In the wake of  these events, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community  Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). Beginning in 1995, EPA allowed facilities to use a 2-page Certification  Statement (Form A) to certify that they are not subject to Form R  reporting for a given non-PBT chemical provided that they (1) did not  release more than 500 total pounds and (2) did not manufacture, process,  or otherwise use more than one-million total pounds of the chemical. EPA Does Not Appear to Have Followed Internal Guidelines in All Respects When Developing TRI Rule

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

We believe that the impact of EPA’s changes to the TRI reporting  requirements will likely have a significant impact on environmental  information available to the public. In addition, preliminary results from our January 2007 survey of state TRI  coordinators indicate that they believe EPA’s changes to TRI reporting  requirements will have, on balance, a negative impact on various aspects  of TRI, including environmental information available to the public. We estimated that a total of nearly 22,200 Form R reports could convert to  Form A if all eligible facilities choose to take advantage of the opportunity  to report under the new Form A thresholds. That means that  approximately 3,565 facilities would not have to report any quantitative  information about their chemical releases and other waste management  practices to the TRI, according to our estimates. The number of facilities  ranges from 5 in Alaska to 302 in California. Although the facility’s releases totaled about 5,000 pounds, it released  less than 2,000 pounds of each chemical. As figure 5 shows, more than 10  percent of facilities in each state except Idaho would no longer have to  report any quantitative information to the TRI. We also asked for their beliefs about how EPA’s increase in the  Form A eligibility threshold would affect TRI-related aspects in their state,  such as information available to the public, efforts to protect the  environment, emergency planning and preparedness, and costs to facilities  for TRI reporting. EPA estimated that the  TRI reporting changes will result in an annual cost savings of  approximately $5.9 million. Perchlorate has been  found in 35 states, the District of Columbia, and 2 commonwealths of the  United States, where the highest concentrations ranged from 4 parts per  billion to more than 3.7 million parts per billion. We concluded that EPA needed more reliable information on the extent of  sites contaminated with perchlorate and the status of cleanup efforts, and  recommended that EPA work with the Department of Defense, other  federal agencies and the states to establish a formal structure for better  tracking perchlorate information. In December 2006, EPA reiterated its  disagreement with the recommendation stating that perchlorate  information already exists from a variety of other sources. We continue to believe that the  inconsistency and omissions in the available data that we found during the  course of our study underscore the need for a more structured and formal  system, and that such a system would serve to better inform the public and  others about the locations of perchlorate releases and the status of clean  ups. Preliminary Observations

Contrary to EPA’s assertions, in our view EPA’s recent changes to the  Toxics Release Inventory significantly reduce the amount of information  available to the public about toxic chemicals in their communities. Appendix I: GAO Estimates of the Impact of Reporting Changes on TRI Data

We analyzed 2005 TRI data provided by EPA to estimate the number of  Form Rs that could no longer be reported in each state and determine the  possible impacts that this could have on data about specific chemicals and  facilities.
Why GAO Did This Study

U.S. industry uses billions of pounds of chemicals to produce the nation's goods and services. Releases of these chemicals during use or disposal can harm human health and the environment. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 requires facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than specified amounts of nearly 650 toxic chemicals to report their releases to water, air, and land. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) makes this data available to the public in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Since 1995, facilities may submit a brief certification statement (Form A), in lieu of the detailed Form R report, if their releases of specific chemicals do not exceed 500 pounds a year. In January 2007, EPA finalized a proposal to increase that threshold to 2,000 pounds, quadrupling what facilities can release before they must disclose their releases and other waste management practices. Today's testimony addresses (1) EPA's development of the proposal to change the TRI Form A threshold from 500 to 2,000 pounds and (2) the impact these changes may have on data available to the public. It also provides an update to our 2005 report recommendations on perchlorate. GAO's preliminary observations on TRI are based on ongoing work performed from June 2006 through January 2007.

What GAO Found

Although we have not yet completed our evaluation, our preliminary observations indicate that EPA did not adhere to its own rulemaking guidelines in all respects when developing the proposal to change TRI reporting requirements. We have identified several significant differences between the guidelines and the process EPA followed. First, late in the process, senior EPA management directed the inclusion of a burden reduction option that raised the Form R reporting threshold, an option that the TRI workgroup charged with analyzing potential options, had dropped from consideration early in the process. Second, EPA developed this option on an expedited schedule that appears to have provided a limited amount of time for conducting various impact analyses. Third, the decision to expedite final agency review, when EPA's internal and regional offices determine whether they concur with the final proposal, appears to have limited the amount of input they could provide to senior EPA management. We believe that the TRI reporting changes will likely have a significant impact on information available to the public about dozens of toxic chemicals from thousands of facilities in states and communities across the country. First, we estimate that detailed information from more than 22,000 Form Rs could no longer be reported to the TRI if all eligible facilities choose to use Form A, affecting more than 33 percent of reports in California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Second, we estimate that states could lose all quantitative information about releases of some chemicals, ranging from 3 in South Dakota to 60 in Georgia. Third, we estimate that 3,565 facilities--including 50 in Oklahoma, 101 in New Jersey, and 302 in California--would no longer have to report any quantitative information to the TRI. In addition, preliminary results from our survey of state TRI coordinators indicate that many believe the changes will negatively impact information available to the public and efforts to protect the environment. Finally, EPA estimates facilities could save a total of $5.9 million as a result of the increased Form A eligibility--about 4 percent of the total annual cost of TRI reporting. According to our estimates, facilities will save less than $900 a year, on average. Because not all eligible facilities will utilize the increased eligibility, actual savings to industry are likely to be less. In our May 2005 perchlorate report, we identified over 400 sites in 35 states where perchlorate has been found in concentrations ranging from 4 parts per billion to more than 3.7 million parts per billion. We concluded that EPA needed more reliable information on the extent of contaminated sites and the status of cleanup efforts, and recommended that EPA work with the Department of Defense and the states to establish a way to track perchlorate information. In December 2006, EPA reiterated its disagreement with our recommendation. We continue to believe that the inconsistency and omissions in available perchlorate data underscore the need for a tracking system to better inform the public and others about the locations of perchlorate releases and the status of cleanups.