Environmental Information: EPA Actions Could Reduce the Availability of Environmental Information to the Public
Published: 2007-02-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to appear here today before the Committee to discuss our  ongoing work regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)  Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and to provide you with an update on our  2005 report on ammonium perchlorate (perchlorate), a primary ingredient  in solid rocket propellant that recent studies have shown to affect human  health.
Each year, U.S. industry uses billions of pounds of toxic chemicals to  produce the nation’s goods and services. However, the release of these  chemicals during transport, storage, use, or disposal as waste can  potentially harm human health and the environment. Congress passed the  Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA)  to inform citizens about releases of toxic chemicals to the environment; to  assist governmental agencies, researchers, and other persons in the  conduct of research and data gathering; and to aid in the development of  appropriate regulations, guidelines, and standards. Section 313 of EPCRA  generally requires certain facilities that manufacture, process, or  otherwise more specified amounts of any of 581 individual chemicals and  30 additional chemical categories to annually report the amount of those  chemicals that they released to the environment, including whether those  chemicals were released to the air, soil, or water. EPCRA also requires  EPA to make this information available to the public, which the agency  does through the TRI database. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990  (PPA) expanded the TRI by requiring facilities to report certain data about  their waste management practices, including amounts of TRI chemicals  recycled or treated.
Facilities comply with TRI reporting requirements by submitting to EPA,  and their respective state, information for each TRI-listed chemical that  they use in excess of certain thresholds using what are referred to as a  Form R report or a Form A Certification Statement. Form R captures  information about the facility, such as address, parent company, industry  type, and detailed information about the chemicals it released, such as  quantity of the chemical disposed or released onsite to the air, water, land,  and injected underground, or transferred for disposal or release off-site.  Since 1995, EPA has allowed certain facilities to submit information on a  brief Form A in lieu of the detailed Form R report if they release or  manage no more than 500 pounds of a chemical that is not persistent,  bioaccumulative, and toxic (non-PBT) during the year. Form A provides  nearly the same facility identification information as Form R, along with  basic information about the chemical’s identity, but it does not contain any  of the detailed information about the quantities of chemicals used,  released, or managed as waste found on Form R.
During the past several years, EPA has engaged in a multi-phased effort to  reduce the burden on industry by revising TRI regulations and increasing  Form A eligibility. EPA’s Action Development Process (ADP) outlines a  series of steps that the agency is to follow when developing actions such  as regulations, policy statements, and risk assessments. The purpose of  the ADP is ensure that scientific, economic, and policy issues are  adequately addressed at the appropriate stages of action development and  to ensure cross-agency participation until the final action is completed.  ADP steps include (1) chartering a workgroup comprised of  representatives from various internal and regional offices who will  develop the action, (2) preparing and executing an analytic blueprint for  analyses needed to support the action, and (3) conducting final agency  review. On December 22, 2006, EPA issued the TRI Burden Reduction  proposed rule, an action that increased the Form A threshold for certain  facilities to 2,000 pounds of releases for a non-PBT chemical. The action  also allows, for the first time, certain facilities to use Form A for non- dioxin, persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals, such as lead  and mercury, provided that they release none of the PBT chemical to the  environment.
My testimony is based on ongoing work that we expect to complete in  June 2007 and, therefore, the information I am presenting is preliminary.  My statement today addresses two areas related to EPA’s changes in TRI  reporting requirements: (1) the extent to which EPA followed internal  rulemaking guidelines when developing its December 2006 TRI burden  reduction rule and (2) our preliminary estimates of the impact that these  changes will have on TRI data available to the public and on costs to  industry. In addition, as you requested, my statement includes a brief  summary of our May 2005 report on perchlorate and EPA’s December 2006  response to our recommendation that the agency develop a tracking  system for perchlorate releases and cleanup efforts across the federal  government and state agencies.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In 1984, a catastrophic accident caused the release of methyl isocyanate— a toxic chemical used to make pesticides—at a Union Carbide plant in  Bhopal, India, killing thousands of people, injuring many others, and  displacing many more from their homes and businesses. One month later,  it was disclosed that the same chemical had leaked at least 28 times from a  similar Union Carbide facility in Institute, West Virginia. Eight months  later, 3,800 pounds of chemicals again leaked from the West Virginia  facility, sending dozens of injured people to local hospitals. In the wake of  these events, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community  Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). Among other things, EPCRA provides  access by individuals and communities to information regarding  hazardous materials in their communities. Section 313 of EPCRA generally  requires certain facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use any  of 581 individual chemicals and 30 additional chemical categories to  annually report the amount of those chemicals that they released to the  environment, including information about where they released those  chemicals. EPCRA also requires EPA to make this information available to  the public, which the agency does in a national database known as the  Toxics Release Inventory. The public may access TRI data on EPA’s  website and aggregate it by zip code, county, state, industry, and chemical.  EPA also publishes an annual report that summarizes national, state, and  industry data.
Figure 1 illustrates TRI reporting using a typical, large coal-fired electric  power plant as an example. The figure notes the chemicals that the facility  may have to report to the TRI. The primary input to this facility is coal that  contains small amounts of a number of toxic chemicals such as arsenic,  chromium, and lead. The facility pulverizes coal and burns it to generate  electricity. As part of its standard operations, the facility releases TRI  chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid to the air through its  stack. The facility may also send ash from the burning process to an ash  pond or landfill, including TRI chemicals such as arsenic, lead, and zinc. In  addition, the facility may release chemicals in the water it uses for cooling.  The facility will have to complete a TRI report for air, land, and water  releases of each chemical it uses above a certain threshold.
Owners of facilities subject to EPCRA comply its reporting requirements  by submitting an annual Form R report to EPA, and their respective state,  for each TRI-listed chemical that they release in excess of certain  thresholds. Form R captures information about facility identity, such as  address, parent company, industry type, latitude, and longitude and  detailed information about the toxic chemical, such as quantity of the  chemical disposed or released onsite to air, water, land, and underground  injection or transferred for disposal or release off-site. This information is  labeled as “Disposal or Other Releases” on the left side of figure 2.
In the PPA, Congress declared that pollution should be prevented or  reduced at the source whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be  prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner,  whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should  be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and  disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only as  a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner.  Consequently, EPA expanded TRI by requiring facilities to report  additional information about their efforts to reduce pollution at its source,  including the quantities of TRI chemicals they manage in waste, both on-  and off-site, including amounts recycled, burned for energy recovery, or  treated. EPA began capturing this information on Form R in 1991, as  illustrated by “Other Waste Management” on the right side of figure 2.
Beginning in 1995, EPA allowed facilities to use a 2-page Certification  Statement (Form A) to certify that they are not subject to Form R  reporting for a given non-PBT chemical provided that they (1) did not  release more than 500 total pounds and (2) did not manufacture, process,  or otherwise use more than one-million total pounds of the chemical.  Form A contains the facility identification information found on Form R  and basic information about the identity of the chemical being reported.  However, Form A does not contain any of the Form R details about  quantities of chemicals released or otherwise managed as waste.
Beginning with Reporting Year 2001, EPA has provided the Toxics Release  Inventory–Made Easy software (TRI-ME) to assist facilities with their TRI  reporting. TRI-ME leads prospective reporters interactively through a  series of questions that eliminate a good portion of the analysis required to  determine whether a facility needs to comply with the TRI reporting  requirements, including the threshold calculations needed to determine  Form A eligibility. If TRI-ME determines that a facility is required to  report, the software provides guidance for each of the data elements on  the reporting forms. The software also provides detailed guidance for each  step through an integrated assistance library. Prior to submission, TRI-ME  performs a series of validation checks before the facility prints the forms  for mailing, transfers the data to diskette, or submits the information  electronically over the Internet.
Each year, EPA compiles the TRI reports and stores them in a database  known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). In 2004—the latest year for  which data are publicly available—23,675 facilities filed a total of nearly  90,000 reports, including nearly 11,000 Form As. In total, facilities reported  releasing 4.24 billion pounds of chemicals to the environment and handling  21.8 billion pounds of chemicals through other waste management  activities.
EPA recently embarked on a three-phase effort to streamline TRI reporting  requirements and reduce the reporting burden on industry. During the first  phase, EPA removed some data elements from Form A and Form R that  could be obtained from other EPA information collection databases to  simplify reporting. As part of the second phase, EPA issued the TRI  Burden Reduction Proposed Rule, which would have allowed a reporting  facility to use Form A for (a) non-PBT chemicals, so long as its releases or  other disposal were not greater than 5,000 pounds, and (b) for PBT  chemicals when there are no releases or other disposal and no more than  500 pounds of other waste management (e.g., recycling or treatment). The  phase III changes that EPA was considering proposing would have  allowed alternate-year reporting, rather than yearly reporting. The phase II  and III changes generated considerable public concern that they will  negatively impact federal and state governments’ and the public’s access  to important public health information.
section_title: EPA Does Not Appear to Have Followed Internal Guidelines in All Respects When Developing TRI Rule
paragraphs: Although we have not yet completed our review, our preliminary  observations are that EPA does not appear to have followed its own  rulemaking guidelines in all respects when developing the new TRI  reporting requirements. Throughout the rule development process, senior  EPA management generally has the discretion to depart from the  guidelines, including by accelerating the development of the proposed  regulations. Nevertheless, we discovered several significant differences  between the guidelines and the process EPA followed in this case: (1) late  in the rulemaking process, senior EPA management directed consideration  of a burden reduction option that the TRI workgroup had considered but  which had subsequently been dropped from consideration; (2) EPA  developed this option on an expedited schedule that appears to have  provided a limited amount of time for conducting various impact analyses;  and (3) the expedited schedule afforded little, if any, time for internal  stakeholders to provide input to senior EPA management about the  impacts of the proposal during Final Agency Review.
First, the TRI workgroup charged with identifying options to reduce  reporting burdens on industry identified three possible options for senior  management to consider. The first two options allowed facilities to use  Form A in lieu of Form R for PBT chemicals, provided the facility has no  releases to the environment. Specifically, the workgroup considered and  analyzed options to facilities to:  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.
The third option was to create a form, in lieu of Form R, for facilities to  report “no significant change” if their releases changed little from the  previous year.
According a June 2005 briefing for the Administrator and interviews with  senior EPA officials, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had  suggested increasing the Form A eligibility for non-PBT chemicals from  500 to 5,000 pounds as a possible burden reduction option.  However, the  TRI workgroup had previously dropped that option from consideration. In  fact, EPA’s economic analysis—dated July 2005—did not evaluate the  impact of raising the Form A reporting threshold because the TRI  workgroup pursued the “no significant change” option. Nonetheless, by  the time the TRI burden reduction proposed rule was published in October  2005, it included the option to increase Form A reporting eligibility from  500 to 5,000 pounds.
Second, although we could not determine from the documents EPA  provided or the discussions we held with EPA officials what actions the  agency took between the June 2005 briefing for the Administrator and the  October 2005 publication of the TRI proposal in the Federal Register, the  Administrator provided direction after the briefing to expedite the process  in order to meet a commitment to OMB to provide burden reduction by the  end of December 2006. Subsequently, EPA staff worked to revise the  economic analysis to consider the impact of raising the Form A reporting  threshold. However, that analysis was not completed before EPA sent the  proposed rule to OMB for review and was only completed just prior to the  proposal being signed by the Administrator on September 21, 2005 and  ultimately published in the Federal Register for public comment on  October 4, 2005.
Third, it appears that EPA management received limited input from  internal stakeholders, including the TRI workgroup, after directing that the  proposed rule include the option to increase the Form A reporting  threshold from 500 to 5,000 pounds. EPA conducted a Final Agency  Review burden reduction proposal, as provided for in the internal  rulemaking guidelines. Final Agency Review is the step where EPA’s  internal and regional offices would have discussed with senior  management whether they concurred, concurred with comment, or did not  concur with the final proposal. It appears that the review pertained to the  “no significant change” option rather than increased threshold option. As a  result, the EPA Administrator or EPA Assistant Administrator for  Environmental Information likely received limited input from internal  stakeholders about the increased Form A threshold prior to sending the  TRI Burden Reduction Proposed Rule to OMB for review and publication  in the Federal Register for public comment.
Finally, in response to the public comments to the proposed rule, nearly  all of which were negative, EPA considered alternative options and revised  the rule to allow facilities to report releases of up to 2,000 pounds on Form  A. We continue to review EPA documents and meet with EPA officials to  understand the process EPA followed in developing the TRI burden  reduction proposal. We expect to have a more complete picture for our  report in June.
section_title: Impact of Reporting Changes on Information Available to the Public is Likely to be Significant
paragraphs: We believe that the impact of EPA’s changes to the TRI reporting  requirements will likely have a significant impact on environmental  information available to the public. While our analysis confirms EPA’s  estimate that the TRI reporting changes could result less than 1 percent of  total pounds of chemical releases no longer being included in the TRI  database, the impact on information available to some communities is  likely to be more significant than these national aggregate totals indicate.  EPA estimated that these reports amount to 5.7 million pounds of releases  not being reported to the TRI (only 0.14% of all TRI release pounds) and an  additional 10.5 million pounds of waste management activities (0.06% of  total waste management pounds). Examined locally, the impact on data  available to some communities is likely to be more significant than these  national totals indicate. To understand the potential impact of EPA’s  changes to TRI reporting requirements at the local level, we used 2005 TRI  data to estimate the number of detailed Form R reports that would no  longer have to be submitted in each state and the impact this could have  on data about specific chemicals and facilities. We provide a summary of  our methodology and estimates of these impacts, by state, in Appendix I.  In addition, preliminary results from our January 2007 survey of state TRI  coordinators indicate that they believe EPA’s changes to TRI reporting  requirements will have, on balance, a negative impact on various aspects  of TRI, including environmental information available to the public.
We estimated that a total of nearly 22,200 Form R reports could convert to  Form A if all eligible facilities choose to take advantage of the opportunity  to report under the new Form A thresholds. The number ranges by state  from 25 Form Rs in Vermont (27.2 percent of Form Rs in the state) to 2,196  Form Rs in Texas (30.6 percent of Form Rs in the state). As figure 3 shows,  Arkansas, Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, and South Dakota could lose less  than 20 percent of the detailed forms, while Alaska, California,  Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New  Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Texas could lose at  least 30 percent of Form R reports.
For each facility that chooses to file a Form A instead of Form R, the  public would no longer receive detailed information about a facility’s  releases and waste management practices for a specific chemical that the  facility manufactured, processed, or otherwise used. While both Form R  and Form A capture information about a facility’s identity, such as mailing  address and parent company, and information about a chemical’s identity,  such its generic name, only Form R captures detailed information about  the chemical, such as quantity disposed or released onsite to air, water,  and land or injected underground, or transferred for disposal or release  off-site. Form R also provides information about the facility’s efforts to  reduce pollution at its source, including the quantities managed in waste,  both on- and off-site, such as amounts recycled, burned for energy  recovery, or treated. We provide a detailed comparison of the TRI data on  Form R and Form A in Appendix II.
One way to characterize the impact of the TRI reporting changes on  publicly available data is in terms of information about specific chemicals  at the state level. The number of chemicals for which no information is  likely to be reported under the new rule ranges from 3 chemicals in South  Dakota to 60 chemicals in Georgia. That means that all quantitative  information currently reported about those chemicals could no longer  appear in the TRI database. Figure 4 shows that thirteen states—Delaware,  Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina,  Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin—could no  longer have quantitative information for at least 20 percent of all reported  chemicals in the state.
The impact of the loss of information from these Form R reports can also  be understood in terms of the number of facilities that could be affected.  We estimated that 6,620 facilities nationwide could chose to convert at  least one Form R to a Form A, and about 54 percent of those would be  eligible to convert all their Form Rs to Form A. That means that  approximately 3,565 facilities would not have to report any quantitative  information about their chemical releases and other waste management  practices to the TRI, according to our estimates. The number of facilities  ranges from 5 in Alaska to 302 in California. As an example, one of these  facilities is ATSC Marine Terminal—a bulk petroleum storage facility in  Los Angeles County, California. In 2005, it reported releases of 13 different  chemicals—including highly toxic benzene, toluene, and xylene—to the  air. Although the facility’s releases totaled about 5,000 pounds, it released  less than 2,000 pounds of each chemical. As figure 5 shows, more than 10  percent of facilities in each state except Idaho would no longer have to  report any quantitative information to the TRI. The most affected states  are Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii,  Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, where more than 20 percent of facilities  could choose to not disclose the details of their chemical releases and  other waste management practices. Furthermore, our analysis found that  citizens living in 75 counties in the United States—including 11 in Texas,  10 in Virginia, and 6 in Georgia—could have no quantitative TRI  information about local toxic pollution.
The Environmental Protection and Community Right-to-Know Act requires  that facilities submit their annual TRI data directly to their respective  state, as well as to EPA. Last month, we surveyed the TRI program  contacts in the 50 states and the District of Columbia to gain their  perspective on the TRI, including an understanding of how TRI is used by  the states. We also asked for their beliefs about how EPA’s increase in the  Form A eligibility threshold would affect TRI-related aspects in their state,  such as information available to the public, efforts to protect the  environment, emergency planning and preparedness, and costs to facilities  for TRI reporting. Although our analysis of the survey is not final,  preliminary results from 49 states and the District of Columbia show that  the states generally believe that the change will have a negative impact on  various aspects of TRI in their states. Very few states reported that the  change will have a positive impact. The states reported that the TRI  changes will have a negative impact on such TRI aspects as information  available to the public and efforts to protect the environment. Specifically,  23 states—including California, Maryland, New York, and Oklahoma— responded that the changes will negatively impact information available to  the public, 14 states—including Louisiana, Ohio, and Wyoming—reported  no impact, and one state, Virginia, reported a generally positive impact.  Similarly, 22 states responded that the change will negatively impact  efforts to protect the environment, 11 reported no impact, and 5 said it will  have a positive impact. States also responded that raising the eligibility  threshold will have no impact on TRI aspects such as emergency planning  and preparedness efforts and the cost to facilities for TRI reporting. For  example, 22 states responded that the change will have no impact on the  cost to facilities for TRI reporting, 12 said it will have a positive impact,  and no states said it will have a negative impact. The totals do not always  sum to 50 because some states responded that they were uncertain of the  impact on some aspects of TRI.
Finally, we evaluated EPA’s estimates of the burden reduction impacts  that the new TRI reporting rules would likely have on industry’s reporting  costs, the primary rationale for the rule changes. EPA estimated that the  TRI reporting changes will result in an annual cost savings of  approximately $5.9 million. (See table 1.) This amounts to about 4 percent  of the $147.8 million total annual cost to industry, according to our  calculations.
This amounts to an average savings of less than $900 annually for each  facility. EPA also projected that not all eligible facilities will chose to use  Form A, based on the agency’s experience from previous years.  Furthermore, according to industry groups, much of the reporting burden  comes from the calculations required to determine and substantiate Form  A eligibility, rather than from the amount time required to complete the  forms. As a result, EPA’s estimate of nearly $6 million likely overestimates  the total cost savings (i.e., burden reduction) that will be realized by  reporting facilities.
We are continuing to review EPA documentation and meet with EPA  officials to understand the process they followed in developing the TRI  burden reduction proposal. We expect to have a more complete picture for  our report later this year.
section_title: A System to Track Perchlorate Sampling and Cleanup Results Is Still Needed
paragraphs: Perchlorate is a salt that is easily dissolved and transported in water and  has been found in groundwater, surface water, drinking water, soil, and  food products such as milk and lettuce across the country. Health studies  have shown that perchlorate can affect the thyroid gland and may cause  developmental delays during pregnancy and early infancy. In February  2005, EPA established a new safe exposure level, or reference dose, for  perchlorate, equivalent to 24.5 parts per billion in drinking water.  However, EPA has not established a national drinking water standard,  citing the need for more research on health effects. As a result,  perchlorate, like other unregulated contaminants, is not subject to TRI  reporting. In May 2005 we issued a report that identified (1) the estimated  extent of perchlorate found in the United States; (2) what actions the  federal government, state governments, and responsible parties have taken  to clean up or eliminate the source of perchlorate; and (3) what studies of  the potential health risks from perchlorate have been conducted and,  where presented, the author’s conclusions or findings on the health effects  of perchlorate.
Perchlorate has been found by federal and state agencies in groundwater,  surface water, soil, or public drinking water at almost 400 sites in the  United States. However, because there is not a standardized approach for  reporting perchlorate data nationwide, a greater number of sites than we  identified may already exist in the United States. Perchlorate has been  found in 35 states, the District of Columbia, and 2 commonwealths of the  United States, where the highest concentrations ranged from 4 parts per  billion to more than 3.7 million parts per billion. (At some sites, federal  and state agencies detected perchlorate concentrations as low as 1 part  per billion or less, yet 4 parts per billion is the minimum reporting level of  the analysis method most often used.) More than 50 percent of all sites  were found in California and Texas, and sites in Arkansas, California,  Texas, Nevada, and Utah had some of the highest concentration levels.  However, roughly two-thirds of sites had concentration levels at or below  18 parts per billion, the upper limit of EPA’s provisional cleanup guidance,  and almost 70 percent of sites had perchlorate concentrations less than  24.5 parts per billion, the drinking water concentration calculated on the  basis of EPA’s recently established reference dose (see fig. 6).
At more than one-quarter of the sites, propellant manufacturing, rocket  motor testing, and explosives disposal were the most likely sources of  perchlorate. Public drinking water systems accounted for more than one- third of the sites where perchlorate was found. EPA sampled more than  3,700 public drinking water systems and found perchlorate in 153 systems  across 26 states and 2 commonwealths of the United States. Perchlorate  concentration levels found at public drinking water systems ranged from 4  to 420 parts per billion. However, only 14 of the 153 public drinking water  systems had concentration levels above 24.5 parts per billion. EPA and  state officials told us they had not cleaned up these public drinking water  systems, principally because there was no federal drinking water standard  or specific federal requirement to clean up perchlorate. Further, EPA  currently does not centrally track or monitor perchlorate detections or the  status of cleanup activities. In fact, several EPA regional officials told us  they did not always know when states had found perchlorate, at what  levels, or what actions were taken. As a result, it is difficult to determine  the extent of perchlorate in the United States or the status of cleanup  actions, if any.
Although there is no specific federal requirement to clean up perchlorate  or a specific perchlorate cleanup standard, EPA and state environmental  agencies have investigated, sampled, and cleaned up unregulated  contaminants, such as perchlorate, under various federal environmental  laws and regulations. EPA and state agency officials have used their  authorities under these laws and regulations, as well as under state laws  and action levels, to sample and clean up and/or require the sampling and  cleanup of perchlorate by responsible parties. For example, according to  EPA and state officials, at least 9 states have established non-regulatory  action levels or advisories, ranging from under 1 part per billion to 18 parts  per billion. Where these action levels or advisories are in effect,  responsible parties have been required to sample and clean up  perchlorate. Further, certain environmental laws and programs require  private companies to sample for contaminants, which can include  unregulated substances such as perchlorate, and report to environmental  agencies. According to EPA and state officials, private industry and public  water suppliers have generally complied with regulations requiring  sampling for contaminants and agency requests to sample or clean up  perchlorate. DOD has sampled and cleaned up when required by specific  environmental laws and regulations but has been reluctant to sample on or  near active installations, unless a perchlorate release due to DOD activities  is suspected and a complete human exposure pathway is likely to exist.  Finally, EPA, state agencies, and/or responsible parties are currently  cleaning up or planning cleanup at 51 of the almost 400 sites where  perchlorate has been found. The remaining sites are not being cleaned up  for a variety of reasons. The reason most often cited by EPA and state  officials was that they were waiting for a federal requirement to do so.
We identified and summarized 90 studies of perchlorate health risks  published since 1998. EPA and DOD sponsored the majority of these  studies, which used experimental, field study, and data analysis  methodologies. For 26 of the 90 studies, the findings indicated that  perchlorate had an adverse effect. Eighteen of these studies found adverse  effects on fetal or child development resulting from maternal exposure to  perchlorate. Although the studies we reviewed examined whether and  how perchlorate affected the thyroid, most of the studies of adult  populations were unable to determine whether the thyroid was adversely  affected. Adverse effects of perchlorate on the adult thyroid are difficult to  evaluate because they may happen over longer time periods than can be  observed in a research study. However, adverse effects of perchlorate on  fetal or child development can be studied and measured within study time  frames. We also found some studies considered the same perchlorate dose  amount but identified different effects. The precise cause of the  differences remains unresolved but may be attributed to an individual  study’s design type or the physical condition of the subjects, such as their  age. Such unresolved questions are one of the bases for the differing  conclusions among EPA, DOD, and academic studies on perchlorate dose  amounts and effects.
In January 2005, NAS issued its report on the potential health effects of  perchlorate. The NAS report evaluated many of the same health risk  studies included in our review. NAS reported that certain levels of  exposure may not adversely affect healthy adults but recommended that  more studies be conducted on the effects of perchlorate exposure in  children and pregnant women. NAS also recommended a perchlorate  reference dose, which is an estimated daily exposure level from all sources  that is expected not to cause adverse effects in humans, including the  most sensitive populations. The reference dose of 0.0007 milligrams per  kilogram of body weight is equivalent to a drinking water exposure level of  24.5 parts per billion, if all exposure comes from drinking water. In  January 2006, EPA issued guidance stating that this exposure level is a  preliminary cleanup goal for environmental cleanups involving  perchlorate.
We concluded that EPA needed more reliable information on the extent of  sites contaminated with perchlorate and the status of cleanup efforts, and  recommended that EPA work with the Department of Defense, other  federal agencies and the states to establish a formal structure for better  tracking perchlorate information. In December 2006, EPA reiterated its  disagreement with the recommendation stating that perchlorate  information already exists from a variety of other sources. However, we  found that the states and federal agencies do not always report  perchlorate detections to EPA and as a result EPA and the states do not  have the most current and complete accounting of perchlorate as an  emerging contaminant of concern. We continue to believe that the  inconsistency and omissions in the available data that we found during the  course of our study underscore the need for a more structured and formal  system, and that such a system would serve to better inform the public and  others about the locations of perchlorate releases and the status of clean  ups.
section_title: Preliminary Observations
paragraphs: Contrary to EPA’s assertions, in our view EPA’s recent changes to the  Toxics Release Inventory significantly reduce the amount of information  available to the public about toxic chemicals in their communities. EPA’s  portrayal of the potential impacts of the TRI reporting rule changes in  terms of a national amount of pollution is quite misleading and runs  contrary to the legislative intent of EPCRA and the principles of the  public’s right-to-know. TRI is designed to provide states and public  citizens with information about the releases of toxic chemicals by facilities  in their local communities. Citizens drink water from local sources, spend  much of their time on land near their homes and places of business, and  breathe the air over their local communities. We believe that the likely  reduction in publicly availability data about specific chemicals and  facilities in local communities should be considered in light of the  relatively small cost savings to industry afforded by the TRI reporting  changes.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be  happy to respond to any questions that you and Members of the  Committee may have.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact me, John  Stephenson, 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 statement. Contributors to this testimony include J.  Erin Lansburgh, Assistant Director, and Terrance Horner, Senior Analyst;  Mark Braza, John Delicath, Karen Febey, Edward Kratzer, Richard  Johnson, and Jennifer Popovic also made key contributions.
section_title: Appendix I: GAO Estimates of the Impact of Reporting Changes on TRI Data
paragraphs: 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 2 provides our estimates of the total number of Form Rs  eligible to convert to Form A, including the percent of total Form Rs  submitted by facilities in each state. The table also provides our estimates  of the number of unique chemicals for which no quantitative information  would have to be reported in each state, including the percent of total  chemicals reported in each state. The last two columns provide our  estimates for the number of facilities that would no longer have to provide  quantitative information about their chemical releases and waste  management practices, including the percent of total facilities reporting in  each state.
section_title: Appendix II: Comparison of TRI Data on Form R and Form A
subsections: section_title: Trade secret information (if claiming that toxic chemical is trade
paragraphs: Trade secret information (if claiming that toxic chemical is trade  secret)
Parent company information (name, Dun & Bradstreet number)
Parent company information (name, Dun & Bradstreet number)
Not reported on Form A    air as fugitive or non-point emissions    surface water as discharges to receiving streams or water  bodies (including names of streams or water bodies)  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)
Recycling processes (e.g., metal recovery by smelting, solvent    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)
Not reported on Form A  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    Source reduction activities the facility engaged in during the  reporting year (e.g., inventory control, spill/leak prevention,  product modifications)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.