out in its summary
of the comments, many more commenters expressed opposition to the
proposed option for allowing Form A for PBT chemicals because the
proposal provided minimal burden reduction while losing important
publicly available data. As an example, EPA highlighted a commenter
that estimated that the average cost savings per facility would be only
$1,035, which the commenter argued does not justify the expected loss
of information from the rule. Another commenter estimated that 77
percent of facilities eligible to use Form A for PBTs currently report
zero for both releases and other waste management and, therefore, would
not save burden by switching to Form A. Other comments disagreed and
asked that EPA instead expand Form A for reporting small, nonzero
releases of PBT chemicals. In the final rule, EPA responded to these
comments by reiterating its belief that the rule would still result in
significant burden reduction without losing crucial information.
Commenters who supported EPA's proposed expansion of Form A eligibility
for non-PBT chemicals asserted that the proposed rule would provide
significant burden relief from TRI reporting--especially for small
facilities. These proponents argue that this relief would be
significant despite the need to calculate releases and other waste
management amounts to determine if they quality for Form A. However,
many more commenters expressed opposition to the proposed option to
expand Form A eligibility for non-PBT chemicals by raising the
threshold from 500 to 5,000 pounds. These commenters, including 12
state attorneys general, focused on the local-level impacts from the
detailed chemical release and waste management information that would
no longer be reported on Form R. These and other commenters recognized
that the potential nonreporting represented less than 1 percent of
total release and waste management quantities reported nationwide on
Form R but argued that a 5,000-pound Form A would adversely affect the
ability of data users to perform local trend analyses, monitor the
performance of individual facilities and, more generally, meet the
intended purpose of the data collection to inform the public,
government, and other data users about releases of toxic chemicals to
the environment.[Footnote 14] Many commenters gave specific examples of
the local data use that could be affected by the proposed rule, such as
identifying pollution-prevention opportunities, conducting risk
analyses, identifying trends in toxic exposure, conducting spatial
analyses of toxic hazards, setting environmental and public health
policy, and evaluating trends in the performance of individual
companies.
In response to these public commenters, EPA conducted an additional
analysis of the impact of its changes at the local level and made
several modifications before finalizing the TRI Burden Reduction Rule
in December 2006. Specifically, EPA finalized the rule to raising the
Form A eligibility threshold for non-PBT chemicals to 5,000 pounds of
total annual waste management (i.e., releases, recycling, energy
recovery, and treatment for destruction) provided total annual releases
of the non-PBT chemical comprise no more than 2,000 pounds of the 5,000-
pound total waste management limit. The agency also included its
proposed option to allow use of Form A for PBT chemicals when total
annual releases of a PBT chemical are zero, and the total annual amount
of the PBT chemical recycled, combusted for energy, and treated for
destruction does not exceed 500 pounds.
EPA Changes Could Significantly Limit the TRI Data Available to Many
Communities:
Our analysis shows that EPA's TRI Burden Reduction 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 in
their environment. EPA estimated that the impact of its change to TRI
reporting requirements would be minimal; amounting to 5.7 million
pounds of releases (0.14% of total release pounds) and 10.5 million
pounds of waste management activities (0.06% of total waste management
pounds) not being reported to the TRI if all eligible facilities switch
from Form R to Form A. However, our analysis shows that EPA's changes
could have far more significant impacts on information available to
communities than EPA's national aggregate totals would appear to
indicate. In addition, our survey of state TRI coordinators indicates
that EPA's changes will have, on balance, a negative impact on state
TRI programs and other users of the TRI. We acknowledge that not all
eligible facilities will take advantage of the ability to file Form A,
based on historical rates of Form A filing. However, because of the
many assumptions necessary to calculate a "likely" impact, we present
the total possible impact on the TRI under EPA's new Form A eligibility
rules.
Thousands of Detailed Form R Reports May No Longer Be Submitted to the
TRI:
We estimated that 22,200 Form R reports (28 percent) could convert to
Form A under EPA's new Form A thresholds.[Footnote 15] EPA has observed
that facilities used Form A for only 54 percent of the Form R reports
potentially eligible under the previous threshold. According to EPA,
eligible facilities may choose not to submit a Form A for a number of
reasons. First, an unknown number of facilities may exceed the 1
million pound alternative threshold (e.g., facilities that use large
quantities of feedstock chemicals to produce pesticides or
pharmaceuticals) and, therefore, are ineligible for Form A.[Footnote
16] EPA does not know how many facilities exceed the alternative
threshold because that information is not reported on current TRI
forms. For this reason, EPA's utilization rate is likely an
underestimate. Second, some facilities report on Form R out of a desire
to showcase their pollution prevention efforts. Third, a facility,
having collected all this information, may also submit a Form R to
demonstrate good environmental stewardship. Fourth, some facilities
find the Form R to be an efficient mechanism for tracking their
material balances. Last, EPA and industry officials also told us that
facilities are less likely to submit a Form A in lieu of a Form R for a
given chemical if they must also submit Form Rs for other chemicals. We
understand that not all eligible facilities will take advantage of
EPA's new thresholds for one or more of these reasons. Although the
agency stated that the utilization rate will not likely be
significantly higher under the new threshold, additional facilities
that were formerly eligible to file Form A may choose to file Form R
now that they are eligible to do so for more of the reports. Given the
uncertainties in projecting a "likely" utilization rate, we present our
results in terms of the total number of Form R reports that are
currently eligible to be filed on a Form A under the thresholds
provided for in EPA's TRI rule.
According to our analysis, the number of Form Rs that may no longer be
submitted ranges by state from 25 forms in Vermont (27.2 percent of
Form Rs in state) to 2,196 forms in Texas (30.6 percent of Form Rs in
state). As figure 3 shows, Arkansas, Idaho, and Nevada, North Dakota,
and South Dakota could have up to 20 percent fewer of the detailed
forms, while Alaska, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Rhode Island, and Texas could have at least 30 percent fewer
Form Rs. We provide estimates of these impacts, by state, in appendix
II.
Figure 3: Estimate of Impact Allowed by EPA's Changes on Number of Form
Rs, by State:
[See PDF for image]
The image is a map of the United States, with states shaded to indicate
the following data:
Percentage of Form R reports that could convert to Form A (number of
states):
Less than 20: 5;
20 to 25: 7;
25 to 30: 26;
30 or more: 13.
Source: GAO based on 2005 EPA TRI data and Map Info (map).
[End of figure]
For each facility that chooses to file a Form A instead of Form R, the
public would no longer have available quantitative information about a
facility's releases and waste management practices for a specific
chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at the
facility.[Footnote 17] Form R and Form A both capture information about
a facility's identity, such as mailing address, parent company, and
basic information about a chemical's identity, such its generic name.
However, only Form R provides detailed information about the chemical,
such as quantity disposed or released on-site to air, water, and land,
or injected underground, or transferred for disposal or release off-
site. Form R also provides information about the facility's efforts to
reduce pollution at its source, including the quantities managed in
waste, both on-and off-site, such as amounts recycled, burned for
energy recovery, or treated. We provide a detailed comparison of the
data captured on Form R versus Form A in appendix III.
Data about Toxic Chemicals May Be Reduced or Eliminated for Many
Communities:
One way to capture the impact of Form Rs converting to Form A is to
examine what currently available public data could no longer be
reported about specific chemicals at the state level. The number of
chemicals for which only Form A information could be reported under the
new 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 on Form R may no longer be
included in the TRI. Figure 4 shows that 13 states--Delaware, Georgia,
Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin, and West Virginia--may no
longer receive specific quantitative information about at least 20
percent of TRI-reported chemicals in the state.
Figure 4: Estimate of Percentage of Chemicals for Which Facilities
Could Report on Form A, by State:
[See PDF for image]
The image is a map of the United States, with states shaded to indicate
the following data:
Percentage of chemicals that could convert to Form A (number of
states):
Less than 10: 5;
10 to 15: 12;
15 to 20: 21;
20 or more: 13;
Source: GAO based on 2005 EPA TRI data and Map Info (map).
[End of figure]
The impact of EPA's change on toxic chemical information available to
many local communities may be more significant than indicated by
national or state estimates. As figure 5 shows, citizens in more than
1,700 counties may no longer receive detailed information about at
least one toxic chemical currently reported on Form R in their county.
We estimated that, as a result of the allowable reduction in number of
reports, citizens in 64 counties across 28 states--Texas (10); Virginia
(7); Colorado, Kentucky, and Mississippi (4 each); California, Georgia,
and Missouri (3 each); Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, North
Carolina, New Mexico (2 each); and Alaska, Kansas, Maryland, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia (1 each)--may no longer receive
detailed information about any toxic chemical releases from facilities
in their county.
Figure 5: Estimate of Percentage of Chemicals for Which Facilities
Could Report on Form A, by County:
[See PDF for image]
The image is a map of the United States, with counties shaded to
indicate the following data:
Percentage of chemicals that could convert to be reported on Form A
(number of counties):
0: no chemicals or no reports;
Less than 10: 245;
10 to 15: 277;
15 to 20: 246;
20 or more: 998.
Source: GAO based on 2005 EPA TRI data and Map Info (map).
[End of figure]
Some Facilities Will No Longer Have to Report Detailed Information to
the TRI:
Another way to present the impact of EPA's changes to TRI reporting
requirements is to examine how many facilities would no longer be
required to submit a Form R. We estimated that 6,620 facilities
nationwide could choose to convert at least one Form R to a Form A, and
about 54 percent of those are eligible to convert all their Form Rs to
Form A. That means 3,565 facilities would no longer have to report any
specific 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.[Footnote 18] For example, ATSC Marine Terminal--a bulk
petroleum storage facility in Los Angeles County, California--reported
releasing 13 different chemicals to the air, including xylenes,
toluene, and highly toxic benzene. Because the facility released less
than 2,000 pounds of each chemical, it could use Form A to report each
chemical it released. As figure 6 shows, more than 10 percent of
facilities in every state except Idaho would no longer have to report
any quantitative information to the TRI. The most affected states are
Colorado, Connecticut, 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.
Figure 6: Estimate of Percentage of Facilities That Could Convert All
Form Rs to Form A, by State:
[See PDF for image]
The image is a map of the United States, with states shaded to indicate
the following data:
Percentage of facilities that could convert all reports to Form A
(number of states):
Less than 10: 1;
10 to 15: 28;
15 to 20: 16;
20 or more: 6.
Source: GAO based on 2005 EPA TRI data and Map Info (map).
[End of figure]
Many Commenters Have Stated That EPA's Changes Will Significantly Limit
TRI Data:
Many commenters, including attorneys general of 12 States, EPA's
Science Advisory Board, and state TRI coordinators, have expressed
concern about EPA's changes to the TRI reporting requirements will
significantly reduce the amount of useful information reported to the
TRI. In commenting on the rule in a jointly signed January 12, 2006,
letter, the Attorneys General from of New York, California,
Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, Vermont, and Wisconsin stated that, rather than
repairing any problems with the TRI program, EPA's changes will harm it
by raising the reporting thresholds for nearly all chemicals current
subject to TRI requirements. The Attorneys General added that the
changes would significantly reduce the amount of information about
releases of toxic chemicals available to the public and, as a result,
would impair efforts by federal, state, and local governments; workers;
firefighters; and citizens to protect Americans and their environment
from the harm caused by discharges of toxic chemicals to the air,
water, and land. They added that "because the changes work contrary to
the purpose of the TRI--providing comprehensive information about toxic
releases across the United States--[they are arbitrary and capricious,
an abuse of discretion, and otherwise contrary to law." For those, and
other reasons, the states' Attorneys General concluded that "in
addition to being contrary to the public interest and sound policy, the
proposed changes would violate EPCRA,[Footnote 19] PPA,[Footnote 20]
and the Administrative Procedure Act."[Footnote 21] However, EPA
contends that the rule complies with all applicable laws.
EPA's Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee also expressed concerns about the proposal in a July 12,
2006, letter to the EPA Administrator. Noting that TRI data are widely
used to evaluate changes in facility and firm environmental performance
and for other purposes, and that TRI data often provide the only
reliable source of longitudinal data for this type of research, the
committee said that its primary concern was that increased eligibility
for Form A reporting will obscure the extent of facilities' releases of
toxic chemicals. According to the committee, the changes in reported
toxic chemical release levels will make the data incomparable over time
and across facilities. It further stated that they will impair
researchers' ability to use TRI data to assess spatial health impacts
of toxic chemical releases and may also reduce variation in the data
that are useful in identifying epidemiological and other relationships.
The committee suggested that these impairments on research could
significantly limit the national picture of the effect of toxic
chemicals in the environment.
In addition, we surveyed the TRI coordinators in the 50 states and the
District of Columbia about their states' views on the two changes to
Form A eligibility that EPA finalized in December 2006--(1) raising the
non-PBT eligibility threshold from 500 pounds to 2,000 pounds and (2)
allowing PBT chemical reporting on Form A. Most states reported that
EPA's changes would have either a negative impact on various aspects of
TRI. States most frequently reported that the first change would have a
negative impact on information available to the public, efforts to
protect the environment, efforts to inform citizens about toxic
releases, and community right-to-know. For example, 23 of the 51 states
responded that the non-PBT change would have a negative impact on
information available to the public, while 15 indicated that the change
would have no impact, as shown in figure 7. Fewer states reported a
negative impact as a result of the PBT change, and more states reported
no impact, most likely because the change is limited to facilities that
do not release any of the PBT chemical. States most commonly reported
that the PBT change would have a negative impact on efforts to
community right-to-know. Specifically, 19 of the states said that the
change would negatively impact community right-to-know, while 2 said
that it would have a positive impact. Although as many as one-third of
the states responded that they were uncertain about the impact of these
changes, few states reported that the changes would have a positive
impact on any aspect of TRI.
Figure 7: Result of GAO Survey of State TRI Coordinators' Views about
Impact of EPA's Changes on Various State Activities:
[See PDF for image]
This figure contains two horizontal bar graphs depicting the following
data:
Total annual releases of non-PBT chemical comprise: Information
available to the public:
No impact: 15 states;
Negative impact: 22 states;
Positive impact: [empty];
No answer or uncertain: 13 states.
Efforts to protect the public:
No impact: 11 states;
Negative impact: 22 states;
Positive impact: 4 states;
No answer or uncertain: 13 states.
Efforts to inform citizens about toxic releases:
No impact: 15 states;
Negative impact: 22 states;
Positive impact: [empty];
No answer or uncertain: 13 states.
Community right-to-know:
No impact: 11 states;
Negative impact: 23 states;
Positive impact: 4 states;
No answer or uncertain: 12 states.
Total annual amount of the PBT chemical: Information available to the
public:
No impact: 19 states;
Negative impact: 17 states;
Positive impact: [empty];
No answer or uncertain: 14 states.
Efforts to protect the public:
No impact: 16 states;
Negative impact: 17 states;
Positive impact: 3 states;
No answer or uncertain: 14 states.
Efforts to inform citizens about toxic releases:
No impact: 19 states;
Negative impact: 15 states;
Positive impact: 2 states;
No answer or uncertain: 14 states.
Community right-to-know:
No impact: 15 states;
Negative impact: 19 states;
Positive impact: 3;
No answer or uncertain: 13 states.
Source: GAO.
Note: We provide complete wording of the survey questions and the
responses we received in a related electronic supplement (GAO-08-
129SP).
[End of figure]
Changes to the TRI Will Likely Do Little to Reduce Industry's Reporting
Burden:
EPA's rule is intended to reduce the burden on reporting facilities by
allowing more facilities to use Form A, but the agency's estimated
savings are likely overstated. EPA's projected savings are based on
calculations that use OMB-approved estimates of burden hours associated
with completing Form R and Form A, but these estimates are based on
outdated data. EPA's more recent "engineering estimates" suggest a
lower overall burden associated with current TRI reporting and,
consequently, lower burden savings from the new rule.
EPA Relied on Outdated Data and Questionable Assumptions to Calculate
Reporting Burden and Cost Savings:
In order to estimate the reduction in burden resulting from EPA's
changes to TRI reporting requirements, we started with the baseline
burden associated with current TRI reporting--that is, the amount of
time that facilities need to complete Form R and Form A. Using these
baseline estimates, cost savings are calculated by multiplying three
factors: (1) the difference in time needed to complete the two forms,
(2) the number of potentially eligible forms, and (3) the cost of
labor. However, EPA's baseline estimates rely on outdated, incomplete,
or uncertain data concerning the amount of time facilities need to
complete the forms. Therefore, the agency's derivative estimates of
burden reduction and cost savings are also unreliable.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA must submit its Form R and Form
A to OMB for review and approval as part of an Information Collection
Request (ICR). As part of the review process, EPA provided OMB with its
re-estimates of the amount of time that facilities need to complete the
two forms, including reductions in the estimated number of reports that
would be filed and the amount of time needed to complete each report.
Those estimates also reflected differences in the amount of time
facilities need to report PBT chemicals versus non-PBT chemicals and
differences in time needed for first-time filers versus subsequent-year
filers. The agency used these baseline burden estimates from its
current ICRs to determine cost savings from the TRI Burden Reduction
Rule.[Footnote 22] As shown in figure 8, EPA calculated that facilities
would save 15.5 hours for each PBT chemical submitted on Form A in lieu
of Form R and 9.1 hours for each non-PBT chemical.
Figure 8: Burden Savings for Each PBT Chemical and Non-PBT Chemical
Report:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical stacked bar graph. The vertical axis of the
graph represents hours from 0 to 60. The horizontal axis of the graph
represents Form R and Form A for PBT chemical savings and Non-PBT
chemical savings. The following data is depicted:
PBT chemical savings:
Form R, Form completion: 46.3 hours;
Form R, Recordkeeping and mailing: 5.0 hours;
Form A, Form completion: 32.9 hours;
Form A, Recordkeeping and mailing: 3.0 hours; Savings: 15.5 hours.
Non-PBT chemical savings:
Form R, Form completion: 24.6 hours;
Form R, Recordkeeping and mailing: 5.0 hours;
Form A, Form completion: 17.5 hours;
Form A, Recordkeeping and mailing: 3.0 hours; Savings: 9.1 hours.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Note: PBT chemical savings does not equal the difference between Form R
and Form A burden savings because of rounding in the constituent
estimates for recordkeeping and mailing or form completion.
[End of figure]
During OMB's review of EPA's ICR, it revised three of EPA's original
estimates without conducting an independent analysis of reporting
burdens. These revisions had the effect of significantly increasing
EPA's proposed re-estimated burden associated with TRI reporting, and
thus increasing the estimated burden reduction and cost savings from
the new rule. OMB revisions to EPA's re-estimates were the following:
* increasing the non-PBT chemical, Form R burden from 14.5 hours to
25.2 hours for subsequent-year filers,
* increasing the PBT chemical Form R burden from 14.5 hours to 47.1
hours for subsequent year filers, and;
* increasing Form A burden from 9.3 hours to 16.2 hours for subsequent-
year filers.
Taken together, OMB's revisions resulted in the estimated burden
savings being about 97,000 hours more than what they would have been if
the EPA re-estimates had been used.[Footnote 23] OMB's revisions to
these three estimates constituted approximately 78 percent of total
burden reduction from the new rule. In an agency memorandum, EPA raised
concerns prior to accepting the revisions and stated that EPA had only
agreed to them to obtain ICR clearance, which is required before the
agency can request facilities to complete their TRI forms.[Footnote 24]
OMB's revisions appeared to favor the use of older data, and
assumptions based on older data, despite the fact that more recent data
were available.
For the first revision, OMB increased EPA's proposed burden re-estimate
of the time needed to calculate and complete a Form R non-PBT chemical
for subsequent year filing from 14.5 hours to 25.2 hours. This revision
was based on a 1998 facility survey of 18 respondents that OMB believed
was the most recent data. However, EPA pointed out that more recent
data were available, including 17 observations from 2000 and 2001 and
99 additional observations from 2001. Furthermore, EPA advised OMB that
if the burden estimate had been based on all observations from 1998
onward, the average per form burden would decrease to 12.5
hours.[Footnote 25] Notwithstanding, the EPA memorandum stated, "OMB
did not like this result. Apparently, as with other recent initiatives,
OMB is outcome-oriented."
For the second revision, OMB increased EPA's proposed re-estimate of
the time needed to calculate and complete a Form R PBT chemical for
subsequent-year filing from 14.5 hours to 47.1 hours. According to
internal memorandum, EPA had requested approval for a lower burden on
the basis that PBT and non-PBT reporting are similar enough that the
same burden estimate should be used for both. OMB disagreed, according
to the memorandum, citing comments from trade associations that special
conditions of PBT reporting, namely not having an exemption for
reporting de minimis (very small or insignificant) amounts and not
being able to use range reporting, created a higher burden for PBT
reporting. EPA agreed to leave this estimate unchanged because
available data on reporting burdens was incomplete, (i.e., the data did
not specifically address whether reporting was for PBT or non-PBT
chemicals). Nevertheless, EPA expressed concern that using the OMB-
approved burden estimates would create the appearance of a rather large
relative difference in the reporting burden of a PBT chemical versus a
non-PBT chemical (47.1 hours vs. 25.2 hours), which the agency said was
not supported by the data. In addition, a team of experts disagreed
with OMB's position and stated that if overall differences do exist in
the reporting burden for PBT and non-PBT forms, the difference would
stem largely from compliance determination activities and not from form
completion.[Footnote 26]
For the third revision, OMB increased EPA's proposed re-estimate of the
time needed to complete a Form A for subsequent year filing from 9.3
hours to 16.2 hours. The OMB revision was based on the historical
assumption used since the form was created in 1994 that Form A
calculations take approximately 64 percent of the time of Form R
calculations. EPA accepted this change even though the agency stated in
its memorandum that the change was not supported by more recent data
from a 2002 survey of nine facilities that showed a much lower Form A
burden.[Footnote 27]
Other Analyses Indicate Actual Savings Could Be Much Less Than EPA
Estimated:
During the last TRI ICR renewal, EPA cited industry data indicating the
burden of current TRI reporting was lower than previously estimated.
Furthermore, while the total time for each major form-completion
activity was estimated in the ICR, it was not broken down by the
individual tasks (i.e., data elements) that comprise each activity. To
help develop more reliable baseline estimates of TRI burden, EPA
contracted for an engineering analysis of the time required to complete
a Form R, and the agency requested public comments on the results of
this analysis as part of the TRI Burden Reduction Proposed
Rule.[Footnote 28]
To get at the burden associated with each activity, the engineering
analysis divided the Form R into item-specific tasks. Then, the
analysis calculated the total realistic burden for the specific
activity under consideration by adjusting the total time for each
activity by combining the time required to complete each task with the
percentage of time individual tasks are typically completed.[Footnote
29] As shown in table 2, the burden estimates from the engineering
analyses are substantially lower than the current OMB-approved
estimates.
Table 2: Comparison of Average Annual TRI Burden Estimates by Activity:
OMB-approved Versus Engineering Analysis:
Category: Facility level;
Activity: Compliance determination--all facilities;
OMB-approved (hours): 4;
EPA engineering analysis (hours): 2.5;
Difference (percentage): -37.5.
Category: Facility level;
Activity: Rule familiarization--first-time filers;
OMB-approved (hours): 34.5;
EPA engineering analysis (hours): 23.5;
Difference (percentage): Category: -31.9.
Category: Facility level;
Activity: Rule familiarization--subsequent-year filers;
OMB-approved (hours): n/a;
EPA engineering analysis (hours): 5.6;
Difference (percentage): Category: n/a.
Category: Facility level;
Activity: Supplier notification;
OMB-approved (hours): 24;
EPA engineering analysis (hours): 24;
Difference (percentage): 0.
Category: Per Form R;
Activity: Calculations and report completion--first-time filers--PBTs;
OMB-approved (hours): 66.8;
EPA engineering analysis (hours): 7.5;
Difference (percentage): -88.8.
Category: Per Form R;
Activity: Calculations and report completion--first-time filers--non-
PBTs;
OMB-approved (hours): 67.6;
EPA engineering analysis (hours): 9.5;
Difference (percentage): -85.9.
Category: Per Form R;
Activity: Calculations and report completion--subsequent year filers--
PBTs;
OMB-approved (hours): 46.3;
EPA engineering analysis (hours): 5.9;
Difference (percentage): Category: -87.3.
Category: Per Form R;
Activity: Calculations and report completion--subsequent year filers--
non-PBTs;
OMB-approved (hours): 24.6;
EPA engineering analysis (hours): 7.0;
Difference (percentage): -71.5.
Category: Per Form R;
Activity: Recordkeeping/submission--all filers;
OMB-approved (hours): 5;
EPA engineering analysis (hours): 5;
Difference (percentage): 0.0.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA & Abt Associates, Inc. Burden Estimates.
Note: Both sets of estimates have been adjusted to account for burden
savings associated with the TRI Reporting Forms Modification Rule.
[End of table]
For example, the OMB-approved Form R burden for calculations and report
completion of subsequent year PBT and non-PBT chemicals are 46.3 and
24.6 hours, respectively. Under the engineering estimates, Form R
estimates for PBT chemicals are reduced to 5.9 hours (a reduction of
about 87 percent) and for non-PBT chemicals to 7.0 hours (a reduction
of about 72 percent). According to the proposed rule, if these
estimates had been used, burden reduction would have been about three-
fourths (75 percent) of what was estimated using the OMB-approved
reporting burden estimates.
In addition to its engineering analysis, EPA also sought public
comments on purported burden savings. Overall, EPA received thousands
of public comments on the TRI Burden Reduction Proposed Rule, some of
which commented on burden reduction or cost savings estimates.[Footnote
30] In general, comments were quite diverse: some stated that the
savings were meaningful, while others said that they were either too
high or not needed. Some expressed concern with the accuracy of the
savings estimate or said that it did not take into account other burden
reduction actions while others mentioned that the new rule offered
little or no savings. For example, eight commenters supported EPA's
decision to extend Form A reporting for PBT chemicals because of the
helpful burden reduction for facilities that have zero chemical
releases, but five expressed general opposition to it because it
provided minimum burden reduction and did not justify the loss in
publicly available data. An official from the South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control, for example, pointed out that
increases in the number of electronic filings are achieving real burden
reduction and that EPA's burden reduction estimates do not take this
into account. Four commenters stated that the burden reduction cost
savings estimates were too high. Fifteen commented that the current
requirements to complete a Form R in lieu of a Form A were not a
significant burden on industry. Three commenters stated that they work
for, or had worked for, facilities that submit Form Rs; did not find
the current requirements burdensome; and found that reporting helped
facilities keep track of plant operations. Others commented that the
reporting burden is insignificant if compared with the value of the TRI
data to a wide range of stakeholders, and the pollution reductions that
have resulted. However, the National Mining Association,[Footnote 31]
whose members have consistently reported the largest numbers of TRI
releases, commented that the proposed rule affords little or no benefit
for the metal and coal mining sectors, which tend to release chemicals
in excess of the Form A thresholds.
In response to these comments, EPA agreed that savings may not
represent a significant amount for all eligible facilities but
disagreed that expanded Form A eligibility would not provide burden
relief. The agency believes that the proposed rule might provide
meaningful burden relief for some reporters, such as small facilities.
EPA also agreed that increases in electronic filing are achieving
burden reduction and that the agency's burden reduction estimates do
not take these savings into account and thus the agency's estimates of
the cost savings associated with the rule could be overstated.
Other EPA Efforts Have Provided More Burden Relief without Affecting
the TRI:
While the wide range of comments submitted to EPA suggests that there
may be some uncertainty about the precise extent of burden reduction
offered by EPA's changes, there is considerably more certainty that the
burden reduction benefits of the changes are relatively small compared
with other initiatives. Throughout the history of the TRI program, EPA
has implemented measures to reduce the regulated community's reporting
burden and still maintain the public's access to information consistent
with the purpose of the TRI program. Through a range of compliance
assistance activities, such as the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
Reporting Forms and Instructions (which is updated every year),
industry training workshops, chemical-specific and industry-specific
guidance documents, and the TRI Information Center (with a telephone
hotline), we believe the agency has shown a commitment to enhancing the
quality and consistency of reporting and assisting those facilities
that must comply with EPCRA section 313. In addition, EPA has made
considerable progress in reducing the TRI reporting burden through
technology-based processes.
Beginning with Reporting Year 2001, EPA provided TRI-ME to help
facilities determine their TRI obligations and complete their TRI
forms. TRI-ME leads prospective reporters interactively through a
series of questions that eliminate a good portion of the analysis
required to determine whether a facility must comply with the TRI
reporting requirements, and it includes threshold calculations needed
to determine Form A eligibility. If TRI-ME determines that a facility
is required to report, the software provides guidance for each of the
data elements on the reporting forms. The software also provides an
integrated assistance library with detailed guidance for each step.
Prior to submission, TRI-ME performs a series of validation checks
before the facility prints the forms for mailing, transfers the data to
CD-ROM, or submits the information electronically over the Internet.
According to EPA, since the release of TRI-ME, there has been an
estimated 15 percent reduction in burden-hours for facilities certain
activities associated with completing TRI forms[Footnote 32]--
approximately twice the annual cost savings resulting from the new
Burden Reduction Rule.[Footnote 33]
Moreover, TRI-ME has no adverse impact on the amount of information
submitted to the TRI and has likely improved the overall quality and
timeliness of the data, according to TRI program officials. Similarly,
other technology-based processes, including (1) EPA's Central Data
Exchange for form submission and (2) the population of data fields with
data submitted through other EPA programs have reduced the time, cost,
and complexity of existing environmental reporting requirements, while
enhancing reporting effectiveness and efficiency and continuing to
provide useful information to the public that fulfills the purposes of
the TRI program. At the same time, these efficiencies were not
accounted for in EPA's official estimates of TRI reporting burden as
approved by OMB. EPA has stated that the availability of TRI-ME
reporting software is likely to assist and streamline the reporting
process--which could mean that the estimated burden of current Form R
reporting that EPA used in developing the new rule were overstated. If
this is the case, then the agency's estimated cost savings associated
with the rule would likewise be overstated.
Congressional Interest and Actions to Reverse EPA's Changes:
Members of Congress have expressed interest in EPA's changes to the TRI
by writing letters to the EPA Administrator, holding hearings, and
introducing legislation. In November 2005, a bipartisan group of
Senators wrote to the Administrator with serious concerns about EPA's
actions and analyses and to request additional data analysis from the
agency. In January 2006, the same day that public comments closed for
the rule, members of the House of Representatives wrote to the
Administrator expressing similar, serious concerns that EPA's changes
would undermine the ability of local communities to take actions to
protect themselves from exposure to toxic chemicals. Meanwhile, EPA
continued to develop its final TRI Burden Reduction Rule.
Responding to these congressional concerns, on December 22, 2006, the
Administrator announced the decision to maintain annual reporting for
the TRI and not pursue any changes in reporting frequency. However, EPA
also finalized the TRI Burden Reduction Rule the same day. The first
reports using the revised reporting requirements were due on or before
July 1, 2007, for reporting year (i.e., calendar year) 2006.
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works subsequently held
a hearing to consider, among other things, the impact of the TRI Burden
Reduction Rule and other EPA decisions affecting public right-to-
know.[Footnote 34] Soon thereafter, the Toxic Right-To-Know Protection
Act was introduced to effectively repeal EPA's Burden Reduction Rule
and prevent future consideration of alternate year reporting.[Footnote
35] Specifically, the bill would amend EPCRA (1) requiring 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 36] and (3) release
provisions allowing the Administrator of EPA to modify the frequency of
toxic chemical release reporting. Similar legislation has been
introduced in the House of Representatives,[Footnote 37] which recently
held a hearing to consider it.[Footnote 38] At that hearing, we
testified that based on our analysis, 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
would, in turn, impact communities' ability to assess environmental
justice and other issues.[Footnote 39]
Conclusions:
To improve the prospects for successful regulations, EPA's Action
Development Process seeks to ensure that scientific, economic, and
policy issues are adequately addressed at the appropriate stages of
regulations development and to ensure adequate stakeholder
participation across EPA's offices. However, EPA did not follow the
process in key respects when developing the TRI Burden Reduction Rule,
leading to a proposed rule whose projected costs and benefits were not
adequately analyzed or reviewed in accordance with that process. EPA
deviated from its process, in part, because of pressure from OMB to
provide significant burden reduction by the end of 2006. In response to
overwhelmingly negative public comments, EPA modified the proposed
expansion of Form A eligibility by capping allowable releases of non-
PBT chemicals at 2,000 pounds.
However, we believe that EPA did not adequately address the analytical
concerns we raised with its proposed rule in the supporting analyses
the agency completed for the final rule. In particular, despite the TRI
rule's stated purpose--"to reduce burden while continuing to provide
valuable information to the public"--EPA did not adequately weigh the
benefits provided to facilities against the reduction in information
available about toxic chemical releases to affected communities. As a
result, the final rule has been widely criticized by TRI users for
curtailing key information about the release of toxic chemicals, and by
the regulated community as providing insufficient burden relief. Hence,
the rule provides neither meaningful burden reduction nor sufficient
information to the public. This outcome contrasts sharply with
previous, openly conceived TRI burden reduction efforts that have
achieved substantial burden reduction without reducing information to
TRI users.
Accordingly, we believe reexamination of the benefits and costs to
ensure that the changes to TRI fully reflect the considered judgment of
EPA staff as provided for in the Action Development Process could help
to avoid similarly problematic outcomes in the future, while ensuring
the credibility and effectiveness of future TRI rulemakings. In
addition, congressional committees of jurisdiction currently have
pending bills that would effectively repeal EPA's rule by capping the
eligibility threshold for Form A at 500 pounds for non-PBT chemicals
and prohibiting use of Form A for PBT chemicals.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In commenting on a draft of this report, EPA's Assistant Administrator
for Environmental Information and Chief Information Officer disagreed
with our recommendation that EPA perform sufficient analyses to support
the rule. Specifically, we had recommended that the Administrator of
EPA thoroughly evaluate the costs and benefits anticipated to
communities and reporting industries from increased use of TRI Form A
and, based on this evaluation, make a determination as to whether it
would reconsider the TRI rulemaking. We further recommended that EPA
submit a report of its findings and determination to relevant
congressional committees within 30 days so as to inform congressional
deliberation on proposed legislation.
EPA's letter stated that the agency "believes fully that all
appropriate and necessary analyses were conducted — in the context of
the full rulemaking process." EPA also noted that the December 2006 TRI
rule put into place important incentives to reduce chemical releases by
permitting additional facilities to use Form A. However, we continue to
believe that EPA did not adequately substantiate its assertion that the
rule provides such incentives, among other assertions that the agency
made in the proposed and final rules. Moreover, if TRI is, as EPA
noted, the cornerstone of its environmental information programs--
allowing local citizens and governments to hold facilities accountable
for how they manage toxic chemicals--then reducing the amount of
information that those facilities must disclose would provide less
accountability for facilities to reduce emissions resulting from
manufacturing, processing, and using toxic chemicals. Hence, it is
unclear how EPA's course of action would improve, rather than hinder,
facilities' overall environmental performance. Because EPA did not
agree with the need to implement our recommendations, and given ongoing
congressional interest and pending actions to address EPA's TRI Burden
Reduction Rule, we have included a matter for consideration by the
Congress. EPA's letter and our detailed response to it are contained in
appendix IV. EPA also provided technical comments, which we have
incorporated into this report as appropriate.
In commenting on excerpts from a draft of this report, OMB's Deputy
Administrator of Information and Regulatory Affairs raised three
concerns regarding our characterization of OMB's activities under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and Executive Order 12866. The first two,
closely-related concerns pertained to OMB's activities in reviewing the
burden estimates for the TRI information collection (i.e., Form R and
Form A) under the PRA. Specifically OMB felt that the excerpts did not
provide the necessary context, or a complete and balanced presentation,
that would enable the reader to understand OMB's successive
interactions with EPA on its approval of EPA's collection of
information for the TRI. The OMB-related excerpts that we provided to
OMB were taken from the draft report, as a whole. Given that we did not
evaluate an OMB program or make a recommendation to OMB, we believe
that our report provides the necessary context for the reader to
understand EPA's actions, and OMB's related role, with regard to recent
changes to the TRI reporting requirements. In its third concern, OMB
states that the excerpts do not provide a complete and balanced
presentation of the facts with regard to EPA's decision to include an
option for raising the Form A eligibility threshold in the TRI Burden
Reduction Rule. Specifically, OMB provided additional details about the
development of the TRI Burden Reduction Rule not included in the OMB-
related excerpts that we provided for its review. We acknowledge OMB's
concerns and have made minor changes in the report as appropriate;
however, OMB did not provide new information that changes our findings,
conclusions, or recommendations. We believe that the report, taken in
its entirety, provides a fair, balanced, and complete understanding of
EPA's development of the TRI rule. OMB's letter and our detailed
response to it are contained in appendix V.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Because EPA did not agree to our recommendation that it sufficiently
analyze the costs and benefits of increased use of TRI Form A, we
suggest that the Congress consider taking appropriate actions to
address concerns about reduced environmental information available to
many communities. Specifically, unless EPA provides the Congress with
such an analysis within 30 days of the public release of this report,
the Congress may wish to consider enacting legislation, including bills
already introduced, that would reverse EPA's expansion of TRI Form A
eligibility for certain facilities and chemicals.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the appropriate congressional committees. We are also sending this
report to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. We
will also make copies available to others on request. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix VI.
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
We assessed (1) how federal users, the states, and the public use
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data, (2) the extent to which the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considered the views of internal
and external stakeholders in developing its burden reduction proposal,
(3) the impact of reporting changes on information available to the
public, and (4) the likely burden reduction that reporting facilities
could receive from the reporting changes.
To address the four main objectives, we analyzed documents, including
stakeholder comments in the Federal Register about the proposed rule
change, those pertaining to the development of rule change, EPA's
report on stakeholder uses of the TRI, annual TRI reports, and EPA
guidance for facilities reporting to the TRI. In addition, we
interviewed EPA officials, industry representatives, officials from
nongovernmental organizations (NGO), and state TRI contacts. We also
attended the annual TRI Data Users' Conference in February 2007.
To respond to the first objective, how federal users, the states, and
the public use the TRI, we reviewed documentation from EPA, states,
nongovernmental agencies, and industries/businesses about their uses of
TRI data. We also interviewed EPA officials from program offices that
use TRI data, and officials from certain NGOs, industries, and states.
We selected officials from the NGOs and industries based on their
previous involvement with conducting TRI data analyses, attending EPA-
sponsored TRI stakeholder meetings, and comments they submitted to the
Federal Register regarding the TRI. We selected state officials from
New Jersey and Massachusetts for interviews because those states have
laws that require facilities to submit additional data about their
toxic chemical usage.
We obtained further information from states through our state survey
that we administered to TRI contacts in all states and the District of
Columbia. While developing the survey, we conducted pretests over the
phone with state contacts from five states. Based on these pretests, we
made revisions to the survey and found that not all individuals listed
by EPA as TRI contacts had sufficient expertise to complete each survey
section. We sent an introductory presurvey to all respondents so that
they could indicate whether they were the most knowledgeable person in
their state to answer the main survey sections. In 10 states, two or
more individuals were identified as most knowledgeable for a given
survey section. We administered this survey with a self-administered
electronic questionnaire sent in e-mails on January 4, 2006.
The survey asked respondents to indicate, in the first section, the
types of activities for which the state uses the TRI, whether
facilities are required to pay fees when submitting TRI reports and, if
so, factors used to calculate those fees. In the second section, the
survey asked respondents to indicate specific actions the state took to
help facilities comply with TRI reporting requirements and actions they
took to enforce reporting requirements. In the third section, the
survey asked respondents to indicate information about number of state
employees who work on TRI-related activities, the amount of the state
TRI program budget, and sources of funding for the budget. In the
fourth section, the survey asked respondents to indicate whether the
state requires facilities to submit additional data not required under
national TRI reporting requirements, the status of the state's
involvement with EPA's Central Data Exchange, and ways that the state
makes TRI data available to the public. And in the fifth, and final,
section, the survey asked respondents to indicate the likely impact of
the proposed rule, their satisfaction with TRI-related communication,
and actions EPA could take to improve the TRI. In some cases, we asked
survey respondents additional questions via e-mail and telephone. For
the 10 states that had multiple contacts, we sent a follow-up e-mail
with a copy of their surveys to ensure that they concurred with each
other's answers. We closed the survey on February 12, 2007, after the
51st state responded, thus making our response rate 100 percent. This
report does not contain all the results from the survey. The survey and
a more complete tabulation of the results can be viewed at GAO-08-
129SP.
To respond to the second objective, the extent to which EPA considered
the views of internal and external stakeholders in developing its
burden reduction proposal, we reviewed documents related to the
stakeholder process EPA used to help identify possible burden reduction
options. We also interviewed EPA officials who were on the TRI
workgroup that developed the final rule and reviewed internal EPA
documents that detailed the workgroup's processes and decisions. In
addition, we interviewed knowledgeable Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) officials about their office's role in the TRI rule-making
process and Information Collection Request proposals. Finally, we
reviewed the public comments submitted in response to EPA's proposed
rule.
To respond to the third objective, the impact of reporting changes on
information available to the public, we conducted our analyses using
2005 TRI data, the most current available data. We performed a
reliability assessment of the data we obtained from EPA and determined
that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
report. To understand the potential impact of EPA's changes to TRI
reporting requirements at the local level, we used 2005 TRI data to
estimate the number of Form Rs that would no longer have to be
submitted in each state and the impact this would have on data about
specific chemicals and facilities. We provide estimates of these
impacts, by state, in appendix III.
To respond to the fourth objective, the likely burden reduction that
reporting facilities could receive from reporting changes, we reviewed
the proposed and final TRI Burden Reduction Rules that expanded
eligibility for using Form A Certification Statement in lieu of the
more detailed Form R by TRI facilities submitting required annual
reports on releases and other waste management. We also reviewed EPA's
economic analysis of the costs and impacts of the expanded eligibility
for Form A, as well as other relevant documents, and interviewed EPA
officials about the burden reduction savings analysis.
We conducted our work from August 2006 to September 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Estimates of the Impact of Reporting Changes on the
TRI:
We analyzed 2005 TRI data provided by EPA to estimate the number of
Form Rs that could no longer be reported in each state and determine
the possible impacts that this could have on data about specific
chemicals and facilities. Table 3 provides our estimates of the total
number of Form Rs eligible to convert to Form A, including the
percentage of total Form Rs submitted by facilities in each
state.[Footnote 40] 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 percentage of total chemicals
reported in each state. The last two columns provide our estimates for
the number of facilities that would no longer have to provide
quantitative information about their chemical releases and waste
management practices, including the percentage of total facilities
reporting in each state.
Table 3: Estimated Impact of TRI Reporting Changes on Number of Form
Rs, Chemicals, and Facilities, by State:
State: AK;
Form Rs: Number: 59;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 36.6;
Chemicals: Number: 8;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 17.0;
Facilities: Number: 5;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 15.6.
State: AL;
Form Rs: Number: 456;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 22.0;
Chemicals: Number: 34;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 17.1;
Facilities: Number: 69;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 12.9.
State: AR;
Form Rs: Number: 247;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 17.7;
Chemicals: Number: 18;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 5.8;
Facilities: Number: 39;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 11.0.
State: AZ;
Form Rs: Number: 221;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 27.7;
Chemicals: Number: 12;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 10.8;
Facilities: Number: 50;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 15.0.
State: CA;
Form Rs: Number: 1,533;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 37.5;
Chemicals: Number: 36;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 18.2;
Facilities: Number: 302;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 19.9.
State: CO;
Form Rs: Number: 162;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 25.8;
Chemicals: Number: 11;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 11.1;
Facilities: Number: 51;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 21.8.
State: CT;
Form Rs: Number: 299;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 33.5;
Chemicals: Number: 16;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 15.4;
Facilities: Number: 73;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 20.6.
State: DC;
Form Rs: Number: 4;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 28.6;
Chemicals: Number: 2;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 18.2;
Facilities: Number: 2;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 28.6.
State: DE;
Form Rs: Number: 80;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 27.7;
Chemicals: Number: 24;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 23.3;
Facilities: Number: 10;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 14.1.
State: FL;
Form Rs: Number: 479;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 27.4;
Chemicals: Number: 19;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 13.2;
Facilities: Number: 119;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 17.2.
State: GA;
Form Rs: Number: 678;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 30.9;
Chemicals: Number: 60;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 29.1;
Facilities: Number: 132;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 16.7.
State: HI;
Form Rs: Number: 67;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 37.9;
Chemicals: Number: 12;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 26.1;
Facilities: Number: 9;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 23.1.
State: IA;
Form Rs: Number: 371;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 27.7;
Chemicals: Number: 34;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 22.2;
Facilities: Number: 46;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 10.6.
State: ID;
Form Rs: Number: 41;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 14.4;
Chemicals: Number: 8;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 10.4;
Facilities: Number: 8;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 7.3.
State: IL;
Form Rs: Number: 1,155;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 30.0;
Chemicals: Number: 37;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 16.4;
Facilities: Number: 171;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 14.3.
State: IN;
Form Rs: Number: 900;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 25.6;
Chemicals: Number: 29;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 14.6;
Facilities: Number: 143;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 14.4.
State: KS;
Form Rs: Number: 291;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 28.3;
Chemicals: Number: 23;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 16.0;
Facilities: Number: 41;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 14.0.
State: KY;
Form Rs: Number: 490;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 25.7;
Chemicals: Number: 28;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 15.3;
Facilities: Number: 63;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 13.4.
State: LA;
Form Rs: Number: 665;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 25.6;
Chemicals: Number: 34;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 13.1;
Facilities: Number: 46;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 12.4.
State: MA;
Form Rs: Number: 574;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 38.0;
Chemicals: Number: 23;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 20.4;
Facilities: Number: 119;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 20.1.
State: MD;
Form Rs: Number: 221;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 32.6;
Chemicals: Number: 24;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 22.6;
Facilities: Number: 34;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 16.6.
State: ME;
Form Rs: Number: 105;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 26.1;
Chemicals: Number: 8;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 11.3;
Facilities: Number: 14;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 13.7.
State: MI;
Form Rs: Number: 965;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 29.7;
Chemicals: Number: 36;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 19.0;
Facilities: Number: 145;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 16.1.
State: MN;
Form Rs: Number: 263;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 21.0;
Chemicals: Number: 20;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 15.4;
Facilities: Number: 55;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 11.5.
State: MO;
Form Rs: Number: 498;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 27.3;
Chemicals: Number: 43;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 21.7;
Facilities: Number: 80;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 14.2.
State: MS;
Form Rs: Number: 265;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 25.0;
Chemicals: Number: 29;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 18.7;
Facilities: Number: 37;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 11.8.
State: MT;
Form Rs: Number: 61;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 21.8;
Chemicals: Number: 10;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 13.5;
Facilities: Number: 7;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 15.2.
State: NC;
Form Rs: Number: 705;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 30.1;
Chemicals: Number: 43;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 24.9;
Facilities: Number: 148;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 17.8.
State: ND;
Form Rs: Number: 29;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 13.8;
Chemicals: Number: 7;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 11.5;
Facilities: Number: 6;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 12.5.
State: NE;
Form Rs: Number: 116;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 20.3;
Chemicals: Number: 11;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 7.9;
Facilities: Number: 24;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 12.9.
State: NH;
Form Rs: Number: 98;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 29.1;
Chemicals: Number: 13;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 17.3;
Facilities: Number: 23;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 16.1.
State: NJ;
Form Rs: Number: 582;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 35.1;
Chemicals: Number: 34;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 16.0;
Facilities: Number: 101;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 19.3.
State: NM;
Form Rs: Number: 96;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 29.2;
Chemicals: Number: 11;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 15.3;
Facilities: Number: 15;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 19.2.
State: NV;
Form Rs: Number: 96;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 21.2;
Chemicals: Number: 14;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 18.9;
Facilities: Number: 19;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 14.3.
State: NY;
Form Rs: Number: 663;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 31.8;
Chemicals: Number: 33;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 19.1;
Facilities: Number: 122;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 17.2.
State: OH;
Form Rs: Number: 1,557;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 28.5;
Chemicals: Number: 38;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 12.6;
Facilities: Number: 218;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 13.8.
State: OK;
Form Rs: Number: 273;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 26.1;
Chemicals: Number: 30;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 23.3;
Facilities: Number: 50;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 15.2.
State: OR;
Form Rs: Number: 236;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 28.6;
Chemicals: Number: 16;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 15.5;
Facilities: Number: 47;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 15.5.
State: PA;
Form Rs: Number: 1,253;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 29.9;
Chemicals: Number: 30;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 15.2;
Facilities: Number: 192;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 14.9.
State: RI;
Form Rs: Number: 112;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 39.3;
Chemicals: Number: 12;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 17.4;
Facilities: Number: 30;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 23.4.
State: SC;
Form Rs: Number: 596;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 29.0;
Chemicals: Number: 36;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 17.6;
Facilities: Number: 78;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 15.0.
State: SD;
Form Rs: Number: 44;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 19.6;
Chemicals: Number: 3;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 5.8;
Facilities: Number: 10;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 10.5.
State: TN;
Form Rs: Number: 569;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 27.6;
Chemicals: Number: 40;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 20.9;
Facilities: Number: 105;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 16.2.
State: TX;
Form Rs: Number: 2196;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 30.6;
Chemicals: Number: 29;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 9.3;
Facilities: Number: 210;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 14.1.
State: UT;
Form Rs: Number: 146;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 19.9;
Chemicals: Number: 11;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 9.9;
Facilities: Number: 25;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 12.6.
State: VA;
Form Rs: Number: 401;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 25.2;
Chemicals: Number: 23;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 14.8;
Facilities: Number: 70;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 14.3.
State: VT;
Form Rs: Number: 25;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 27.2;
Chemicals: Number: 9;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 23.7;
Facilities: Number: 6;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 14.6.
State: WA;
Form Rs: Number: 276;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 26.4;
Chemicals: Number: 22;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 19.8;
Facilities: Number: 43;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 12.5.
State: WI;
Form Rs: Number: 692;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 25.4;
Chemicals: Number: 31;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 21.2;
Facilities: Number: 113;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 12.5.
State: WV;
Form Rs: Number: 222;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 22.8;
Chemicals: Number: 40;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 24.1;
Facilities: Number: 35;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 17.4.
State: WY;
Form Rs: Number: 60;
Form Rs: Percentage of total: 23.6;
Chemicals: Number: 9;
Chemicals: Percentage of total: 14.5;
Facilities: Number: 5;
Facilities: Percentage of total: 10.9.
State: Total;
Form Rs: Number: 22,193;
Facilities: Number: 3,565.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA 2005 TRI data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comparison of Information Collected on the Form R and the
Form A Certification Statement:
Facilities must submit a detailed Form R report for each designated
chemical that they manufactured, processed, and/or otherwise used 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 on-site to the air,
water, land, and injected underground, or transferred for disposal or
release off-site. According to EPA, Form A can be used by the public as
a "range report" because it indicates that the facility managed between
0 and 500 pounds of a PBT chemical as waste and had no releases or
other disposal quantities. For a non-PBT chemical, the Form A indicates
that a facility managed between 0 and 5,000 pounds of a chemical as
waste, of which no more than 2,000 pounds was released or otherwise
disposed. Table 4 provides details about the specific information that
facilities provide on the Form R and Form A.
Table 4: 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;
* Public contact name, telephone number;
* 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 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;
* 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 Am A: Source Reduction and Recycling Activities. Not reported on
Form A.
Sources: EPA TRI Form R and Form A Certification Statement.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Office Of Environmental Information:
Washington, D.C. 20460:
Internet Address (URL):
[hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov]:
October 4, 2007
Mr. John B. Stephenson:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment: United States Government
Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548:
RE: EPA Comments on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) draft
report to Congress entitled Toxic Chemical Releases: EPA Actions Could
Reduce Environmental Information Available to Many Communities (GAO-07-
880):
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
This letter provides the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) comments on GAO's draft report entitled Toxic Chemical
Releases: EPA Actions Could Reduce Environmental Information Available
to Many Communities (GAO-07-880). EPA appreciates the thorough and
thoughtful review GAO conducted as well as the opportunity to provide
comments on this draft report to Congress. EPA disagrees, however, with
a number of conclusions reached by GAO as well as with GAO's
recommendation that EPA report to Congress, within 30 days of the final
GAO report, providing a new evaluation of the costs and benefits
anticipated to communities and reporting industries from increased use
of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Form A and advising whether EPA will
revisit the rule.
Before addressing GAO's concerns about process, however, we emphasize
that the December 22, 2006 TRI rule put into place important incentives
to reduce chemical emissions and increase recycling and treatment as
alternatives to disposal and other releases. This rule does not excuse
any facilities from reporting to TRI. The only change in requirements
is that facilities are permitted to use the short form (Form A) if they
maintain releases and total wastes below levels set in the rule. With
these incentives the rule is an important part of EPA's strategy to
minimize releases of toxic chemicals across the United States. [See
comment 1]
As far as the rulemaking process is concerned, EPA disagrees with GAO's
conclusion that failure to follow internal guidelines for rulemaking
resulted in an inadequate consideration of the costs and benefits
associated with expanded Form A eligibility. EPA exercised discretion
provided within the Agency's Action Development Process (ADP) while
developing the proposed rule and the draft GAO report acknowledges that
senior EPA management has discretion to accelerate regulatory
development (p.12). Before EPA finalized expanded Form A eligibility
for both Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) chemicals and non-
PBT chemicals, EPA entertained extensive stakeholder participation and
completed a thorough evaluation of the uses of TRI data and associated
economic and policy issues. Consideration of expanding Form A
eligibility began in 2004, well before even the proposed rulemaking
commenced, with the posting of a white paper on the Internet and
consideration of hundreds of stakeholder comments on this as well as
other burden reduction options. [See comment 2]
We further note that expanded Form A eligibility under the December
2006 rule was based on all the analyses completed and considered as
part of the final rulemaking record. It is the full rulemaking record,
consisting of input received before proposal and during the public
comment period, as well as analyses by the Agency undertaken in
response to comments that is best reviewed to determine whether
adequate analyses were conducted before EPA issued the final rule. [See
comment 3]
EPA believes fully that all appropriate and necessary analyses were
conducted and would be happy to discuss this further with GAO in the
context of the full rulemaking process (proposal and final rule).
Please note, however, that the entire economic analysis, prepared based
on OMB-approved burden estimates for completing Form R and Form A, is
in the publicly-accessible docket for the final rule. It includes
analyses at the state, local, and facility levels (e.g., zip code and
facility analyses identifying areas/facilities which might receive/file
fewer or no Form Rs, and for which chemicals). These analyses enabled
EPA to more fully consider comments submitted on the proposed rule. In
fact, these analyses are similar to those undertaken by GAO for this
draft report, though GAO used 2005 TRI data, which were not available
at the time EPA conducted its analyses. (EPA used 2004 data for the
final rule analyses.) Between January 2006 and December 2006, EPA
carefully considered and evaluated with workgroup input the more than
100,000 comments submitted in response to the proposed rule and some of
these analyses were prepared during that process. [See comment 4]
Consideration of the final rulemaking supporting analyses and decision-
making is important when evaluating this EPA initiative. EPA in fact
modified provisions from the proposed rule after thoughtful
consideration of the thousands of comments received, most of them
voicing concern about the impacts to local communities from the loss of
detailed Form R information, especially detailed release information.
Specifically, EPA decided to modify the proposed expansion of Form A
eligibility for non-PBT chemicals to include a 2,000-pound cap on
releases. [See comment 5]
Another important consideration is that Form A provides useful
information. Aside from a brief footnote on page 31, GAO fails to make
clear in its report that in addition to providing information about the
facility and identifying the toxic chemical being submitted on Form A,
Form A also can be used by the public as a "range report," i.e., an
indication that the facility manages as waste between 0 and 500 pounds
of a PBT chemical and has no releases or other disposal, and for a non-
PBT chemical, the facility manages between 0 and 5,000 pounds of the
chemical as waste, of which no more than 2,000 pounds is released or
otherwise disposed. [See comment 6]
EPA issued a final rule to promote improvements in environmental
performance by providing incentives to reduce chemical emissions and to
increase recycling and treatment of chemicals, while minimizing the
loss of information to communities about toxic releases and pollution
prevention. As proposed and finalized, the TRI rule rewards facilities
that completely eliminate releases of the worst environmental
substances, PBT chemicals, by permitting such facilities to use the
shorter Form A, provided they do not exceed 500 pounds total for
recycling, energy recovery, and treatment. In response to commenters
concerns about 5,000 pounds of non-PBT releases being eligible for Form
A, EPA decided to limit expanded Form A eligibility for non-PBT
chemicals to those facilities that reduce or maintain releases to 2,000
pounds or less, provided their total waste does not exceed 5,000
pounds. The rule's limits on total waste quantities encourage pollution
prevention thereby promoting national policy under the Pollution
Prevention Act that pollution should be prevented or reduced at the
source whenever feasible. [See comment 7]
The final rule's potential for promoting improvements in environmental
performance is another reason EPA disagrees with GAO's recommendation
for a cost-benefit analysis within 30 days of the final report. EPA has
already performed analyses focused on the potential impacts of the rule
as finalized. These analyses have been placed in the publicly-
accessible docket for the rule. Another set of analyses focused on
potential impacts would be redundant with what EPA has already
undertaken. An analysis of actual results of the rule (i.e.,
information lost compared to environmental performance improvements
resulting from the final rule) would be meaningful but at this point in
time, premature. The rule was finalized in December 2006. Therefore, we
would not expect the effects of the new incentives to be reflected in
2006 reports (received by July 1, 2007). However, beginning with 2007
reports (due to EPA by July 1, 2008), EPA will evaluate the
effectiveness of expanded Form A eligibility in reducing releases and
promoting pollution prevention. As part of our evaluation of the
effectiveness of the rule's incentives to reduce releases and promote
pollution prevention EPA will continue to explore other ways to reduce
toxic chemical releases and encourage better waste management
practices. [See comment 8]
EPA values TRI as the cornerstone of successful environmental
information programs. The Agency will continue to demonstrate its
commitment to this information program through a range of compliance-
assistance activities (e.g., training workshops, guidance documents)
and technology-based enhancements (e.g., electronic reporting software
and Internet-based form submission) which improve the quality, utility,
and the timeliness of the TRI data. The TRI rule expanding Form A
eligibility represents yet another innovative approach by the Agency to
use TRI information to encourage facilities to reduce their emissions
and improve their environmental performance. [See comment 9]
If you would like to discuss these matters further, please contact me
at 202-564-6665 or your staff may contact Michael Petruska, Director of
the TRI Program Division at (202) 566-1686.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Molly A. O'Neill:
Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer:
The following are GAO's comments on the Environmental Protection
Agency's letter dated October 4, 2007.
GAO Comments:
1. We disagree with EPA's assertion that the TRI rule put into place
important incentives to reduce chemical emissions and increase the use
of alternatives to disposal and other releases. To the contrary, we
concluded that the rule may actually reduce the incentives for a
facility to prevent pollution by allowing up to 2,000 pounds of
releases for those chemicals--a quadrupling of the threshold.
Furthermore, as we show in appendix III, Form A provides no details
about a facility's efforts to increase use of alternatives such as
source reduction, recycling, or treatment of chemicals. We agree with
EPA's assertion that the only change in requirements is that facilities
are permitted to use the short form (Form A) if they maintain releases
and total wastes below levels set in the rule. Indeed, we described the
old and new Form A requirements in the first pages of this report.
However, we did not state or imply that any facilities would be excused
from submitting a TRI Form R or Form A under EPA's rule. Instead, our
analysis showed that thousands of facilities that previously filed Form
R may file Form A under the new levels. Given differences in the amount
and specificity of information on Form R and Form A, which we presented
in appendix III, we concluded that EPA's change could result in
significantly less information about toxic chemicals being reported to
communities around the country. For example, our analysis shows that
EPA's levels do not maintain any Form R reporting for certain
chemicals. Also, as we recently testified, the change appears likely to
disproportionately impact minority and low-income communities.[Footnote
41] Consequently, we believe that EPA's assertion about the change in
requirements, while technically correct, misrepresents the impact of
that change on the intended recipients of toxic chemical information
provided by the TRI.
2. We disagree with EPA's contention that it completed a thorough
evaluation of the uses of TRI data and the associated economic and
policy issues. Although EPA does have discretion to accelerate
regulatory development, we continue to believe that, in this instance,
the agency's acceleration of the rule relatively late in the
development process, coupled with pressure from OMB to provide burden
reduction at levels advocated by the Small Business Administration
(e.g., a 5,000 pound Form A threshold), resulted in a poorly analyzed
proposed rule that drew criticism from thousands of commenters. In
response to EPA's comment, however, we have added a sentence to clarify
that we considered in our review the results of EPA's stakeholder
process, which started well before the proposed rulemaking commenced.
In fact, that process began in November 2003 and concluded in February
2004, even earlier than EPA indicated in its letter. We also added a
sentence to make clear that EPA officially began its rule-making
process by approving the Action Initiation Form on March 30, 2004.
3. We agree with EPA's statement that the full rulemaking record is
best reviewed to determine whether adequate analyses were conducted
before EPA issued the final rule. Indeed, we reviewed all relevant
documentation in the record, and none of that material--including the
studies that EPA inserted into the record between the proposed and
final rules--addresses the shortcomings that we have identified in our
report. For example, EPA did not fully consider the impacts of the rule
on users and recipients of TRI data, including the states, which under
the law, receive TRI data directly from facilities. It is for this
reason that many commenters, including states and EPA's own Science
Advisory Board, objected to any increase in the Form A threshold
provided for in the proposed or final rules. EPA also did not
substantiate its assertion that the final TRI rule puts into place
important incentives to reduce chemical emissions and increase
recycling and treatment as alternatives to disposal and other releases.
If that claim is true, as EPA contends, then some analysis is warranted
to support it. Prior to the rule, a facility could use Form A if its
total waste management did not exceed 500 pounds. For example, a
facility could use Form A if it released 100 pounds of a non-PBT
chemical and treated an additional 400 pounds of the chemical for
disposal (i.e., a total annual reportable amount of no more than 500
pounds). Now, instead of treating the 400 pounds of chemical, that same
facility could simply release all 500 pounds and qualify for Form A.
EPA has not demonstrated in any analysis that the incentives to
decrease releases outweigh the incentives to increase releases of
chemicals.
4. We disagree that all appropriate and necessary analyses were
conducted for either the proposed or final rule. Contrary to EPA's
assertion, we considered the entire economic analysis that EPA included
in the publicly accessible docket for the final rule--in addition to
reviewing extensive internal documentation that is not publicly
available and conducting interviews with knowledgeable EPA staff to
clarify our understanding--regarding the rulemaking process. We do not
believe that any further discussion is necessary without analyses or
comments from its program offices that were not available in the
publicly-accessible docket or made available for our review. We also
considered the 122,000 public comments--99 percent of which did not
support the TRI rule--and EPA's analysis of them. GAO continues to
believe that EPA has not demonstrated that the costs of the TRI rule
exceed its benefits.
5. We considered the supporting analyses of the final rulemaking in our
evaluation. We clearly stated in our draft report that EPA decided to
modify the proposed expansion of Form A eligibility from 500 to 5,000
pounds of releases so that the final rule only allowed a fourfold
increase in releases (from 500 to 2,000) pounds within a 10-fold
increase in total waste management practices (from 500 to 5,000 pounds).
6. We have included additional explanation in the report to clarify
that EPA considers the Form A to be a range report indicating to the
public that a facility released between 0 and 2,000 pounds of a
chemical. At the same time, we note EPA's own statement in the final
rule that some facilities eligible for Form A continue to report on
Form R out of a desire to showcase their pollution prevention efforts
or to demonstrate good environmental stewardship. That is, some
facilities choose not to use Form A to avoid giving the impression that
their releases may have been as large as the range allows. For example,
a facility that released 100 pounds of a chemical may file Form R
because it does not want the public to assume its releases may have
been as high as 2,000 pounds.
7. We disagree that EPA has demonstrated that the rule provides
incentives to reduce chemical emissions while minimizing the loss of
information to communities about toxic releases and pollution
prevention, especially for non-PBT chemicals. In fact, we concluded
that the rule may actually reduce the incentives for a facility to
prevent pollution by allowing up to 2,000 pounds of releases for those
chemicals. Appendix III of this report shows that Form A provides no
details about a facility's efforts to increase source reduction,
recycling, or treatment of chemicals. Form A leaves the public to
assume that the facility is releasing between 0 and 2,000 pounds of a
chemical and is managing (e.g., recycling, treating) between 0 and
5,000 pounds of that chemical. With regard to EPA's comment that the
rule promotes national policy under the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990--it is unclear whether expanded use of Form A serves that policy.
The Congress declared in the Pollution Prevention Act that the national
policy of the United States is that (1) pollution should be prevented
or reduced at the source whenever feasible; (2) pollution that cannot
be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner,
whenever feasible; (3) pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled
should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible;
and (4) disposal or other release into the environment should be
employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an
environmentally safe manner. EPA apparently assumes that some
facilities will reduce the amount of toxic chemicals they release in
order to qualify for the new, higher Form A thresholds. However,
facilities that are presently below these thresholds could now increase
their releases of toxic chemicals without triggering the requirement to
file Form R. EPA provides no evidence that the higher Form A thresholds
will result in net source reduction. Therefore, we disagree that
increasing the amount of releases and other waste management allowed on
Form A supports national policy to prevent or reduce pollution at its
source.
8. We disagree that EPA has sufficiently supported its assertion that
the final rule promotes improvements in environmental performance. In
fact, only Form R allows facilities to showcase to the public their
improvements. In drafting our report, we reviewed all supporting
materials that EPA provided in the docket for the proposed and final
rules. Although an analysis of actual results of the rule would be
meaningful, we agree with EPA that it is premature. However, EPA could
have lent credibility to this assertion by providing an analysis to
determine whether, for example, whether introduction of Form A in 1995
led to improvements in facilities' environmental performance.
9. We disagree that requiring less information from many facilities
will encourage them to reduce emissions and improve their environmental
performance. As a general matter, EPA failed to establish that reducing
the amount of information that those facilities must disclose would
improve accountability for facilities to reduce emissions resulting
from their use of toxic chemicals. Also, as discussed above, EPA did
not explain the basis for its apparent belief that the incentives
provided by the new Form A threshold will result in a net reduction in
toxic chemical releases. Hence, it is unclear how EPA's course of
action would improve, rather than hinder, facilities' overall
environmental performance.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
Executive Office Of The President:
Office Of Management And Budget:
Washington, D. C. 20503:
October 30, 2007:
Mr. John B. Stephenson:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
This provides the comments of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
on the excerpts that you have provided to us from the General
Accounting Office's (GAO) draft report entitled, Toxic Chemical
Releases, EPA Actions Could Reduce Environmental Information Available
to Many Communities.
As explained below, we have serious concerns regarding how GAO has
characterized, in these excerpts, OMB's activities under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) and Executive Order (EO) 12866. Our concerns fall
into three areas.
I. The GAO excerpts do not provide the necessary context for properly
understanding OMB's role in reviewing the burden estimates for the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) information collection.
Our first concern with the GAO excerpts is that they do not provide the
necessary context (including an accurate and coherent chronology) that
would enable the reader to understand properly OMB's successive
interactions with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on,
initially, EPA's request that OMB renew our approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of EPA's collection of information for the TRI
and, subsequently, OMB's review under Executive Order 12866 of EPA's
draft proposed and final rules to amend EPA's TRI regulations. [See
comment 1]
As a result, the GAO excerpts suggest, erroneously, that OMB
"increased" the estimated paperwork burden for the TRI collection of
information (allegedly due to OMB's interest in influencing the burden
estimates in connection with EPA's subsequent proposed rule on TRI
burden reduction), when the fact is that OMB approved – in response to
EPA's request – a reduction of 59% in the estimated PRA burden for the
TRI collection. What the GAO excerpts describe as OMB's "increase" in
the burden estimate is OMB's decision to approve a 59% reduction in the
burden estimate, rather than the 73% reduction that EPA had requested.
We do not understand how GAO can describe OMB's decision to approve a
59% reduction in the PRA-approved burden estimate as OMB having
"increased" the burden estimate.
Here is the chronology. OMB's review of EPA's proposed downward re-
estimates of the paperwork burden took place during OMB's PRA reviews
of two successive EPA requests for renewal of OMB's approval for the
TRI collection of information. These PRA reviews took place in 2002 and
2003, which was a year and a half before there was discussion involving
OMB of any specific burden reductions proposals or estimates associated
with EPA's proposed rule on TRI burden reduction (which was published
in October 2005).
In the first of the two PRA reviews, EPA requested that the approved
burden estimate for the TRI collection be reduced by 73% (from the
previously-approved estimate of 10.257 million hours downward to 2.737
million hours). Not only would this be a very large reduction in the
previously-approved burden estimate, but it was not associated with any
change in the paperwork requirements of the TRI collection. In other
words, the requested burden-estimate reduction of 73% did not reflect
any actual real-world reduction in paperwork burden. Nevertheless,
based on OMB's review of EPA's burden re-estimate, OMB approved a
reduction of 41% in the burden estimate (a reduction of 4.227 million
hours). A primary reason OMB did not approve all of EPA's requested
reduction is that OMB was concerned that EPA's estimates did not appear
to account for all categories of burden, including time for data
tracking and assembly; creation, operation and maintenance of data
tracking systems; training; and compliance determinations. OMB
explained the basis for this determination in the public PRA file,
[Footnote 42] and OMB provided EPA with a 10-month approval so that EPA
and OMB could revisit again whether additional reductions in the burden
estimate were warranted. [See comment 2]
During that second PRA review, EPA again requested a further reduction
in the burden estimate, again with no associated reduction in the TRI
paperwork requirements. OMB ultimately agreed to a further reduction of
1.859 million hours.[Footnote 43] When combined with OMB's prior
approval of the 41% reduction, this represented OMB's approval of a
total reduction of 59% in the approved burden estimate, from the
original 2002 baseline of 10.257 million hours. Moreover, in approving
a 59% reduction, OMB had approved the lion's share (80%) of EPA's
original request for a 73% reduction in the burden estimate.
In addition, with respect to the engineering analysis that is discussed
in the excerpts, EPA did not present this information to OMB as part of
our PRA review, but instead later on – after OMB had renewed the PRA
approval for the TRI collection (and prior to the discussions and
review of EPA's proposed TRI rule). Therefore, when OMB – during its
PRA review – decided to accept most, but not all, of EPA's proposed
downward re-estimate of paperwork burden (as discussed above), OMB was
not rejecting the engineering analysis, for the obvious reason that EPA
had not yet presented that analysis to OMB for our consideration. [See
comment 3]
EPA presented the engineering analysis to OMB in the summer of 2004,
outside of the regular PRA approval process (in other words, EPA was
not requesting the downward re-estimate as part of a request for OMB to
renew the approval of the TRI collection). In response, OMB expressed
concerns about the merits of the engineering analysis and suggested to
EPA that it discuss the analysis in the preamble of the proposed TRI
burden-reduction rule the following year. EPA agreed with this
approach. [See comment 4]
In the preamble of the proposed rule, EPA described the engineering
analysis. In addition, EPA also indicated that, if EPA had used this
methodology as the baseline for estimating the burden reduction under
the proposed rule, the total burden reduction resulting from the
proposed rule would have been about three-fourths of the reduction as
estimated using the currently approved PRA-burden estimate as the
baseline.
Thus, neither OMB nor EPA concealed either the engineering analysis or
what the results would be if its methodology were used to estimate the
burden reductions that would occur under the proposed rule. EPA placed
in the public docket for the proposed rule both estimates of burden
reduction (the one using the current PRA-approved burden estimate and
the other using the engineering analysis), and EPA requested public
comment on both estimates. EPA also summarized, in the preamble, the
results of the independent peer review that EPA had arranged of the
engineering analysis:
The peer review panel was generally favorable to both the general
methodology used in the engineering analysis (summing across Form R
elements to derive total burden) and the specific form completion steps
described. However, the panel felt that the time allocated for many of
the tasks should be increased. The panel disagreed with the assumption
in the Agency's engineering analysis that a typical TRI reporting
facility was reasonably modern and well-organized. A majority of the
panel thought that EPA overestimated the experience and knowledge that
a typical TRI reporting facility would have in completing its Form R
and thus underestimated the time it would take to complete the Form.
[Footnote 44]
In response to the proposed rule, EPA received a number of comments on
the engineering analysis. The comments were mixed, with several
comments questioning the validity of its methodology and/or the lower
baseline burden estimates that would result from it. [Footnote 45]
After reviewing the public comments, EPA decided not to use the
methodology of the engineering analysis in estimating the burden
reduction that would result from the final rule.
II. The GAO excerpts do not provide a complete and balanced
presentation of OMB's review of the revised burden estimates that EPA
proposed.
Our second concern, closely related to the first, is that the GAO
excerpts do not provide a complete and balanced presentation of OMB's
actions in approving most, but not all, of the proposed downward re-
estimates that EPA had put forward for the paperwork burden that is
imposed by the TRI collection of information. [See comment 5]
As part of our responsibilities under the Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB
regularly reviews the re-estimates that agencies develop of the burdens
imposed by their paperwork requirements. Such re-estimates and reviews
are a normal part of the PRA process. That is because, under the PRA,
OMB's approval for a collection of information must be renewed at least
once every three years.
In this case, the downward re-estimate that EPA put forward, as part of
EPA's request for OMB's renewal of the PRA approval for the TRI
collection, were not associated with any actual change (i.e.,
reduction) in the paperwork requirements that are imposed by the TRI
collection. In other words, in PRA terminology, the re-estimate was not
associated with what we refer to as a "program change" (e.g., the
elimination of certain questions, or a reduction in the frequency of
reporting). Instead, EPA's re-estimate was just that – a change in
EPA's estimate of the burden that was imposed by the (unchanged) TRI
collection. In PRA terminology, we refer to such re-estimates as
"adjustments." As OMB has explained in its annual PRA report to
Congress (the "Information Collection Budget"), such adjustments can
occur due to demographic and economic factors (e.g., during a
recession, more people submit applications for unemployment benefits)
or due to an agency's reconsideration of the prior burden estimates
(e.g., because the agency has made a revision to its methodology for
estimating paperwork burden). The downward re-estimates that EPA put
forward for the TRI program included both types of "adjustments." That
is, EPA reduced its estimates of both the number of TRI reports that
would be filed and the time needed to complete each report.
Under the PRA, the preparation, review, and issuance of burden
estimates is not an end in itself. Instead, burden estimates are an
important part of the evaluation, which the PRA requires both the
agency and OMB to conduct, of whether the "practical utility" of a
proposed collection of information justifies the burden that the
collection would impose on the public. For this reason, the burden
estimates are most important when those estimates are associated with
an agency's proposal to adopt a new collection or to make changes in a
collection, such as by increasing – or decreasing – the reporting
requirements (i.e., when there is a proposed "program change"). In such
cases, the burden estimates are a key component in the evaluation, by
the agency and by OMB, of whether the new collection (or the collection
changes) should be proposed and approved. As noted above, EPA's request
for a downward re-estimate of 73% did not result from a "program
change" to the TRI collection, but instead was an "adjustment" based on
EPA's reconsideration of the prior PRA-approved burden estimate.
As we have explained above, OMB approved 80% of EPA's proposed downward
re-estimate (i.e., OMB approved a 59% reduction in the burden estimate,
in response to EPA's request for a 73% reduction). This fact is not at
all clear in the GAO excerpts. The excerpts describe the situation as
OMB having increased the burden estimate for the TRI collection, and
this is because the GAO excerpts use – as the operative "baseline" –
EPA's burden estimate under its proposed 73% downward re-estimate.
However, EPA's proposal is not the appropriate baseline to evaluate
OMB's actions, because that is not the baseline that OMB, properly,
applies under the PRA. Instead, the proper baseline is the estimate
that had been previously approved for the TRI collection (which
estimate EPA was proposing to reduce).
OMB approved most, but not all, of EPA's proposed burden re-estimate
for the following reason. In the case of an information collection that
is not being changed (as was the case with the TRI collection during
OMB's PRA review), the starting point for the analysis is, as it should
be, the collection's prior approved burden estimate. Re-estimates of
burden ” upward or downward ” are permitted, and do occur, but they
need to be explained and justified by reference to the prior approved
estimate. In the absence of such explanation and justification,
periodic re-estimates of burden could result in these estimates
becoming meaningless. Accordingly, OMB decided to accept most but not
all (i.e., 80%) of EPA's proposed downward re-estimate, because OMB had
concluded that EPA sufficiently demonstrated that the original 2002 PRA-
approved burden estimate should be reduced by 59%, but OMB was not
persuaded that the estimate should be reduced by 73%. OMB therefore
proceeded to approve EPA's request that OMB renew its approval for the
TRI collection, with the reduced burden estimate (reflecting the 59%
reduction in the burden estimate from the original 2002 PRA-approved
baseline). It should be noted that this did not mean that this would be
the "final" burden estimate. That is because EPA could request a
further re-estimate the next time that EPA submitted the proposed
collection to OMB for review and approval. In fact, that is what had
already happened in this case; OMB initially approved a 41% reduction
in the burden estimate, and OMB subsequently approved a further
reduction to the estimate, resulting in OMB having approved a total
reduction of 59% in the burden estimate.
III. The GAO excerpts do not provide the necessary context for properly
understanding EPA's decision to include an option for raising the Form
A eligibility threshold in the proposed TRI Burden Reduction Rule.
Our third concern with the GAO excerpts relates to their discussion of
OMB's role with respect to the inclusion, in EPA's proposed TRI rule,
of an option to raise the Form A eligibility threshold from 500 to
5,000 pounds. Again, we do not believe that the GAO excerpts provide a
complete and balanced presentation of the facts. [See comment 6]
As an initial matter, based on the GAO excerpts, one might conclude
(erroneously) that the option of raising the Form A eligibility
threshold was unheard of, and unanalyzed, before it was included in
EPA's draft of the proposed rule. That is definitely not the case. The
idea that one way to reduce TRI reporting burden would be by raising
the Form A eligibility threshold had been a topic of discussion ” both
within the Federal Government and between the Federal Government and
stakeholders ” for many years, in part because several prior EPA rule
makings had substantially increased the program's reporting burden.
In September 2002, EPA initiated a Stakeholder Dialogue process to
identify improvements to the TRI and to develop opportunities to reduce
the burden on reporting facilities. As part of that process, EPA issued
a White Paper with options for TRI burden reduction intended to
stimulate public comment. Option 3 in the White Paper was "Expanded
Eligibility for the Form A Certification Statement," which included a
discussion of raising the Form A eligibility threshold from 500 to
either 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 pounds,[Footnote 46] exactly the same
options discussed in the proposed burden reduction rule several years
later.
Moreover, the idea of raising the eligibility threshold had arisen in
another public forum, which was OMB's request in February 2004 for the
public to submit nominations for reducing regulatory burdens on the
manufacturing sector.[Footnote 47] In response to this request, OMB
received nominations for a wide variety of regulatory reforms, several
of which – including one from the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
Office of Advocacy – focused on the TRI program. [Footnote 48] (This
was not the first time that the TRI program had been the subject of a
reform nomination; the TRI program had also been nominated for reform
in response to each of OMB's requests for nominations going back to
2001. [Footnote 49]) One reform that the SBA Office of Advocacy
specifically suggested was "expanding the number of filers eligible to
use a `short form' annual form (Form A)." [Footnote 50] OMB and the
relevant regulatory agencies then reviewed the 189 different sets of
regulatory nominations. Based on that review, OMB and the regulatory
agencies mutually agreed to pursue 76 of these nominations, and the
agreed-upon course of action took various forms, such as the regulatory
agency conducting a review and reporting back to OMB or the agency
initiating a rulemaking.
OMB announced these 76 reforms in a report that OMB issued in March
2005, and one of these reforms (#52) involved "Reporting and Paperwork
Burden in the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Program." As the report did
for each of the 76 nominations, it summarized the comments that OMB had
received in support of reform of the TRI program: "The required TRI
database contains thousands of reports that show little or no release
of toxic chemicals, an indication that expensive and time-consuming
reports are required with little environmental benefit. Burden-
reduction reforms are needed such as raising the reporting thresholds
on the amount of material that can be used without triggering a report.
"[Footnote 51] The report then went on to outline the course of action
to which OMB and EPA had mutually agreed, which included EPA issuing a
proposed rule on TRI burden reduction in August 2005 and issuing the
final rule in December 2006.
Although it is not clear from the GAO excerpts, the March 2005 report
must be what the excerpts are discussing when the excerpts refer,
obliquely, to "EPA's commitment to OMB to provide burden reduction by
the end of December 2006." Yes, this was a commitment that EPA had made
to OMB, but this was also a commitment that EPA had made to itself and
to the public.
Thus, the idea of increasing the Form A eligibility threshold, and
EPA's commitment to issue a final burden-reduction rule by the end of
2006, were a matter of public knowledge. By failing to provide this
context (at least in the excerpts that we have received for review),
GAO does not present a complete and balanced picture of EPA's
development of the draft proposed rule.
Another context point, to which the GAO excerpts give insufficient
weight, is that the discussion in the excerpts focuses on EPA's
inclusion in the proposed rule of the option to increase the Form A
eligibility threshold. In other words, this is a discussion of an
option on which EPA was inviting public comment. Thus, by including
this option in the proposed rule, EPA was not making a final decision
to increase the eligibility threshold. Instead, EPA had decided that
the long-discussed idea of increasing the eligibility threshold was
serious enough to warrant inclusion in the proposed rule, so that this
option would be subject to public scrutiny and comment (both in favor
and against) that EPA would subsequently consider as it reviewed the
public comments and developed the final rule. [See comment 7]
We see nothing inappropriate about EPA including, in the proposed-rule,
an option ” namely, to increase the Form A eligibility threshold ” that
had long been a matter of policy discussion and that would be one
possible and logical way of reducing the reporting burden of the TRI
program. At the end of the day, what ultimately matters is the
decisions that a rulemaking agency makes in its final rules. In this
regard, courts review final rules; they do not review proposed rules.
And, when the courts review a final rule, they evaluate whether the
rulemaking agency has sufficiently justified the decisions that the
agency has made in the final rule (not whether the agency had
sufficiently justified, in the proposed rule, the agency's decision to
include the particular options on which the agency was requesting
public comment). Finally, we should note that, in its final rule on TRI
burden reduction, EPA did not adopt the threshold increase as it had
been proposed. Instead, in the final rule, EPA responded to the public
comments on the proposal by adopting a significantly different (and
smaller) increase in the eligibility threshold for releases to the
environment (2000 pounds), while keeping the threshold for chemicals
managed as waste at the proposed level of 5,000 pounds.
In conclusion, OMB takes seriously its responsibility under the
Paperwork Reduction Act to ensure the integrity of burden estimates.
OMB reviewed a series of requests by EPA to reduce its estimates of TRI
reporting burden, well before the development of specific options for
the proposed burden reduction rule, and OMB approved most, but not all,
of those estimated reductions. Contrary to the GAO excerpts, OMB's
approval of a very substantial (59%) reduction in the burden estimate
does not constitute OMB increasing the burden estimate. Moreover, with
respect to EPA's subsequent rulemaking on reducing TRI burden, there
was nothing inappropriate about EPA including in the proposed rule for
which EPA was requesting public comment the long-discussed concept of
increasing the Form A eligibility threshold. [See comment 8]
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the excerpts from the draft
GAO report. In order to correct the report, I request that your staff
incorporate these comments.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Kevin F. Neyland
Deputy Administrator:
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
Enclosures:
The following are GAO's comments on the Office of Management and
Budget's letter dated October 30, 2007.
GAO Comments:
1. We believe that the reader would be able to clearly understand OMB's
successive interactions with EPA on the agency's request that OMB renew
its approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) for EPA's
collection of information for the TRI. The report provides considerable
detail about the process used for estimating the baseline burden
associated with collecting TRI information on Form R versus Form A. We
provided that level of detail to help the reader understand that the
net burden savings associated with EPA's changes is derived from the
difference in burden estimates associated with each form. Nonetheless,
we reviewed the relevant sections of the report and clarified that the
reductions in TRI burden ultimately approved by OMB were smaller than
the EPA requested but not necessarily "increased" relative to prior OMB
information collection approvals.
2. We agree with OMB's assertion that EPA's request for a reduction in
the approved burden estimate for the TRI collection was not associated
with any change in the paperwork requirements of the TRI collection.
However, we disagree with OMB's assertion that the revision did not
reflect any "actual real-world reduction" in paperwork burden. In fact,
the request for reduction was based on EPA's evolving understanding of
the actual burden associated with reporting to the TRI based on best
available information that the agency had at the time. We note that
despite EPA's requests, OMB has not allowed EPA to contact more than 10
TRI facilities to develop its burden reduction estimates.
3. OMB's comments implied that the report stated that the office
rejected EPA's engineering analysis as part of a PRA review. The report
simply compares the lower burden estimates derived from EPA's
engineering analysis with the OMB-approved burden estimates for the TRI
information collection. The report neither states nor implies that OMB
rejected EPA's engineering analysis as part of an ICR. EPA staff
knowledgeable about the ICR process stated that OMB had expressed
concerns about the merits of the engineering analysis. When we met with
OMB staff who were knowledgeable about the engineering analysis, they
declined to provide details about the office's rationale on the grounds
that such information was related to internal deliberations and OMB
policy was to not discuss internal deliberations.
4. OMB stated that, as a result of concerns it raised, EPA decided to
discuss the engineering analysis in the proposed TRI Burden Reduction
Rule's preamble. OMB's comments also provided additional details about
the comments that EPA received from the public on its engineering
analysis. The excerpts that we provided to OMB did not include details
of EPA's engineering analysis, or the public comments pertaining to it,
because those details did not pertain to OMB's involvement in the TRI
rule. Therefore, OMB had no reason to know that our draft report
already included many of the details that OMB provided in its letter.
OMB further stated that "neither OMB nor EPA concealed either the
engineering analysis or what the results would be if its methodology
were used to estimate the burden reductions that would occur under the
proposed rule." Our report neither stated nor implied that OMB
concealed any information. However, as noted earlier, OMB chose to not
provide us with details about the office's concerns about the merits of
EPA's engineering analysis.
5. OMB's comments raised a concern that the report excerpts did not
provide a complete and balanced presentation of OMB's actions in
approving most, but not all, of the proposed downward re-estimates that
EPA requested in its TRI information collection. As we acknowledged
previously, OMB did not have the benefit of the complete draft report,
which provides context and balance. Specifically, none of the report's
three objectives focused on OMB programs or even OMB's role in the TRI
program. Nonetheless, to provide the reader with necessary context to
understand the complexity in estimating the baseline burden associated
with the TRI information collection requests (i.e., TRI Form R and Form
A), we discuss OMB's actions under the PRA in approving EPA's recent
TRI information collection requests. As we stated in an earlier
comment, we have reviewed the report to ensure that our presentation of
the facts clearly states that OMB did not approve all the reduction in
estimated burden that EPA had requested and to ensure that the
relatively smaller reduction is not construed as an increase in the
baseline. Nonetheless, we do not believe that the level of detail
provided by OMB's comments is proportional to the relative importance
of OMB's role in the context of our report's scope and objectives.
6. OMB stated its belief that the excerpts provided by GAO do not
provide a complete and balanced presentation of the facts associated
with OMB's role in the development of EPA's TRI Burden Reduction Rule.
OMB stated that one might erroneously conclude that the option of
raising the Form A eligibility threshold was unheard of, and
unanalyzed, before it was included in EPA's proposed rule. OMB stated
that was "definitely not the case." We agree, and the draft report
clearly states that we considered in our review the results of EPA's
stakeholder process, which started well before the proposed rulemaking
commenced. In fact, we state in the report that the TRI workgroup had
carefully analyzed and decided to eliminate the option to raise the
Form A eligibility threshold from its consideration, at an early step
in the rule development process, because of the option's potential
adverse impact on the TRI. Therefore, we do not agree that the reader
will erroneously conclude that the option was unheard of or unanalyzed.
Instead, we believe that the report as a whole provides the reader with
the context to understand when in the rule development process OMB's
preferred burden reduction option was identified, considered,
evaluated, dropped from further consideration, and ultimately picked up
again for inclusion in EPA's TRI Burden Reduction Rule.
7. OMB commented that it sees nothing inappropriate about EPA
including, in the proposed rule, an option to increase the Form A
eligibility threshold--that had long been a matter of policy
discussion. Although our report explains that the option was identified
well before the rulemaking process commenced, we do not believe that
the length of time the option was discussed has much bearing on its
appropriateness. Instead, our report focuses on the extent to which EPA
followed its internal rule development process, which is intended to
ensure that scientific, economic, and policy issues are adequately
addressed at the appropriate stages of rule development and to ensure
adequate stakeholder participation across EPA's offices until the final
action is completed. OMB further stated that "at the end of the day,
what ultimately matters is the decisions that a rulemaking agency makes
in its final rules." We agree. Accordingly, our report discusses that
EPA responded to the overwhelming negative public comments to its
proposed rule by raising the Form A threshold only 4-fold, rather than
10-fold, as EPA had proposed. Furthermore, our report evaluated the
impact that the final rule may have on the TRI, and we concluded that
EPA did not adequately address the analytical concerns we raised with
its proposed rule in the supporting analysis the agency completed for
the final rule [emphasis added]. Specifically, we found that despite
the EPA's statement of the rule's purpose--to reduce burden while
continuing to provide valuable information to the public--EPA did not
adequately weight the benefits provided to facilities against the
reduction in information available about toxic chemical releases to
affected communities.
8. OMB concludes its comments by stating its belief that there was
nothing inappropriate about EPA including in the proposed rule the long-
discussed concept of increasing the Form A eligibility threshold. Our
report does not assert that inclusion of that option was inappropriate.
Instead, we believe that EPA did not fully consider the true impacts
its TRI Burden Reduction Rule would have on environmental information
available to, and used by, many communities. In addition, we continue
to believe that burden reduction can be achieved in ways that do not
simultaneously reduce publicly-available information about use and
management of toxic chemicals in many communities across the United
States.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John Stephenson, (202) 512-3841, or stephensonj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Steven Elstein, Assistant
Director; Mark Braza; John Delicath; Karen Febey; Timothy Guinane;
Terrance Horner, Jr.; Richard Johnson; Alison O'Neill; Jennifer
Popovic; Steven Putansu; Kim Raheb; Michael Sagalow; and Jena Sinkfield
also made key contributions.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Specifically, the rule expanded non-PBT chemical eligibility for
Form A by raising the eligibility threshold to 5,000 pounds of total
annual waste management (i.e., releases, recycling, energy recovery,
and treatment for destruction) provided total annual releases of the
non-PBT chemical comprise no more than 2,000 pounds of the 5,000-pound
total waste management limit and provided the facility does not exceed
a one-million-pound manufacture, process, or otherwise use activity
threshold for the specific non-PBT chemical.
[2] Specifically, this rule allows the use of Form A for PBT chemicals,
except dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, when total annual releases of
a PBT chemical are zero and the total annual amount of the PBT chemical
recycled, combusted for energy, and treated for destruction does not
exceed 500 pounds provided the facility does not exceed a 1-million-
pound manufacture, process, or otherwise use activity threshold for the
specific PBT chemical.
[3] GAO, Environmental Information: EPA Actions Could Reduce the
Availability of Environmental Information to the Public, GAO-07-464T
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 6, 2007).
[4] EPA reporting guidance states that the information contained in the
Form R constitutes a "report," and the submission of a report to the
appropriate authorities constitutes "reporting."
[5] [hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov/tri].
[6] 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 recycling 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.
[7] In a November 28, 2006, letter to Senator Lautenberg, the EPA
Administrator announced that the agency had decided against moving
forward with any changes to TRI reporting frequency. The letter did not
specify EPA's reasons for abandoning the phase III initiative.
[8] Other types of actions that are covered by the guidance include
policy statements, risk assessments, guidance documents, or models that
may be used in future rulemakings.
[9] 44 U.S.C. § 3507(a).
[10] The Paperwork Reduction Act provides that no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide information
to any agency if the information collection request is invalid. 44
U.S.C. § 3512. However, this provision is inapplicable to information
explicitly required by statute, and accordingly does not relieve a
facility of its reporting duty under EPCRA even in the absence of a
valid TRI information collection request. Gossner Foods, Inc. v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 918 F.Supp. 359, 362-63 (D. Utah 1996).
[11] 44 U.S.C. § 3508.
[12] Throughout the remainder of our report, we refer to our survey of
state TRI coordinators simply as the survey of states. Unless otherwise
specified, our discussion includes responses from 51 coordinators from
the states and the District of Columbia.
[13] GAO, Toxic Chemical Releases: Survey of State Toxics Release
Inventory Coordinators, GAO-08-129SP (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 26, 2007).
[14] Form A essentially serves as a range report, revealing to the
public that the facility released between 0 and 5,000 pounds of a non-
PBT chemical.
[15] We estimated that approximately 11,700 new and 10,500 formerly-
eligible Form R reports could convert to Form A under EPA's increased
Form A thresholds.
[16] EPA cannot determine with certainty whether a facility exceeded
the 1 million pound threshold, because facilities are not required to
report quantities of a chemical that they manufactured, processed, or
otherwise used.
[17] According to EPA, Form A serves as a range report, informing the
public that a facility filing a Form A for a specific non-PBT chemical
has total annual releases of that chemical in the range of zero to
2,000 pounds and total waste management (which includes releases) in
the range of zero to 5,000 pounds.
[18] Appendix II provides the number of affected facilities for each
state.
[19] 42 U.S.C. §§ 11001-11050.
[20] 42 U.S.C. §§ 13101-13109.
[21] 5 U.S.C. § 706.
[22] Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Toxic Chemical Release Reporting
Information Collection Request Supporting Statement; OMB Control No.
2070-0093; EPA ICR #1363.14; October 2005 and Toxic Chemical Release
Inventory Alternative Threshold For Low Annual Reportable Amounts;
Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Information Collection Request
Supporting Statement; OMB Control No. 2070-0143; EPA ICR #1704.08;
October 2005.
[23] The original EPA burden amounts submitted to OMB for approval were
expected to reduce total burden by approximately 62,000 hours, and the
OMB-approved revisions increased burden reduction by about 97,000 hours
to approximately 158,000 hours.
[24] USEPA/OEI, Terms of Clearance for TRI ICR Renewal, January 20,
2004.
[25] Research Triangle Institute surveyed 18 facilities and collected
1998 reporting year data indicating an average burden of 25.2 hours per
form. The American Petroleum Institute survey 99 facilities and
collected 2001 reporting year data, and EPA surveyed a total of 17
facilities and collected 2000 and 2001 reporting year data from TRI-ME
users.
[26] TRI Reporting Burden Estimates, Memorandum, from Abt Associates,
dated July 16, 2004.
[27] In April 2002, EPA contacted nine facilities that file Form As to
request information on the typical facility level burden associated
with using the Form A. EPA found that the average facility level burden
per chemical certification ranged from 11.2 to 15.5 hours depending on
whether the midpoint or maximum range was used. However, one facility
reported a much higher per chemical burden than the other eight
facilities. Without this outlier, the average of facility-level burden
hours per chemical certification would be 3.8 to 4.9 hours per chemical
certified.
[28] TRI Reporting Burden Estimates, Memorandum from Hilary Eustace,
David Cooper, and Susan Day of Abt Associates to Paul Borst, EPA dated
July 16, 2004.
[29] The engineering analysis derived estimates are based on the TRI
reporting experiences of a typical facility. The Abt team of experts
defined a typical facility as, among other things, (1) reasonably
modern and well-organized; (2) having Internet access with reasonable
connection speed; (3) normally, having no difference in completing a
data element for a non-PBT versus PBT chemicals; and (4) having no
significant changes to facility operations or waste management
practices for subsequent-year reports.
[30] Response To Comments Toxics Release Inventory Phase 2 Burden
Reduction Rule Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of
Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
December 18, 2006.
[31] The National Mining Association is the industry association
representing the producers of most of the nation's coal, metals, and
industrial and agricultural minerals; the manufacturers of mining and
mineral processing machinery, equipment and supplies; and the
engineering and consulting firms, financial institutions and other
firms serving the coal and hardrock mining industry.
[32] These activities are (1) Form R calculations and report
completion, (2) Form R recordkeeping/submission, (3) Form A
calculations/certification, and (4) Form A recordkeeping/submission.
[33] Based on EPA's estimated TRI-ME savings of $11,737,699 from EPA's
October 2003 ICR supporting statements.
[34] Oversight of Recent EPA Decisions, Hearing Before the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, 110th Cong. (2007).
[35] S. 595, introduced February 14, 2007.
[36] The bill 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. section 372.28 (or a successor regulation).
[37] H.R. 1055.
[38] Environmental Justice and the Toxics Release Inventory Reporting
Program: Communities Have a Right to Know, Hearing Before the
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, Committee on
Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 110th Cong. (2007).
[39] GAO, Environmental Right-to-Know: EPA's Recent Rule Could Reduce
Availability of Toxic Chemical Information Used to Assess Environmental
Justice, GAO-08-115T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2007).
[40] We estimated that approximately 11,700 new and 10,500 formerly-
eligible Form R reports could convert to Form A under EPA's increased
Form A thresholds.
[41] GAO-08-115T.
[42] See Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action, ICR
reference numbers 200211-2070-005, and 200211-2070-006 (enclosed).
[43] See Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action, ICR
reference numbers 200310-2070-002, and 200310-2070-003 (enclosed).
[44] Federal Register, Volume 70, Number 191, Tuesday, October 4, 2005,
p 57827.
[45] Response to Comments, Toxic Release Inventory Phase 2 Burden
Reduction Rule, USEPA, December 18, 2006, pp 149-155 (enclosed).
[46] TRI Phase II Stakeholder Dialog, EPA. Available at [hyperlink,
http://www.epa.gov/tri/phase2/phase_2.htm#intro].
[47] Informing Regulatory Decisions: 2004 Draft Report to Congress on
the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on
State, Local, and Tribal Entities, OMB, 2004. Available at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/draft_2004_cbreport.pdf].
[48] Progress in Regulatory Reform: 2004 Report to Congress on the
Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on
State, Local, and Tribal Entities, OMB, 2004, p 70. Available at
[hyperlink, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2004_cb_final.pdf].
[49] See, e.g., Making Sense of Regulation 2001 Report to Congress on
the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on
State, Local, and Tribal Entities, OMB, 2001, p 94. Available at
[hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/costbenefitreport.pdf].
[50] Nominations for Regulatory Reform, Mar 2004, SBA, p 7. Available
at [hyperlink, http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/comments/ombO4_0514.pdf].
[51] Regulatory Reform of the US. Manufacturing Sector, OMB, 2005, p
28. Available at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/reports/manufacturing_initiative.p
df].
[End of section]
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:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548:
