Prepared for:

Analytical Support Branch Environmental Analysis Division Office of Information Analysis and Access
Office of Environmental Information US Environmental Protection Agency



## June 11 , 20 13 

# Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule to A dd Nonylphenol to the EPCRA Section 313
List of Toxic Chemicals

### i 6/ 11 /2013 

## Table of Contents

Table of Contents

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... i

Table of Tables

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ ii

Executiv e Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... iii

ES.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... iii

ES.2 Need for Rule

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. iii

ES.3 Addition of Chemicals

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... iii

ES.4 Estimated Reporting Activity

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... iii

ES.5 Costs of the Proposed Rule

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. iv

ES.6 Small Entity Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... vi

ES.7 Benefits of the Proposed Rule

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ vii

Chapter 1

– Background a nd Overview of Analysis

................................ ................................ ............. 1

- 1

1.1 Overview of TRI

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 1

- 1

1.2 Chemicals for Addition to TRI

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 1

- 5

1.3 Organization of This Report

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 1

- 5

Chapter 2

– Estimates of the Number of Additional Forms and Affected Facilities

......................... 2

- 1

2.1 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2

- 1

2.2 Methodology

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 2

- 2

2.3 Estimation of the Number of Forms and Facilities

................................ ................................ ..... 2

- 12

2.4 Summary of the Total Number of Forms and Facilities under the Proposed Rule

..................... 2

- 16

Chapter 3

– Cost Estimates

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 3

- 1

3.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3

- 1

3.2 Industry Burden and Cost Estimates

................................ ................................ ............................. 3

- 1

3.3 EPA Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3

- 7

3.4 Total Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3

- 8

Chapter 4

– Small Entity Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 4

- 1

4.1 Introduct ion

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4

- 1

4.2 Impact on Small Entities

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4

- 1

4.3 Definitions of Small Entities

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4

- 1

4.4 Methodology Overview

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 4

- 2

4.5 Summary of Results

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 4

- 11

Chapter 5

– Benefits

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 5

- 1

### ii 6/ 11 /2013 

## Table of Tables

Table ES

- 1: Total Estimated Forms and Facilities Under the Proposed Rule

................................ ............ iv

Table ES

- 2: Industry Repor ting Burden

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... v Table ES

- 3: Estimated Number of Submissions and Incremental Agency Cost by Media Type

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... v Table ES

- 4: Summary of T otal Costs of Proposed Rule

................................ ................................ ............. vi

Table ES

- 5: Summary of Universe for Small Entity Impact Analyses

................................ ...................... vii

Table ES

- 6: Summary of Imp acts on Small Parent Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule

.................... vii

Table 2

- 1: 2006 U.S. Production of NP

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 2

- 1

Table 2

- 2: 2007 U.S. C onsumption of NP

................................ ................................ ................................ . 2

- 2

Table 2

- 3: Primary Sectors Manufacturing, Processing, or Otherwise Using NP

................................ ..... 2

- 3

Table 2

- 4: All Facilities a nd Estimated TNPP Processors for NAICS Codes Processing TNPP

.............. 2

- 5

Table 2

- 5: Estimated TNPP Processors by Employment Size Class for NAICS Codes Processing TNPP

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2

- 6

Table 2

- 6: TNPP and NP Processing per Facility by Employment Size Class

................................ .......... 2

- 7

Table 2

- 7: RY2009 TRI Reporting for the Potential Proxy Chemicals Across All Indu stry
Sectors

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 2

- 9

Table 2

- 8: Manufacture and General Uses of NP and Potential Proxy Chemicals

................................ .. 2

- 10

Table 2

- 9: Estimated Forms and Facilities from Chemical Manufacturers Under the Proposed

Rule

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 2

- 13

Table 2

- 10: Estimated Forms and Facilities from Epoxy Resin Manufacturers Under the Proposed Rule

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 2

- 14

Table 2

- 11: Estimated Forms and Facilities from TNPP Processors Under the Proposed Rule

.............. 2

- 15

Table 2

- 12: Estimated Forms and Facilities from Wholesa lers and Waste Treatment Under the Proposed Rule

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 2

- 15

Table 2

- 13: Total Estimated Forms and Facilities Under the Proposed Rule

................................ .......... 2

- 16

Table 3

- 1: The Derivation of the Weighted Average Wage Rate (2011$)

................................ ................ 3

- 5

Table 3

- 2: Total Estimated Forms Under the Proposed Rule

................................ ................................ .... 3

- 6

Table 3

- 3: Industry Reporting Burden

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 3

- 6

Table 3

- 4: Industry Reporting Cost

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3

- 7

Table 3

- 5: Agency Forms Processing Cost by Media Type

................................ ................................ ...... 3

- 7

Table 3

- 6: Estimated Number of Submissions and Incremental Agency Cost by Media Type

................. 3

- 8

Table 3

- 7: Summary o f Total Costs of Proposed Rule

................................ ................................ .............. 3

- 8

Table 4

- 1: Small Business Size Standards for Industries Affected by the Proposed Rule

........................ 4

- 2

Tab le 4

- 2: Summary of Universe for Small Entity Impact Analyses for Actual Facilities

........................ 4

- 5

Table 4

- 3: Summary of Impacts on Small Parent Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule (Actual Facilities)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 4

- 5

Table 4

- 4: Distribution of Potentially Affected Facilities by Employment Size Class

.............................. 4

- 6

Table 4

- 5: Distribution of Potential ly Affected Facilities by Revenue Size Class

................................ .... 4

- 7

Table 4

- 6: Parent Company Distribution by Employment Size Class

................................ ....................... 4

- 7

Table 4

- 7: Parent Company Distribution by Revenue Size Class

................................ .............................. 4

- 8

Table 4

- 8: Summary of Impacts on Small Parent Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule

..................... 4

- 10 (Modeled Facilities)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 4

- 10

### iii 6/ 11 /2013 

## Executive Summary

ES.1 Introduction

Under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right

- to

- Know Act (EPCRA), and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), certain facilities are required to file annual reports to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to states on their releases, transfers, and other waste management practices for certain toxic chemicals if they are manufactured, processed, or o therwise used above certain threshold amounts. This information is included in a publicly available database known as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).

Currently, there are 593 chemicals and 30 chemical categories on the list of chemicals subject to EPCR A

section 313 requirements

. 1 EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add chemicals to the list of reportable substances. Under the proposed rule, EPA would add a nonylphenol category that would include the chemicals covered by the following two chemical mi xtures :

• Nonylphenol, linear (CAS 25154

- 52

- 3 ) and

• 4

- Nonylphenol, branched (CAS 84852

- 15

- 3 ).

Throughout this analysis, nonylphenol (NP) refers to both of these chemical s mixtures

.



### ES.2 Need for Rule

EPA believes that NP meets the EPCRA Section 313(d)(2)(B) criter ia for listing because of its toxicity to aquatic organisms. Further, EPA believes that facilities currently manufacture, process

, or otherwise use these chemicals above TRI thresholds and therefore would file TRI reports based on the analysis presented in this document

.



### ES.3 Addition of Chemicals

NP is produced in large volumes, with uses that lead to widespread release to the aquatic environment. NP is persistent in the aquatic environment, moderately bioaccumulative, and extremely toxic to aquatic organisms . NP’s main use is in the manufacture of nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs). NPEs are nonionic surfactants that are used in a wide variety of industrial applications and consumer products. NPEs, though less toxic than NP, are also highly toxic to aquatic organ isms, and in the environment degrade to more environmentally persistent NP. NP has also been detected in human breast milk, blood, and urine and is associated with reproductive and developmental effects in rodents. NP has been identified as an endocrine

di sruptor, and is one of five endocrine disruptor compounds nominated by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for reproductive assessment studies (NTP, 2010).



### ES.4 Estimated Reporting Activity

The number of additional TRI reports expected due to the proposed ru le is summarized in Table ES

- 1.

1 Includes the 16 chemicals added to the list of reportable chemicals on N ovember 26, 2010.

### iv 6/ 11 /2013 Table ES

- 1 : Total Estimated Forms and Facilities Under the Proposed Rule

NAICS NAICS Description Forms Facilities

Form R Form A Total First
Time
Filers Existing
Filers Total

325 Chemical Ma nufacturing 2 1 3 1 2 3

325132 Synthetic Organic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

325192 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 13 3 16 0 16 16

325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 2 1 3 0 3 3

325212 Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 9 4 13 1 12 13

325520 Adhesive Manufacturing 1 2 3 0 3 3

3256 11 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing 2 0 2 0 2 2

325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing 3 0 3 0 3 3

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing 4 1 5 0 5 5

326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing 7 1 8 0 8 8

424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant

Wholesalers 1 0 1 0 1 1

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 5 0 5 0 5 5

562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators 1 0 1 0 1 1

Total 57 13 70 2 68 70



### ES.5 Costs of the Proposed R ule

The proposed rul e would result in associated costs to both industry and EPA. Affected facilities would spend time reporting the required information to EPA on Form R or Form A. The Agency would spend time processing new forms.

ES.5.1 Industry Costs

For this proposed rule, the burden and cost potentially incurred by industry are estimated using the Ratio

Based Burden Methodology (RBBM) which is a simplified formulation of the previously employed burden methodology. 2 Estimating reporting burden using RBBM produces a more stable estimate that reflects overall “average” reporting conditions at affected facilities. According to RBBM, reporting activities can be divided into two groups:

• Form Activities, consisting of rule familiarization, reporter compliance determination,

calculati ons and form completion, and recordkeeping and submission; and

• Non

- Form Activities, consisting of supplier notification and non

- reporter compliance

determination.

2 Revising TRI Burden to Ratio

- Based Methodology, TRI Regulatory Development Branch, TRI Program Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information, January 2011, EPA Docket ID

Number EPA

- HQ

- OEI

- 2010

- 0825

.

### v 6/ 11 /2013 Form Activity burden is estimated using the variable Nominal Form R unit burden to represe nt average burden incurred by filers to file a Form R. The Nominal Form R unit burden is set at 35.70516 hours. 3

Form A burden is c losely linked to that of Form R, and is therefore quantified by the ratio A/R ( set at
0.615 )

, thus reflecting the burden of a Form A as 61.5 percent of the burden of a Form R. Form Activity

Burden can be calculated u sing the Nominal Form R unit burden, t he A/R ratio, and the number of Forms R and Forms A expected to be filed due to the proposed rule

. RBBM combines Form Activity Burden

with Non

- Form Activity Burden (consisting of supplier notification and non

- reporter compliance determination) in order to calculate Steady State Total Burden , which is the ongoing burden estimated to be incurred by filers due to the proposed rule ( previously referred to as “Subsequent Year Burden”). To represent the elevated level of effort incurred by both filers reporting to TRI for the first

- time and those already reporting to TRI but considering the requirements of the proposed rule for the firs t time, a First

Time Filer Factor (FTF f ) is computed at 2.1.

The costs potentially incurred by industry are estimated using the weighted average wage rate, WAWR, representing the average loaded cost for a mix of Managerial, Technical and Clerical labor p er hour of TRI reporter burden . The WAWR is calculated using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employer Costs for Employee Compensation , updated quarterly

. As of December 7, 2011, the WAWR is calculated at $50.56.

Table ES

- 2 presents the total indus try cost of the proposed rule in the first year of the rule and in the steady state.

Table ES

- 2 : Industry Reporting Burden

Form R

(#) Form A (#) Form R Burden (hour s ) Form A Burden (hours) Total Burden (hours) Total Cost (2011$)

First Year 57 13 4,274 600 4,874 $ 246,429
Steady State 2,035 286 2,321 $ 117,350

ES.5.2 EPA Costs

In general, EPA incurs burden and costs for five categories of activities related to the TRI program: data processing, outreach and training, informatio n dissemination, policy and petitions, and compliance and enforcement. These activities involve both fixed (e.g., rent for the EPCRA reporting center) and variable costs (activities such as data processing that depend on the number of forms submitted). As a result of the proposed rule, the Agency is only expected to incur variable costs associated with data processing.

Assuming the same distribution of submission media types as that in RY2010, the total form processing

burden for EPA associated with Form R and Form A submissions under the proposed rule is estimated at $ 293 as presented in Table ES

- 3

.

Table ES

- 3 : Estimated Number of Submissions and Incremental Agency Cost by Media Type

Media Type Estimated Number
of Forms R Est imated Number
of Form s A Form Processing Cost Per Form ($) Processing Cost ($)
Paper 2 1 $26.32 $79

TRIMEweb 55 12 $ 3.19 $214

Total 57 13

- $293

3 The burden of 35.70516 includes the recent addition of .00516 hours of burden associated with the new Dioxin Reporting Requirements promulgated in May 10, 2007, and account ed for in the 2011 ICR (Docket# EPA

- HQ

- OEI

2010

- 0835.

### vi 6/ 11 /2013 ES.5.3 Summary of Costs

T he total cost of the proposed rule to industry and EPA is estimated at $ 246,722 in the first year of the

rule and $ 117,643 in the steady state. 4 Table 3

- 7 s ummarizes the total costs to industry and EPA as a result of the proposed rule.

Table ES

- 4 : Summary of Total Costs of Proposed Rule

Description First Year Steady State

Industry Cost $246,429 $117,350

Agency Cost $293 $293

Total Cost $246,722 $117,643



### ES.6 Small E ntity A nalysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq. ) requires Federal ag encies to assess the effects of regulations on small entities, and in some instances, to examine alternatives to the regulations that may reduce adverse economic effects on significantly impacted small entities. The RFA requires agencies to prepare an ini tial and final regulatory flexibility analysis for each rule unless the Agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities.

This analysis uses estimated annual cost impact percentages to me asure potential impacts on small entities. The cost impact percentage is defined as annual compliance costs resulting from the proposed rule as a percentage of annual revenues or sales. For purposes of determining small entity impacts, comparing annual c ompliance costs to annual revenues provides a reasonable indication of the magnitude of the regulatory burden relative to a commonly available and objective measure of a company's business volume. Where regulatory costs represent a small fraction of a typ ical firm's revenue, the impacts of the regulation are likely to be minimal.

Cost impact percentages are calculated for the incremental compliance costs incurred during the first year of the rule and in the steady state. The incremental reporting burden an d cost associated with this proposed rule is estimated using the Ratio

- Based Burden Methodology (RBBM), described above.

Seventy facilities are expected to report under the proposed rule. The universe of potentially affected facilities was estimated using EPA’s TSCA Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Database, the Directory of World Chemical Producers (DWCP), other available publications, and existing TRI reporters. The

method used to estimate the universe of affected facilities is discussed in detail in Ch apter 2.

The 70 potentially affected facilities can be divided into the following two groups:

• Actual Facilities

– 37 facilities potentially subject to the proposed rule’s reporting requirements, where the identity of each facility is known.

• Modeled Faci lities

– 33 facilities, where the identity of the individual facilities is unknown but where it was possible to estimate the total number of potentially subject facilities by NAICS code via the proxy chemical method and the consumption method , as described in Chapter 2.

4 The steady state bur den created by the rule would be added to the steady state burden of TRI reporting in general during ICR development.

### vii 6/ 11 /2013 The estimation of revenue, employment, and impact figures for these two groups of facilities is performed separately. The universe of affected facilities, parent companies, and affected small parent entities is

summarized in Table ES

- 5.

T able ES

- 5 : Summary of Universe for Small Entity Impact Analyses

Number of facilities estimated to experience an impact 70

Number of parent companies 59

Number of small parent entities 34

The estimated impacts on small p arent entities under the proposed rule are presented in Table ES

- 6. All

34 of the affected small parent entities would incur cost impacts of less than 1% in the first year of the rule and in the steady state.

Table ES

- 6 : Sum mary of Impacts on Small Parent Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule

Cost Impact Category Affected Small Entities in 1st Year Affected Small Entities in Steady State

# % # %

Less than 1% 34 100% 3 4 100%

1% to 3% 0 0% 0 0%

Greater than 3% 0 0% 0 0%



### ES.7 Benefits of the Proposed R ule

The benefits of the proposed rule include improved understanding, awareness, and decision making related to the provision and distribution of information on releases and waste management of NP . The provision of information can lead to follow

- on activities that create additional costs and benefits. In particular, this information can lead to voluntary initiatives by industry to review production processes, set goals for reductions in emissions, and institute “good neighbor” policies.

EPA has not attempted to monetize the benefits of the proposed rule due to the lack of quantitative information characterizing the range of users and non

- users of TRI data and the substantial analytical challenges associated with conducting an an alysis that accurately predicts behavioral responses to the provision of information. In addition, the potentially large numbers of beneficiaries who are not TRI data users, or who are otherwise unaware of the data (e.g., general public), further limits EP A’s ability to quantify potential benefits. However, the experience since the first forms were submitted to TRI in 1987 suggests that reporting under EPCRA section 313 has produced real gains in understanding about communities’ exposure to toxic chemicals. In its report entitled: How are the Toxics Release Inventory

Data Used?

– Government, Business, Academic, and Citizen Uses, EPA has documented numerous examples of how multiple stakeholders have used TRI data (US EPA, 2003). Moreover, a cursory search

on GoogleScholarTM reveals thousands of academic articles referencing the Toxics Release Inventory. Listing NP

, and the subsequent use of the reported information, should provide similar gains in understanding of this particular chemical. EPA believes that N P meets the statutory toxicity criteria of section 313, and is at least as toxic as some of the chemicals for which Congress initially believed there were net benefits due to reporting (i.e., the initial list of section 313 chemicals)

.

### viii 6/ 11 /2013 

## Literature Cited

CDC ( 2009).Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). N ational Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm

Revising TRI Burden to Ratio

- Based Methodology, TRI Regulatory Development Branch, TRI Program Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information, January 20011, EPA Docket ID Number EPA

- HQ

- OEI

- 2010

- 0825

.

U.S. CB (2010). Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB). http://www.census.gov/econ/susb

U.S. EPA. ( 2006 ) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory Update Reporting (IUR): Non

Confidential 2006 TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) Records. http://cfpub.epa.gov/iursearch/index.cfm?s=chem

. ( Accessed Dec 9, 2009).

U.S. EPA (2011a). Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number (ICR) 1363.21,

OMB Number 2025

- 0009: TRI Form R and Form A Toxic Chemical Release Reporting. February 2011.

U.S. EPA ( 2003 )

. How are the Toxics Release Inventory Data Used?

– Government, Business, Academic,
and Citizen Uses. EPA 260

- R

- 002

- 004. May 2003.

### 1

- 1 6/ 11 /2013 

## Chapter 1

– Background and Overview of Analysis

The Emergency Planning and Community Right

- to

- Know Act (EPCRA), also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), created a broad range of emergency response planning and reporting requirements for manufacturers, processors, and users of toxic chemicals in the United States. Under section 313 of EPCRA, certain facilities are required to submit annual reports to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to States on their release(s), transfer(s), and waste management acti vities for certain toxic chemicals if they are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above thresholds amounts. In addition, the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 requires these same facilities to report prevention, recycling, and other waste mana gement information for

these same chemicals. EPA maintains the data collected under EPCRA section 313 and the PPA in a database known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). 5

EPCRA section 313(f)(1) contains default reporting thresholds for facilities. Thes e reporting thresholds are 25,000 pounds for toxic chemicals that are manufactured (including imported) or processed, and 10,000 pounds for toxic chemicals that are otherwise used. Facilities that meet these reporting thresholds, as well as other reporting criteria, are required to submit annual reports. Under this rule, reporting would be required for nonylphenol (NP) about which EPA is concerned as it is considered highly toxic to the aquatic environment

, has been detected in human breast milk, blood, and urine

, and is associated with reproductive and developmental effects in rodents.

This report analyzes the economic impacts of the proposed rule. To understand the effects of the proposed rule, however, it is first necessary to understand how EPCRA sectio n 313 and TRI currently operate. This chapter provides an overview of TRI followed by a description of the rule and organization of the report.



## 1.1 Overview of TRI

In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right

- to

- Know Act (EPCRA). The law was passed in response to the accidental release of methyl isocyanate gas in Bhopal, India, in December 1984, and to a number of chemical accidents in the United States, including one in Institute, West Virginia. These accidental releases highlighted the lack of information readily available to the public about toxic chemicals being manufactured, processed, used, and transported within their communities. EPCRA is based on the premise that the public has the right to know about the use of chemicals, as well as their routine and accidental releases. The broad purposes are to encourage planning for response to accidental chemical releases as well as daily management of routine releases, and to provide the public and government agencies with information a bout the presence, release, and management of toxic chemicals.

EPCRA contains four main provisions:

• Planning for chemical emergencies (sections 301

- 303),

• Emergency notification of chemical accidents and releases (section 304),

• Reporting of hazardous chemic al inventories (sections 311

- 312), and

• Toxic chemical release reporting (section 313).

5 The term EPCRA section 313 properly refers to only the statutory requirements, while the term TRI properly refers

to the database where the information collected under section 313 and under section 6607 of the PPA is stored. However, the terms have often been used interchangeably by the public to refer to the statute, the regulatory requirements, the reporting form, the database, and EPA's program to manage the data. In deference to common usage, the terms EPCRA section 313 and TRI are sometimes used interchangeably in this report where doing so will make the report simpler and easier to read.

### 1

- 2 6/ 11 /2013 Because this rule falls under section 313 (and not the other sections of EPCRA), the remainder of this overview deals only with the TRI provisions of section 313.

The f irst regulations implementing EPCRA section 313 were promulgated on February 16, 1988 (53 FR 4500), and are codified at 40 CFR part 372. Under these original regulations, owners or operators of regulated facilities must complete the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Form R, which includes information on releases to air, water, and land, as well as on

- site waste treatment and transfers of

the chemical to off

- site locations.

A facility must report under section 313 if it meets all of the following three criteria:

1. It is in an Industrial Classification code covered by the regulations;

2. It has ten or more full

- time employees (or the hourly equivalent of 20,000 hours); and

3. It manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses any of the listed toxic chemicals or chemical categories above the applicable reporting threshold.

Facilities must submit the forms each calendar year to both EPA and the State in which the facility is located by July 1 of the following year.

A completed Form R must be submitted for each t oxic chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used over threshold levels at each regulated facility as described in 40 CFR part 372. For most chemicals, threshold levels are set at 25,000 lbs for manufacturing and processing and 10,000 lbs for other wise use (40 CFR § 372.25). Over 600 toxic chemicals and chemical compound categories are currently on the list

of TRI chemicals.

TRI is unique among environmental databases because of the multimedia data it collects, and because it was designed for publi c access. EPCRA requires that EPA “establish and maintain in a computer database a national toxic chemical inventory based on data submitted to the Administrator” (42 U.S.C. § 11023(j)). EPA maintains the section 313 data in the national TRI database and makes the data available to the public in a variety of formats, including on

- line and CD

- ROM. With its broad dissemination, TRI data is used extensively by the public. Facilities use the data obtained through TRI to better understand their operations, a nd make better use of pollution prevention opportunities. Public

- interest groups use the data to inform themselves about the presence of toxic chemicals in the environment, and use that knowledge to engage in a meaningful, productive dialogue with industr y and all levels of government. In general, TRI data have proven to be a powerful tool in environmental decision

- making.

1.1.1 Pollution Prevention Act

In 1990, Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), which adopted as national policy an

environmenta l hierarchy that establishes pollution prevention as the first choice among waste management options (42 U.S.C. §§ 13101

- 13109). For waste that cannot be prevented at the source, recycling is considered the next best option, and treatment or disposal sho uld be considered only after source reduction and recycling options have been eliminated. Section 6607 of the PPA requires facilities to also report information on their pollution prevention, recycling, and other waste management activities.

This informa tion complements the information reported under EPCRA section 313 by providing information about the waste management activities related to the reported chemicals. The data elements required by the Pollution Prevention Act are included as Section 8 of For m R.

### 1

- 3 6/ 11 /2013 1.1.2 Changes to the List of Chemicals

When Congress passed EPCRA it provided an initial list of approximately 300 chemicals and chemical categories subject to TRI reporting. The statutory list was derived from chemical lists used in New Jersey and Maryl and. Congress also included a provision in EPCRA that allows EPA to amend the list of chemicals subject to TRI reporting. Under section 313(d), EPA has the authority to add a chemical to the

list if it determines that the chemical can cause or can be rea sonably anticipated to cause:

• Adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels reasonably likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous or frequently recurring releases;

• In humans, cancer or teratogenic effects, seriou s or irreversible reproductive dysfunctions, neurological disorders, heritable genetic mutations, or other chronic health effects; or

• A significant adverse effect on the environment. See, 42 U.S.C.§ 11023(d).

EPA has added chemicals to the list through it s authority under section 313(d). Most notably, EPA added 286 chemicals and chemical categories to the list of toxic chemicals subject to TRI on November 30, 1994 (59 FR 61432). The majority of these chemicals are pesticides. Many of the remaining chemi cals are either regulated or identified as concerns under other environmental statutes such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

EPA may delete a chemical from the list if it does not meet any of the above criteria fo und in 313(d). According to section 313(e) of EPCRA, any person may petition EPA to add or delete a chemical from the list on the basis of whether or not it meets the above criteria (see 42 U.S.C. § 11023(e)). All changes to the list are made through the rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

1.1.3 Alternate Threshold

On November 30, 1994, EPA finalized the “TRI Alternate Threshold for Facilities with Low Annual Reportable Amounts” (59 FR 61488). This rule was intended to reduce the compliance burden associated with EPCRA section 313. It established a streamlined reporting option for facilities where the annual reportable amount of a listed chemical released or managed does not exceed 500 pounds. 6 Such facilities have the option of applying an alternate manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1 million pounds to that chemical, instead of the standard thresholds of 10,000 or 25,000 pounds. If a facility does

not exceed the 1 million

- pound threshold, then that facility is eligible to submit Form A for that chemical instead of Form R. Form A is a simplified reporting form that includes facility identification information and identifies the chemical or chemical category being reported. The form must be submitted on an

annual basis.

1.1.4 Executive Order 12856

On August 3, 1993, Executive Order 12856, “Federal Compliance with Right

- to

- Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements” was signed by the President (58 FR 41981). The Executive Order requires federal facilities to comply with EPCRA requirements beginning with the 1994

- reporting year. The Executive Order also asks all federal agencies to set a voluntary goal of 50% reduction from baseline quantities of their releases and transfers by 1999.

6 The annual reportable amount is equal to the combined total quantities recycled, combusted for energy recovery, treated, or released. It can be calculated as is the sum of data elements 8.1 through 8.7 on Form R.

### 1

- 4 6/ 11 /2013 1.1.5 Changes to the List of Industri es

On May 1, 1997, EPA added facilities in seven industry groups to the list of facilities subject to the reporting requirements of section 313 (62 FR 23833). The first reports from these facilities wer e required to be submitted in 1999 for reporting year 1998. Prior to this action, reporting was limited to facilities in the manufacturing sector and federal facilities. This action added facilities in the following sectors:

• Metal mining,

• Coal mining,

• E lectric utilities,

• Commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities

• Chemicals and allied products

- wholesale,

• Petroleum bulk terminals and plants

- wholesale, and

• Solvent recovery services.

1.1.6 Changes for Certain PBT Chemicals

On October 2 9, 1999, EPA lowered reporting thresholds to 10 or 100 pounds for certain TRI chemicals (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals, or PBT chemicals) that are of concern because of their toxicity and tendency to persist and bioaccumulate (64 FR 58666 ). EPA also added to TRI certain PBT chemicals that were not already listed including a dioxin category with a reporting threshold of 0.1 gram. At this time EPA made other changes to PBT chemical reporting, such as disallowing the use of the de

minimis e xemption, range reporting, and Form A reporting for PBT chemicals (40 CFR § 372.28(b)). On January 17, 2001, EPA lowered the reporting threshold for lead and lead compounds to 100 pounds and applied the same limitations as are applied to other PBT chemica ls (40 CFR § 372.28).

1.1.7 Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Using North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Rule

On June 6, 2006, EPA published a final rule requiring facilities reporting to TRI to use North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) codes in place of the Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes previously used on TRI reporting forms. This rule required facilities that report to TRI to use 2002 NAICS codes on reporting Form R and the Form A Certification Statement. The 2007 NAICS Revision Final Rule published on June 9, 2008, required facilities to use 2007 NAICS codes on TRI reporting

forms.

1.1.8 TRI Dioxin and Dioxin

- like Compounds Toxic Equivalency (TEQ) Information Rule

- Final

R ule

On May 10, 2007, the Toxics Release Inventor y Program issued a final rule expanding reporting requirements for the dioxin and dioxin

- like compounds category. There are seventeen distinct members of this chemical category that are included on the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals . The final r ule requires that, in addition to the total grams released for the entire category, facilities must report the quantity for each individual member on a new Form R Schedule 1. EPA will then use the individual mass quantity data to calculate TEQ values that will be made available to the public along with the mass data. The final rule also removes the requirement to report the single distribution of compounds in the category.

### 1

- 5 6/ 11 /2013 

## 1.2 Chemicals for Addition to TRI

1.2.1 Addition of Nonylphenol

Nonylphenol (NP) is produ ced in large volumes, with uses that lead to widespread release to the aquatic environment. NP is persistent in the aquatic environment, moderately bioaccumulative, and extremely toxic to aquatic organisms. NP’s main use is in the manufacture of nonylpheno l ethoxylates ( NPEs )

. NPEs are nonionic surfactants that are used in a wide variety of industrial applications and consumer products. NPEs, though less toxic than NP, are also highly toxic to aquatic organisms, and in the environment degrade to more enviro nmentally persistent NP. NP has also been detected in human breast milk, blood, and urine and is associated with reproductive and developmental effects in rodents. NP has been identified as an endocrine disruptor, and is one of five endocrine disruptor com pounds nominated by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for reproductive assessment studies (NTP, 2010).



## 1.3 Organization of This Report

This report examines the potential increase in reporting burden that would result from adding NP to the

list of EPCRA s ection 313 reportable chemicals due to EPA’s concern regarding the chemical’s toxicity and evidence of pervasive human and environmental exposure to it . This report also estimates the costs to industry and EPA associated with the reporting burden and other impacts of the rule. The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

Chapter 2 summarizes the expected number of reports and facilities affected by the proposed rule. Chapter 3 presents the m ethodology used to estimate the burden and

costs as well as the results of the analysis. Chapter 4 examines the impacts of the proposed rule on small parent entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. Chapter 5 evaluates the benefits of the proposed rule

.

### 1

- 6 6/ 11 /2013 

## Literature Cited

CDC (200 9). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm

Dugal, M. 2005. Nitrobenzene and Nitrotoluenes. Kirk

- Oth mer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.

EPA ( 2006 ) . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory Update Reporting (IUR): Non

Confidential 2006 TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) Records.

htt p://cfpub.epa.gov/iursearch/index.cfm?s=chem

. (accessed Dec 9, 2009).

Organisation for Economic C o

- operatio n and Development (OECD). 1994. Screening information dataset (SIDS) initial assessment profile on the OECD high production volume chemical 2

- nitro toluene.

Accessed on December 13 th , 2011. http://webnet.oecd.org/hpv/UI/SIDS_Details.aspx?Key=9698bce4

- 484f

- 4299

- 932e

1c3a53d20c51&idx=0

(NTP, 2 010) NTP Assessment of the Immunotoxicity of Nonylphenol (endocrine Disruptor) (CASRN

84852

- 15

- 3) in Male and Female Sprague

- Dawley Rats. August 4, 2010. http:// ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=BB4C2228

- F1F6

- 975E

- 7E4955ACF48023ED

### 2

- 1 6/ 11 /2013 

## Chapter 2

– Estimates of the Number of Additional Forms and
Affected Facilities

This chapter presents the estimate of the number of additional forms and affected facilities as a result of

the proposed addition of a nonylphenol category to the list of TRI

- reportable chemicals . Under the proposed rule, EPA would add a nonylphenol category that would include the chemicals covered by the following two chemical s mixtures :

• Nonylphenol, linear (CA S 25154

- 52

- 3 ) and

• 4

- Nonylphenol, branched (CAS 84852

- 15

- 3 ).

Throughout this analysis, nonylphenol (NP) refers to both of these chemical s mixtures

.

Background information on NP is provided in Section 2.1 of this chapter . T he methods and associated assumptio ns used to estimate reporting for the nonylphenol category are presented in Section 2.2. In

Section 2.3, the estimated reporting ( forms and facilities ) resulting from the manufacture

, processing or otherwise using of NP is presented for each industry secto r

. S ection 2.4 provides a summary of expected

rep orting from the potentially affected universe of facilities.



## 2.1 Background

NP is composed of a nine carbon alkyl group bound to a phenol ring. NP is manufactured by alkylation of phenol with propylene trimer (a lso known as branched nonene ) in the presence of an acidic ion

- exchange resin catalyst (Vazquez

- Duhalt et al. , 2005). Due to variance in both the branching of the alkyl chain and

the position of the alkyl chain on the phenol ring, commercial NP is not a si ngle chemical structure, but rather a complex mixture of branched nonylphenol isomers (APERC, 2010). 7

Th e production volume 8 reported under the TSCA Inve ntory Update Rule (IUR) in 2006 for the most widely produced nonylphenol isomer, 4

- nonylphenol, branche d (CAS 84852

- 15

- 3 ), is 100 to < 500 million lb, as shown in Table 2

- 1 . The U.S. demand 9 for NP was predicted to be 380 million lb in 2010 (ICIS, 2007).

Table 2

- 1 : 2006 U.S. Production of NP

CASRN Descripti on Aggregated
Production Volume ( million lb)

25154

- 52

- 3 N onylphenol , linear < 0.5

84852

- 15

- 3 4

- Nonylphenol, branched 100 to < 500

Source: IUR, 2006

As shown in Table 2

- 2 , most of the NP consumed in the U.S. is processed as a reactant to manufacture

other chemicals (ICIS, 2007), primarily nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPE). NPE are nonionic surfactants

7 During alkylation, the propylene trimer preferentially binds to the para or 4 th posit ion of the phenol ring and to a

lesser extent binds to the ortho or 2 nd position of the phenol ring (APERC, 2009). The Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates

Research Council (APERC) considers 4

- n onylphenol, branched (CAS 84852

- 15

- 3 ) to be most descriptive of

commerci ally available NP (APERC, 2010).

8 Production volume includes manufactured volume plus imports.

9 Demand includes manufactured volume plus imports minus exports . The total demand includes all NP isomers.

### 2

- 2 6/ 11 /2013 used in a wide variety of industrial applications and consumer products. NP is also processed as a reactant

to manufacture tris

- non ylphenol phosphite (TNPP), which is an additive used in plastic and rubber products, and a variety of other chemicals including additives for motor oil, oilfield demulsifiers, and polymer resins. In addition to use as a reactant, NP is used in direct end u ses including use as a formulation component in epoxy resin.

Table 2

- 2 : 2007 U.S. Consumption of NP

Percentage of Total

Nonionic surfactants (e.g. NPE) 80%

Phosphite Antioxidants (e.g. TNPP) 10%

Miscellaneous 10%

Source: ICIS , 2007



## 2.2 Methodology

This section describes the methods used to estimate reporting for the nonylphenol category. In Section

2.2.1 , the general approach used to identify the industrial uses of NP by industry sector is presented. The three methods used to estimate the number of forms and facilities are presented in Sections 2.2.2 : Actual

Facilities

, 2.2.3 : Consumption Metho d , and 2.2.4 : Proxy Chemical Method . Methods used to estimate

numbers of Form s A and Form s R are presented in Section 2.2.5 . Methods used to estimate existing filers

and f irst time filers are presented in Section 2.2.6

.

2.2.1 General Approach

Due to the widespread use of NP , characteriz ing all potential reporters in all potential ly affected industries

was not feasible . Therefore, this analysis focused on the sectors that capture the majority of the

manufactur ing and process ing of NP. This method assumed that most reports for the nonylphenol

category will come from these sectors. Although reports may filed for the nonylphenol category by

facilities in a dditional sectors not considered by this analysis, few reports are expected from these other sectors compared to the total number of reports expected under the proposed rule.

The primary sectors manufacturing, processing, or otherwise using NP were identif ied based on information available from:

• TSCA Inventory Update Reporting ( U.S. EPA, 2006 ),

• Directory of World Chemical Producers (CIS, 2008),

• Existing TRI reporters (U.S. EPA, 2011),

• Environment Canada: National Pollutant Release Inventory ( EC, 2009 ) , and

• Other available publications.

The primary sectors are listed in Table 2

- 3

.

### 2

- 3 6/ 11 /2013 Table 2

- 3 : Primary Sectors Manufacturing, Processing, or Otherwise Using NP

Sector NAICS NAICS Description

Chemical Manufactur ers 325 a Chemical Manufacturing

325132 Synthetic Organic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing

325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing

325192 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing

325212 Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing

325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing

325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing

325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing

325998 All Othe r Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing

Epoxy Resin
Manufacturers 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing

325520 Adhesive Manufacturing

TNPP Processors 326112 Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing

326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing

326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing

326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturin1g

326211 Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)

32 6299 All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing

Wholesale rs and Waste

Treatment 424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal

562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators

a Any facilities w here the six

- digit NAICS code could not be determined were classified under NAICS 325: Chemical Manufacturing for this analysis.

For each sector identified, the potential number of forms and facilities was estimated by NAICS code

. When possible, the pote ntial reporting was estimated based on actual facilities (described in Section

2.2.2 ). However, for some facilities processing or otherwise using nonylphenol, due to the limited amount of available information, it was necessary to construct models to estimate the potential reporting from

some facilities processing or otherwise using NP. The following two methods were used to estimate the

number of forms and facilities :

• Consumption method

– where sufficient data were available, the number of forms and facilities

was estimated by allocating NP processing across Economic Census employment classes (described in Section 2.2.3 ), and

• Proxy chemical method

– where data were not available to use the consumpti on method

, the

number of forms and facilities w as estimated by using TRI reporting of a proxy chemical in relevant sectors (described in Section 2.2.4 ).

### 2

- 4 6/ 11 /2013 2.2.2 Actual Facilities

Companies or facilities manufacturing or importing NP or chemicals manufactured from NP may be identified in the open literature. Based on this information, the number of facilities manufactur ing NP, import ing NP, or facilities processing NP as a reactant to manufacture other chemicals expected to report

the no nylphenol category was estimated based on actual companies or facilities identified in the TSCA Inventory Update Reporting ( U.S. EPA, 2006 ) , Directory of World Chemical Producers (CIS, 2008), and other available publications.

In order to determine the NAIC S codes for the facilities identified by the above sources, these facilities

were matched to their TRI Facility IDs by searching existing TRI data for facilities by name, parent

company name
, and address and using EPA’s Facility Registry System (FRS) linka ge. If a parent company rather than a facility was identified in the literature, existing TRI data and company websites were reviewed to determine the most appropriate facility within the corporate structure likely to report to TRI and to identify the appr opriate TRI Facility ID. The actual facilities identified were classified under the following six

- digit NAICS codes:

• NAICS 325132: Synthetic Organic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing

• NAICS 325188: All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing

• NAICS 325192: Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing

• NAICS 325199: All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

• NAICS 325211: Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing

• NAICS 325212 : Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing

• NAICS 325611: Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturi ng

• NAICS 325612: Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing

• NAICS 325613: Surface Active Agent Manufacturing

• NAICS 325998: All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing

If a facility’s six

- digit NAICS code could not be determin ed, that facility was classified in the three

- digit NAICS code 325, Chemical Manufacturing, for this analysis.

2.2.3 Consumption Method

When specific facility production data were not available, the consumption model was used to estimate the amount of NP process ed per facility as well as potential reporting for the nonylphenol category. The consumption method was used to estimate reporting for the nonylphenol category for the TNPP

processors 10 , which were expected to be classified in the following NAICS codes :

• NA ICS 326112: Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing

• NAICS 326113: Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing

• NAICS 326150: Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing

• NAICS 3261 99: All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing

• NAICS 326211: Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)

• NAICS 326299: All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing

TNPP is used by facilities in these sectors as a stabilizer and antioxidant to protect rubber, vinyl poly mers , polyolefins, and styrenics ( Lorenc et al., 2003 ). TNPP is also used as a stabilizer in plastic films including plastic food packaging (Vazquez

- Duhalt et al.

, 2005) and in rubber tire s (ECHA

, 2008).

10 Nonylphenol is reacted with phosphorus trichloride (PCl 3 ) to produce tris

- nonylphen o l phosphite (TNPP; CAS

26523

- 78

- 4).

### 2

- 5 6/ 11 /2013 NP is present as an unreacted impurity in TNPP solu tions in concentrations up to 5% (ECHA, 2008). Additionally, NP is manufactured as an impurity from hydrolysis of TNPP during processing of TNPP (ECHA, 2008). Subsequently, many facilities processing TNPP are expected to process NP as an impurity

at concen trations above 1% and therefore would not be eligible for the de minimis exemption.

In order to estimate the number of TNPP processing facilities that would be expected to report the nonylphenol category due to processing NP in excess of the 25,000 lb repo rting threshold, the amount of TNPP processing per facility was estimated assuming the processing of TNPP per employee was constant. The amount of NP processed as an impurity was then correlated to TNPP processing. Because the amount of TNPP processing was not expected to be constant among facilities, the consumption method uses TNPP consumption data and Economic Census data to estimate the amount of processing at each facility.

The number of U.S. facilities processing TNPP was not known. However, 25

- 35 fa cilities in Europe were reported to have processed a total of 17.6 million lb (8,000 tons) of TNPP in 2001 (ECHA, 2008). Using

the mid

- point of the facility range, 30 facilities processed on average 587,000 lb of TNPP per facility

. Although t he U.S. production of TNPP was not available, an estimated 10%

of NP consumption is used to manufacture phosphite antioxidants that are principally TNPP (ICIS, 2007). Since the U.S. demand for NP is reported to be 380 million lb (ICIS, 2007) and assuming a 1:1 mass ratio of TNPP production relative to NP consumption, it is estimated that approximately 38 million lb of TNPP are produced and processed annually in the U.S. Assuming that current U.S. facilities process on average

the same amount of TNPP as the European facilities, it would take approximately 65 U.S. facilities to

process 38 million lb of TNPP

.

U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic Census, Manufacturing Industry Series provided industry statistics including facility and employee count by NA ICS codes and by tiered employment size classes for each

NAICS code . The U.S. Census definition of establishment is assumed to be identical the TRI definition of facilities within this analysis. The number of facilities processing TNPP (65) was assumed to be distributed among the NAICS codes in proportion to the number of establishments in each NAICS code, presented in Table 2

- 4

.

Table 2

- 4 : All Facilities and Estimated TNPP Processors for NAICS Codes

Proces sing TNPP

Facility Type NAICS Code

326112 326113 326150 326199 326211 326299 Total

All facilities a 351 661 685 7311 137 784 9929

TNPP Processors 2 4 5 48 1 5 65

a U.S. Census (201 0a ) NAICS 326112: Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated ) Manufacturing NAICS 326113: Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing NAICS 326150: Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing NAICS 326199: All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
NAICS 326211: Tire Ma nufacturing (except Retreading) NAICS 326299: All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing

### 2

- 6 6/ 11 /2013 The number of estimated TNPP processing facilities in each NAICS code was then distributed by employment size class, presented in Table 2

- 5 , in proportion to the total number of facilities in each employment size class (U.S. Census, 2010a).

Table 2

- 5 : Estimated TNPP Processors by Employment Size Class for NAICS Codes Processing TNPP

Employment Size Class NAICS Code

3261 12 326113 326150 326199 326211 326299 Total

0 to 4 employees 0 1 1 10 1 1 14
5 to 9 employees 0 0 0 7 0 1 8
10 to 19 employees 0 0 1 8 0 1 10
20 to 49 employees 1 1 1 9 0 1 13
50 to 99 employees 1 1 1 6 0 1 10
100 to 249 employees 0 1 1 6 0 0 8

250 to 499 employees 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
500 to 999 employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1,000 to 2,499 employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,500 employees or more 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

All facilities 2 4 5 48 1 5 65 NAICS 326112: Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufac turing NAICS 326113: Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing NAICS 326150: Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing NAICS 326199: All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
NAICS 326211: Tire Manufacturi ng (except Retreading) NAICS 326299: All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing

With the number of facilities processing TNPP estimated, the amount of TNPP processed per facility was estimated based on employment. The total number of facilities and employees in each employment size class were then summed for the six NAICS codes and the average number of employees per employment size class was determined, as shown in Table 2

- 6

. In some cases, the total number of employees in certain

e mployment size classes w as withheld by the U.S. Census Bureau to prevent disclosure that would identify an individual business. In applying the c onsumption m ethod, withheld data were approximated

from known sector

- wide totals

.

The total number of employee s at facilities processing TNPP for each employment size class was estimated by multiplying the number of TNPP facilities by the average number of employees per facility. The total amount of TNPP processed (38 million lb) was then distributed by employment size class proportionally to the total number of employees at facilities processing TNPP. The amount of TNPP processed per facility for each employment size category was then estimated by dividing the amount TNPP processed by the number of TNPP processing facilities. The amount of NP processed per facility for each employment size category was then estimated as a fraction of the amount of TNPP processed.

T he fraction of NP in TNPP was assumed to be constant at 2.5% for all facilities and includes any NP

ma nufactured as an impurity from hydrolysis of TNPP during processing of TNPP. This concentration was selected because it represents half of the upper bound value of 5% NP in TNPP solutions (ECHA, 2008). These calculations are shown in Table 2

- 6

.

### 2

- 7 6/ 11 /2013 Table 2

- 6 : TNPP and NP Processing per Facility by Employment Size Class

Employment Size Class TNPP
Facilities Average
Number of Employees Per Facility Number of Employees
at Facilities Processing

TNPP TNPP
Processe d (lb) TNPP

Processed per Facility (lb) NP

Processed per Facility (lb)

0 to 4 employees 14 2.6 36 417,965 29,855 746
5 to 9 employees 8 6.8 54 626,948 78,369 1,959
10 to 19 employees 10 14.0 140 1,625,420 162,542 4,064
20 to 49 employees 13 32.6 424 4, 922,701 378,669 9,467
50 to 99 employees 10 70.1 701 8,138,711 813,871 20,347
100 to 249 employees 8 155.5 1,244 14,443,018 1,805,377 45,134
250 to 499 employees 2 336.8 674 7,825,237 3,912,619 97,815

All facilities 65 3,273 38,000,000

2.2.4 Proxy Ch emical Method

The proxy chemical method was used where insufficient data were available to apply the actual facilities method or the consumption method. Under the proxy chemical method, a TRI

- reportable chemical was identified that has the following charac teristics:

• Similar in physical and/or chemical properties as NP,

• Produced or consumed in similar volumes relative to NP, and

• Manufactured similarly and/or used for similar purposes as NP across the relevant industry

sectors.

It was then assumed that the nu mber of facilities reporting and forms submitted in RY2009 for the proxy chemical is a good approximation of the number of nonylphenol facilities and forms expected under the proposed rule. The proxy chemical method 11 was used to estimate the number of form s and facilities expected to report the nonylphenol category in the following NAICS codes:

• NAICS 325510: Paint and Coating Manufacturing

• NAICS 325520: Adhesive Manufacturing

• NAICS 424690: Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers

• NAICS 56221 1: Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal

• NAICS 562213: Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators

As described below, ethyl acrylate was identified as the proxy chemical for Other Chemical and Allied

Products Merchant Wholesalers

, Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal and Solid Waste Combustors

and Incinerators. However, ethyl acrylate was not expected to be a suitable proxy chemical for the specialized case of nonylphenol use in the manufacture of epoxy resins occurring in Paint and Coating

11 A similar approach called the ‘scaling method’ was used in the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule to add

Six Phthalates to the EPCRA Section 313 List of Toxic Chemicals. In the scal ing method, potential reporting of the proposed phthalates was estimated using existing reporting of di

- ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) and dibutyl phthalate (DBP). Existing reporting was scaled using consumption data for the proposed phthalates and DEHP and D BP.

Since a TRI

- listed close analog of nonylphenol is not available for existing reporting nor is detailed NAICS code level consumption data available for scaling from existing reporting, the proxy chemical method rather than the scaling method was used in this analysis.

### 2

- 8 6/ 11 /2013 Manufacturing a nd Adhesive Manufacturing. Instead, dibutyl phthalate was selected as the proxy

chemical in these NAICS codes.

Manufacturing and General Use of NP
A proxy chemical that best matches the manufacturing and general use of NP across all industry sectors

was us ed to estimate the number of forms and facilities expected to report for the nonylphenol category for the following NAICS codes:

• NAICS 424690: Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers,

• NAICS 562211: Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal,

• NA ICS 562213: Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators.

Facilities in these three NAICS codes provide services to multiple industry sectors and as such, their activities are defined by the demands of all industry sectors. It was expected that the ideal proxy chemical for NP in these three NAICS codes would be one that is manufactured and used similarly across all industry sectors relative to NP.

Potential TRI

- reportable proxy chemicals were identified through TSCA IUR reporting. In the 2006 IUR,

4

- nonylphenol, branched (CAS 84852

- 15

- 3) is characterized as follows:

• Production volume (aggregated): 100 to < 500 million lb,

• Maximum concentration (at manufacture or import site): > 90%,

• Physical form(s): liquid, and

• Processed in between 100 to 999 sites.

The follo wing four TRI

- reportable chemicals were identified as having the same physical and production characteristics as NP in the 2006 IUR and were therefore considered to be potential proxy chemicals for NP for this analysis:

• Acrolein (CAS 107

- 02

- 8 ),

• Carbon tetr achloride (CAS 56

- 23

- 5 ),

• Ethyl acrylate (CAS 140

- 88

- 5 ), and

• Sec

- butyl alcohol (CAS 78

- 92

- 2 ).

To identify the proxy chemical that best matches the manufacturing and general uses across all industry relative to NP, TRI Form R, Part II, Section 3: Activities and Uses of the Toxic Chemical at the Facility (hereinafter referred to as ‘Form R Section 3’) data were analyzed for the four potential proxy chemicals. In Form R Section 3, facilities indicate whether the chemical was manufactured ( Form R Section 3.1),

p rocessed ( Form R Section 3.2), and/or otherwise used ( Form R Section 3.3) at the facility. Further delineation of each of these activities is indicated, for example, whether a chemical was manufactured onsite (3.1a) or imported (3.2b), whether it was manuf actured for on

- site use/processing (3.1c), for sale or distribution in commerce (3.1d), and whether it was manufactured as a byproduct (3.1e) or impurity (3.1f). RY2009 reporting including Form R Section 3 data for these four chemicals across all industry

sectors is summarized in Table 2

- 7

.

### 2

- 9 6/ 11 /2013 Table 2

- 7 : RY2009 TRI Reporting for the Potential Proxy Chemicals Across All Industry Sectors

Chemical Forms Form

R a Form

A b Form R Section 3.1: Manufacture (number of t imes activity is indicated) Form R Section 3.2: Process (number of times activity is indicated) Form R Section 3.3:
Otherwise Use (number of times activity is indicated)

3.1a 3.1b 3.1c 3.1d 3.1e 3.1f 3.2a 3.2b 3.2c 3.2d 3.2e 3.3a 3.3b 3.3c

Acrolein 1 05 89 16 88 0 10 1 41 50 8 2 1 6 10 0 0 3

Carbon Tetrachloride 46 45 1 26 5 11 3 18 10 9 2 0 1 3 10 4 16

Ethyl Acrylate 87 75 12 2 4 3 3 1 0 58 8 4 3 4 1 1 14

Sec

- Butyl Alcohol 92 81 11 11 6 7 3 7 6 9 31 2 10 0 10 10 23

Source: U.S. EPA (2011)

a Since a facility may report more than one Section 3 activity on a TRI Form R, the total number of Section 3 activities may be great er than the number of Form s R

. b Facilities submitting Form A do not report Section 3 activities.

Activities Listed under Form R, Part II, Section 3

Section 3.1a: Manufacture, produce Section 3.1b: Manufacture, import
Section 3.1c: Manufacture for on

- site use/processing
Section 3.1d: Manufacture for sale/distribution Section 3.1e: Manufacture as a byproduct Section 3.1f: Manufactu re as an impurity
Section 3.2a: Process as a reactant Section 3.2b: Process as a formulation component Section 3.2c: Process as an article component Section 3.2d: Process, repackaging Section 3.2e: Process as an impurity
Section 3.3a: Otherwise use as a ch emical processing aid Section 3.3b: Otherwise use as a manufacturing aid Section 3.3c: Otherwise use, ancillary

### 2

- 10 6/ 11 /2013 Using Form R Section 3 data, the manufacture and general uses of NP as well as the proxy chemicals across all industry sectors are compared in Table 2

- 8

.

Table 2

- 8 : Manufacture and General Uses of NP and Potential Proxy Chemicals
(All Industry Sectors)

Manufacturing or Use of the
Chemical Form R
Relevant

Data NP Acrolein Carbon

Tetra

chloride E thyl Acrylate Sec

- Butyl

Alcohol

Primarily processed as a reactant Section 3.2a X a X

Processed as a formulation component Section 3.2b X b X X

Processed as an impurity Section 3.2e X c X X X

Primarily manufactured as an impurity or a byproduct Section 3.1d,
Section 3.1e X X

Otherwise used as a chemical processing aid or manufacturing aid Section 3.3a,
Section 3.3b X X

a As described in Section 2.1, most NP is processed as a reactant to manufacture other chemicals.

b As described in Section 2.3.2, NP is processed as a formulation component in epoxy resins.

c As described in Section 2.3.3, NP is processed as an impurity by TNPP processors.

As shown in Table 2

- 8 , of the potential proxy chemicals, ethyl ac rylate best matches the manufacturing and general use of NP across all industry sectors. Specifically, both ethyl acrylate and NP are primarily processed as reactants and not primarily manufactured as impurities or byproducts. Thus, ethyl acrylate

was iden tified as the proxy chemical that best matches the general use of NP.

Use of NP by Epoxy Resin Manufacturers
As mentioned above, the use of NP by epoxy resins manufacturers differs from the general uses of NP in other industry sectors. Therefore, it was ne cessary to identify a proxy chemical that best matches the use of NP in epoxy resin manufacturing to estimate the number of forms and facilities expected to report the nonylphenol category for the following NAICS codes where epoxy resin is manufactured:

• NA ICS 325510: Paint and Coating Manufacturing and

• NAICS 325520: Adhesive Manufacturing

.

NP is also processed as a formulation component by epoxy resin manufactures. In epoxy resin formulations, NP is primarily used as a nonreactive diluent to decrease the vi scosity of uncured formulations and as a plasticizer to increase flexibility and durability in cured resins (Pham and Marks, 2004) . NP also acts as a nonreactive accelerant, most commonly in conjunction with amine curing agents (Huntsman, 2005).

The follow ing three TRI

- reportable chemicals were identified through literature as potential proxy chemicals for NP in epoxy resin manufacturing:

• Dibutyl phthalate (CAS 84

- 74

- 2 ),

• Triethylamine (CAS 121

- 44

- 8 ), and

• Phthalic anhydride (CAS 85

- 44

- 9 ).

### 2

- 11 6/ 11 /2013 These chemicals wer e identified as potential proxy chemicals for the following reasons:

• All three chemicals have some similar chemical and physical properties to NP:

o liquid at standard conditions of temperature and pressure.

o phenolic compounds (except triethylamine).

• All th ree chemicals are likely consumed in similar volumes relative to NP in epoxy resins.

• All three chemicals have some similar uses in epoxy resin relative to NP:

o dibutyl phthalate is a nonreactive diluent and plasticizer (Pham and Marks, 2004).

o phthalic anhyd ride and triethylamine are curing agents (Pham and Marks, 2004).

Dibutyl phthalate was identified as the best proxy chemical for NP for Paint and Coating Manufacturing

and Adhesive Manufacturing because both chemicals are used as diluents and plasticizers and both are phenolic compounds. While NP acts as an accelerant in reducing cure times, it is not used as a stand

- alone curing agent whereas triethylamine and phthalic anhydride are used in this application. Reporting for the nonylphenol category was expec ted to equal RY2009 reporting for dibutyl phthalate in the Paint and Coating Manufacturing and Adhesives Manufacturing NAICS code s

.

2.2.5 Form s A and Form s R

Some facilities manufacturing, processing or otherwise using NP were expected to meet the Alternate

Thre shold and thus be eligible to file a Form A for the nonylphenol category. For example, it is likely that some facilities will meet the Alternate Threshold by processing relatively low amounts of NP in processes where releases and waste management are limit ed. Activity, release and waste management data necessary to evaluate Form A applicability could not be estimated due to the limited available information. Therefore, other methods using proxy chemical data were used to estimate the number of

Form s A

.

Chem ical Manufacturers

To estimate the number of Form s A potentially expected from actual facilities, the percentage of ethyl acrylate forms filed as Form s A in RY2009 in NAICS 325: Chemical Manufacturing was determined (16%). This percentage was then multipli ed by the number of NP forms expected from actual facilities to

estimate the number of Form s A expected from NAICS 325: Chemical Manufacturing. Ethyl acrylate was applied since it was the proxy chemical identified to best reflect the manufacturing and gene ral use of NP,

Epoxy Resin Manufacturers
Using the proxy chemical method for epoxy resin manufacturers, the numbers of Form s A and Forms R for the nonylphenol category were expected to be equal to the number of Form s A and Forms R for dibutyl phthalate in RY2009 in NAICS 325510: Paint and Coating Manufacturing and NAICS 325520: Adhesive Manufacturing.

TNPP Processors

To estimate the number of Form s A potentially expected from TNPP processors, the percentage of all

forms filed as Form s A in RY2009 in NAICS 326: Plastic and Rubber Products Manufacturing was determined (10%). The percentage of RY2009 Form s A in NAICS 326 (10%) was then multiplied by the number of forms for the nonylphenol category expected from the TNPP processors to estimate the

number of For m s A

.

### 2

- 12 6/ 11 /2013 Wholesalers and Waste Treatment
Using the proxy chemical method for wholesalers and waste treatment, the numbers of Form s A and

Forms R for the nonylphenol category were expected to be equal to the number of Form s A and Form s R for ethyl acrylate in RY2009 in the following NAICS codes:

• NAICS 424690: Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers,

• NAICS 562211: Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, and

• NAICS 562213: Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators.

2.2.6 Existing Filers and First Time Fi lers

Facilities were classified as either existing filers or first time filers. Existing filers are defined as facilities that reported to TRI at least once during the period RY2005

– 2009. First time filers are defined as facilities that have never report ed to TRI or have not reported to TRI since RY2004.

As described in Section 2.2.2, TRI Facility IDs were identified for actual facilities. A facility was identified as an existing filer if the appropriate TRI Facility ID was identified and that facility re ported to TRI at least once during the period RY2005

– 2009.

In order to estimate existing versus first time filers for facilities modeled by the consumption or proxy chemical methods, the average annual percentage of new filers for RY2005 to RY2009 across all chemicals (3.5%) 1 was multiplied by the number of facilities expected to report the nonylphenol category to calculate the expected nu mber of first time filers.



## 2.3 Estimation of the Number of Forms and Facilities

This section presents the estimate d report ing for the nonylphenol category for each of the sectors in Table

2

- 3 . Specifically, the estimated number of forms and facilities is presented in Section 2.3.1 for chemical manufacturers, in Section 2.3.2 for epoxy resin manufacturers, in Section 2.3.3 for TNPP processors and

in Section 2.3.4 for wholesalers and waste treatment.

2.3.1 Estimation of the Number of Forms and F acilities from Chemical Manufacturers

Estimated reporting for the nonylphenol category from chemical manufacturers includes both facilities manufacturing NP and facilities processing NP to manufacture other chemicals. Using the method

described in Section 2.2.2 , a total of eight facilities manufactur ing or import ing NP and a total of 33 facilities processing NP as a reactant to manufacture other chemicals were identified . Because four of the eight facilities manufacturing or imp orting NP also process NP as a reactant to manufacture other

chemicals , a total of 37 facilities manufacturing, importing or processing NP as a reactant were identified.

All facilities identified as manufacturing NP or processing NP as a reactant to manuf acture other chemicals were expected to meet the TRI reporting requirements for the nonylphenol category. Specifically, the average manufacturing and processing volumes were estimated to be at least 3 million lb of processing per facility and 12.5 million lb of manufacturing per facility. 2 Because the estimated average manufacturing and processing volumes were greater than 100 times the reporting thresholds, all

1 First time filers: RY2005

- 3.7%, RY2006

- 3.5%, RY2007

- 3.4%, RY2008

- 3.7%, RY2009

– 3.0%

2 Average processing volume per facility was calculated by dividing the lower bound of the reported production

volume for 4

- n onylphenol, branched (CAS 84852

- 15

- 3 ; 100 million lb; IUR, 2006) by the 33 facilities identified as

processing NP as a reactant to manufacture other chemicals . Likewise, the average

manufacturing per facility was calculated using the 8 facilities identified as ma nufacturing or importing NP

.

### 2

- 13 6/ 11 /2013 facilities manufacturing NP or processing NP as a reactant to manufacture other chemicals were a ssumed to 1) be manufacturing or processing NP above the 25,000 lb reporting thresholds, and 2) be above the employment threshold of 10 or more fulltime employees.

Using the method for estimating Form s A described in Section 2. 2.5 , six Form s A are estimated. Because

the distribution of Form s A across chemical manufacturers was unknown, Form s A are assumed to be distributed across the relevant NAICS codes in proportion to the number of reporting facilities identified

in each NAI CS code. Of the 37 facilities, 36 were identified as existing filers and one was identified as having not previously reported to TRI and is expected to be a first time filer.

Estimated reporting by chemical manufacturers under the proposed rule by NAICS co de is presented in

Table 2

- 9

.

Table 2

- 9 : E stimated Forms and Facilities from Chemical Manufacturers Under the Proposed

Rule

NAICS NAICS Description Forms Facilities

Form

R Form

A Total First
Time
Filers Existing
Filers Total

325 Chemical Manufacturing 2 1 3 1 2 3

325132 Synthetic Organic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

325192 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 13 3 16 0 16 16

325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 2 1 3 0 3 3

325212 Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing 2 0 2 0 2 2

3256 12 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing 3 0 3 0 3 3

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing 4 1 5 0 5 5

Total 31 6 37 1 36 37

2.3.2 Estimation of the Numbe r of Forms and Facilities from Epoxy Resin Manufacturers

As described in Section 2.2.4, since appropriate sector level consumption data were not available to estimate potential reporting from epoxy resin manufacturers

, the proxy chemical method was used.

P otential reporting for the nonylphenol category due to the proposed rule was estimated to be equal to RY2009 reporting for dibutyl phthalate with 16 facilities reporting in NAICS 325510: Paint and Coating Manufacturing and NAICS 325520: Adhesives Manufactu ring NAICS codes.

Using the method for estimating first time filers described in Section 2.2.6 , one facility is expected to be a first time filer. The one expected first time filer is assumed to be from the NAICS code with the most ethyl acrylate forms submitted in RY2009, Paint and Coating Manufacturing . Estimated reporting under the proposed rule by epoxy resin manufacturers is presented in Table 2

- 10

.

### 2

- 14 6/ 11 /2013 Table 2

- 10 : Estimated For ms and Facilities from Epoxy Resin Manufacturers Under the Proposed Rule

NAICS NAICS Description Forms Facilities

Form R Form A Total First
Time
Filers Existing
Filers Total

325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 9 4 13 1 12 13

325520 Adhesive Manufa cturing 1 2 3 0 3 3

Total 1 0 1 6 1 6 1 15 16

2.3.3 Estimation of the Number of Forms and Facilities from TNPP Processors

As described in Section 2.2.3

, the consumption method was used to generate estimates of the number of

forms and facilities from TNPP processors expected to report the nonylphenol category in the following

NAICS codes :

• NAICS 326112: Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing

• NAICS 326113: Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packag ing) Manufacturing

• NAICS 326150: Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing

• NAICS 326199: All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing

• NAICS 326211: Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)

• NAICS 326299: All Other Rubber Product Manufactu ring

As shown in Table 2

- 7 , eight facilities in the ‘100 to 249 employees’ employment size class and two facilities in the ‘250 to 499 employees’ employment size class, for a total of ten facilities in three NAICS

codes 3 , were est imated to process NP in excess of 25,000 lb and are therefore expected to report the nonylphenol category.

Using the method for estimating Form s A described in Section 2.2.5 , one Form A is estimated. The one expected Form A is assumed to be from NAICS 326199: All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing

.

Using the method for estimating first time filers described in Section 2.2.6 , no first time filers are estimated. Estimated reporting under the propose d rule by TNPP processors is presented in Table 2

- 11

.

3 Using the consumption method, no facilities were expected to processes NP in excess of 25,000 lb in three of the six NAICS codes containing TNPP processors. As such, no facilities are expected to report for the nonylphenol category in these NAICS codes.

### 2

- 1 5 6/ 11 /2013 Table 2

- 11 : Estimated Forms and Facilities from TNPP Processors Under the Proposed Rule

NAICS NAICS Description Forms Facilities

Form R Form A Tot al First
Time
Filers Existing
Filers Total

326112 Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0

326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

326150 Urethane and Other Foam Pr oduct (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing 7 1 8 0 8 8

326211 Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading) 0 0 0 0 0 0

326299 All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 9 1 10 0 10 1 0

2.3.4 Estimation of the Number of Forms and Facilities from Wholesalers and Waste

Treatment

Using the proxy chemical method described in Section 2.2.4

, reporting for the nonylphenol category under the proposed rule was estimated to e qual RY2009 reporting for ethyl acrylate in NAICS 424690: Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers, NAICS 562211: Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal and NAICS: 562213: Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators

.

Using the method for estimat ing first time filers described in Section 2.2.6 , no first time filers are estimated. Estimated reporting under the proposed rule by Wholesalers and Waste Treatment facilities is presented in Table 2

- 12

.

Table 2

- 12 : Estimated Forms and Facilities from Wholesalers and Waste Treatment Under the Proposed Rule

NAICS NAICS Description Forms Facilities

Form R Form A Total First
Time
Filers Existing
Filers Total

424690 Other Chemic al and Allied Products Merchant
Wholesalers 1 0 1 0 1 1

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 5 0 5 0 5 5

562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators 1 0 1 0 1 1

Total 7 0 7 0 7 7

### 2

- 16 6/ 11 /2013 

## 2.4 Summary of the Total Number of Forms and Facilities under the Proposed Rule

Total reporting is presented in Table 2

- 13 . From the potentially affected universe of facilities, a total of 70

forms from 70 facilities across 18 six

- digit NAICS codes 4 are expected to be submitted for the

non ylphenol category under the proposed rule. Of these 70 forms, 57 are expected to be Form s R and 13 are expected to be Form s A . Of the 70 facilities, 68 are expected to be existing filers and two are expected

to be first time filers.

Table 2

- 13 : Total Estimated Forms and Facilities Under the Proposed Rule

NAICS NAICS Description Forms Facilities

Form R Form A Total First
Time
Filers Existing
Filers Total

325 Chemical Manufacturing 2 1 3 1 2 3

325132 Synthetic Organic Dye and Pig ment Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

325192 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 13 3 16 0 16 16

325211 Plastics Mate rial and Resin Manufacturing 2 1 3 0 3 3

325212 Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 9 4 13 1 12 13

325520 Adhesive Manufacturing 1 2 3 0 3 3

325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing 2 0 2 0 2 2

325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing 3 0 3 0 3 3

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing 4 1 5 0 5 5

326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (excep t Packaging) Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing 1 0 1 0 1 1

326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing 7 1 8 0 8 8

424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant

Wholesalers 1 0 1 0 1 1

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 5 0 5 0 5 5

562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators 1 0 1 0 1 1

Total 57 13 70 2 68 70

4 The three facilities where s ix

- digit NAICS code could not be determined were classified in the three

- digit NAICS

325 : Chemical Manufacturing for this analysis.

### 2

- 17 6/ 11 /2013 

## Literature Cited

APERC. 2009. Comments o n t he Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Draft Deve lopment Of A Priority Persistent Pollutant List (P3L) for Oregon . Accessed July 21 st 2011. http://www.aperc.org/docs/FINAL_APERC_Comments_to_Oregon_3

- 27

- 09.pdf

APERC

. 2010 . Alkylphenols& Ethoxylates Research Council Comments on the Working Document Regarding Pollution Prevention Planning for Nonylphenol and its Ethoxylates Used in the Wet Processing Textile Industry and Effluents from Textile Mills that Use Wet Processing

. Accessed May 20 th

, 2011. http://www.aperc.org/docs/attachment_textileworking.htm

Chemical Information Services (CIS) . 2008. Directory of World Chemical Producers (DWCP).

Environment C anada (EC). 2009. National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI)

. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). 2008. Annex XV, Transitional Report: Tris(nonylphenyl) phosphite (TNPP)

. Huntsman. 2005. Curing Agents and Accelerators for Epoxy Resins. Accessed August 2 nd

, 2011. http://www.huntsman.com/performance_products/Media/Curing_Agents_and_Accelerators_for_Epoxy_ Resins.pdf

ICIS

. 2007. Nonylphenol. Acc essed May 2011. http://www.icis.com/Articles/2007/06/25/4503346/nonylphenol.html

Lorenc, J. F., G. Lambeth, and W. Scheffer

. 2003. Alkylphenols. Kirk

- Othmer Encyclopedia of Ch emical Technology.

Pham, H. Q. and M. J. Marks

. 2004. Epoxy Resins. Kirk

- Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.

U.S. EPA. 1989. Economic Analysis of the Additions to the SARA Secti on 313 List of Toxic Chemicals.

U.S. EPA. 1996. A Statistical Model of TRI Reporting.

U.S. EPA . 2006. Inventory Update Reporting (IUR). Accessed May 2011. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/iur/

U.S. EPA. 2011. TRI RY2009 ( Results ar e based on data extracted in June, 2011) . Accessed via

Envir ofacts, Form R & A Download. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/tri/form_ra_download.html

U.S. Census Bureau. 20 10a

. NAICS 326: Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing ; 200 7 Economi c Census : Industry Statistics for Subsectors and Industries by Employment Size . Accessed August 11 th

, 2011. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ IBQTable?_bm=y&

- ds_name=EC0731SG3&

- NAICS2007=326&

- _lang=en

U.S. Census Bureau. 20 10b

. NAICS 326299: All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing ; 200 7 Economic

Census : Industry Statistics for Subsectors and Industries by Employment Size . Accessed August 11 th

, 2 011. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&

- ds_name=EC0731SG3&

- NAICS2007=326299&

- _lang=en

Vazquez

- Duhalt, R, F. Marquez

- Rocha, E. Ponce, A. F. Licea, M.T. Viana. 2005. Nonylphenol, An Integrated Vision of a Pollutant. Scientific Review. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 4(1):

1

- 25.

### 3

- 1 6/ 11 /2013 

## Chapter 3

– Cost Estimates

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the estimated industry and EPA cost s associated with the proposed rule that would

add a nonylphenol category, hereafter referred to as nonylphenol (NP), to the list of TRI

- reportable

chemicals. EPA is concerned about NP due to its toxicity to aquatic organisms , a s well as the evidence of

p ervasive human and environmental exposure to the chemical

. In S ection 3.2

, the methodology used to estimate industry burden and cost is described . Section 3.3 details the estimated burden and cost to EPA. In Section 3.4, the total burden and cost of the p roposed rule is summarized.



## 3.2 Industry Burden and Cost Estimates

T he burden and cost potentially incurred by industry as a result of the proposed rule are estimated using

the Ratio

- Based Burden Methodology (RBBM) which is a simplified formulation of the prev iously employed burden methodology

. 1 Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 describe the methodology used to estimate industry burden and cost, respectively. Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 present estimates o f total industry burden and cost, respectively.

3.2.1 Estimation of Reporting Burden

The previous method used to estimate reporting burden and cost was based on a system of 96 factors

across four categories of scenarios ( persisten t bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) first year, PBT

sub sequent year, non

- PB T first year, non

- PBT subsequent year ), with each category’s set of factors yielding a separate subpopulation TRI chemical count. RBBM serves to simplify calculations, establish internal consistency, and sharpen transparency while reta ining the components of the previous methodology. The foundation of RBBM is its use of ratio models to maintain relationships between interrelated categories of reporting activities. Reporting activities can be divided into two distinct groups:

Form Acti vities, consisting of rule familiarization, reporter compliance determination, calculations and form completion, and recordkeeping and submission; and Non

- Form Activities, consisting of supplier

notification and non

- reporter compliance determination. Speci fically, the following activities may be undertaken under the proposed rule.

Form Activities

Rule Familiarization: Staff at a facility that is reporting under EPCRA §313 for the first time must read the reporting package and become familiar with the rep orting requirements. This activity includes the time needed to review instructions as well as the time needed to train personnel to respond to a collection of information.

Reporter Compliance Determination: Staff a t reporting facilities must make the dete rmination that the facility meets the criteria for EPCRA §313 reporting. This activity includes the time required to become familiar with the definitions, exemptions, and threshold requirements under the TRI Program, to review the list of TRI chemicals, an d to conduct preliminary threshold determinations to determine if the facility is required to report.

1 Revising TRI Burden to Ratio

- Based Methodology, TRI Regulatory Development Branch, TRI Program Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information, January 2011, EPA Docket ID

Number EPA

- HQ

- OEI

- 2010

- 0835

.

### 3

- 2 6/ 11 /2013 Calculations and Form Completion: Facility staff must gather data and perform calculations to provide the information required on the form. This activity includes the time required to search data sources and the time to complete and review the information.

Recordkeeping and Submission: Facility staff must maintain recordkeeping systems and submit the report to EPA and the state in which the facility is lo cated. This activity includes the time required to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Non

- Form Activities
Supplier Notification: Certain suppliers of mixtures or trade name products containing reportable substances must annually notify their customers of the product's composition if the customer is subject to EPCRA §313 reporting. This activity includes the time required to inform customers either by letter or through the materials safety data sheet (MSDS) for the product. Under the proposed rule, EPA assumes that the number of facilities that might be required to provide supplier notifications would only be a small fraction of potential supplier notifications in connection with the TRI program overall. Therefore, no additional supplier notifi cation burden is estimated in connection with the proposed rule.

Non

- Reporter Compliance Determination: In any given reporting year, a group of eligible facilities will complete compliance determination but will not file a Form R or Form A. The activity i s the same as is presented above under Form Activities; however, given that compliance determination applies to all other facilities in NAICS code

- eligible sectors (with ten or more employees)

— including those that ultimately do not report to TRI

— the latter category is accounted for in this separate activity. For this proposed rule, it is assumed that the addition of

NP constitute s a modest change when compared to the total number of chemicals subject to the program. Thus, it is assumed that the non

- reporter compliance determination burden is already included in the existing compliance determination burden estimates.

The skills required to comply with the section 313 reporting requirements (including the requirements

associated with section 6607 of the PPA ) are expected to vary from facility to facility, depending upon

factors such as : the complexity of the facility's processes and activities; the chemicals used at the facility; and the type s of use and disposition of TRI chemicals at the facility

. Individu als responsible for determining whether their facility is required to report and, if so, completing a Form R and Form A report (or multiple Form R and Form A reports) will often have an engineering, scientific, or technical background . These functions, how ever, do not require an engineering or other similar degree

.

At a minimum, an understanding of the facility’s chemical purchases and production processes are needed . Necessary skills may include the ability to evaluate and interpret records, understand mat erial safety data sheets, and determine throughput or production volumes. Depending on the facility , estimates may be calculated using: (1) existing data collected under federal, state, or local regulations ; (2) emissions

factors ; (3) design data supplied by the equipment manufacturer ; (4) mass balance techniques ; or (5) engineering calculations. Each technique requires varying skills and levels of sophistication to complete. EPA industry

- and chemical

- specific guidance documents will assist reporters in ma king the necessary calculations to comply with the section 313 reporting requirements. In addition to technical labor, requirements for managerial and clerical staff are also considered when estimating costs.

Estimating reporting burden using RBBM produces a burden estimate that reflects overall “average” reporting conditions at reporting facilities. In RBBM, the variable Nominal Form R unit burden is used as a base number for the entire methodology, and reflects the burden incurred by reporters to undertak e all

### 3

- 3 6/ 11 /2013 Form Activities for filing a Form R, thereby preserving the previous methodology’s burden totals. The

Nominal Form R unit burden is set at 35.70516 hours. 2

The estimated reporting burden for Form A is closely linked to that of Form R, and is quanti fied by the

ratio A/R ( set at .615 ) , reflecting the burden of a Form A as 61.5% of the burden of a Form R. This relationship implies that filing a Form A instead of a Form R yields a 38.5% burden reduction per

chemical.

Form Activity Burden can be calcu lated u sing the Nominal Form R unit burden, t he A/R ratio, and the number of Forms R and Forms A expected to be filed due to the proposed rule

. RBBM combines Form Activity Burden and Non

- Form Activity Burden (consisting of supplier notification and non

- rep orter compliance determination) in order to calculate Steady State Total Burden , which is the ongoing annual burden estimated to be incurred by filers due to the proposed rule (previously referred to as “Subsequent Year Burden”) . This calculation is presen ted in Equation 1

.

Equation 1 : Steady State Total Burden Calculation

Steady State Total Burden = Form R Activity Burden + Form A Activity Burden + Non

- Form Activity Burden

Where:

Fo rm R Activity Burden = (# Form R) * (Nominal Form R Unit Burden) Form A Activity Burden = (# Form A) * (A/R) * (Nominal Form R Unit Burden)

Non

- Form Activity Burden = Supplier Notification + Non

- Reporter Compliance Determination

And:

A/R = 0.615

Nomi nal Form R Unit Burden = 35.70516 hours per Form R

As in the previous methodology, the Steady State Total Burden does not incorporate any first

- time filer impacts because those impacts are present only in the first year of reporting under the proposed r ule. First time filer impacts account for the elevated level of effort incurred by both 1) filers reporting to TRI for

the first

- time and 2) filers already reporting to TRI but considering the requirements of the proposed rule for the first time. To repres ent that impact, a First

- Time Filer Factor (FTF f ) is computed at 2.1. FTF f has the following interpretation: “for any comparison of first

- time filer to ongoing filer burden, the elevated startup effort is roughly twice the normal ongoing burden.” 3 Using FTF f , first year burden is calculated by multiplying the Steady State Total Burden by FTF f , as in Equation 2

.
Equation 2 : First Year Total Burden Calculation

First Year Total Burden = St eady State Total Burden * FTF f

Where: Steady State Total Burden is calculated as in Equation 1

. FTF f = 2.1

2 The burden of 35.70516 includes the recent addition of .005 16 hours of burden associated with the new Dioxin Reporting Requirements promulgated in May 10, 2007, and accounted for in the 201 1 ICR (Docket# EPA

- HQ

- OEI

2010

- 0835

. 3 Revising TRI Burden to Ratio

- Based Methodology, TRI Regulatory Development Branch, TRI Program Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information, January 2011, EPA Docket ID

Number EPA

- HQ

- OEI

- 2010

- 0825

.

### 3

- 4 6/ 11 /2013 3.2.2 Estimation of Reporting Cost

To estimate reporting cost, RBBM uses the Weighted Average Wage Rate (WAWR)

, which is the average loaded cost for a mix of Managerial, Technical, and Clerical labor per hour of TRI reporter burden. The

WAWR reflect s the total cost to employ an individual and include s the cost of salaries, fringe benefits ( e.g.
, paid leave ) , healt h insurance, retirement savings, legally required benefits, and other overhead costs, such as office space, furniture, equipment and computers, supplies and other business expenses.

According to feedback from existing TRI filers, the role of each labor c ategory in the TRI reporting process at the facility level is as follows:

• Managerial staff are responsible for reviewing and certifying the accuracy of all TRI submissions and supporting documentation, including calculations, data sources, and assumptions. Managerial staff are briefed by technical staff once annually regarding TRI submissions and any changes to TRI reporting requirements. All sections of the Form are reviewed by managerial

staff at this time.

• Technical staff possess the facility knowledg e and familiarity with the TRI program required to understand which processes and activities at the facility should be considered in making threshold determinations for TRI chemicals. Technical staff gather the required data, make threshold determinations, calculate release and waste management quantities, and enter the required data on the TRI form, either by hand or electronically using TRI reporting software. Technical staff are also responsible for briefing managerial staff once annually regarding TRI submissions and any changes to TRI reporting requirements

.

• Clerical staff are responsible for organizing, photocopying, and cataloging all TRI submissions and supporting documentation in accordance with TRI recordkeeping requirements. Note that as reporti ng facilities move toward filing TRI reports electronically, clerical time is minimized.

As presented in Table 3

- 1 , t he Managerial, Technical, and Clerical wage rates are composites of the BLS rates for ‘Wages and Salaries’ and ‘T otal Benefits’ by labor category. The sum of ‘Wages and Salaries’ and ‘Total Benefits’ is equal to ‘Total Compensation.’ The M anagerial labor rate is defined as the average hourly wages and salaries for the “Management, Business, and Financia l” occupatio nal category.

The T echnical labor rate is defined as the average hourly wages and salaries for the “Professional and Related” occupational category. The C lerical labor rate is defined as the average hourly wages and

salaries for the “Office and Administr ative Support” occupational category.

Based on information provided by the chemical industry and chemical industry trade associations, an additional loading factor of 17 percent is applied to ‘Wages and Salaries’ for general overhead. 4 The sum

of ‘Total Compensation’ and ‘Overhead’ is equal to ‘Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rate’. The hourly wage rates are $65. 33 for managerial personnel, $52. 27 for technical personnel, and $25. 73 for clerical personnel, all in 2011 dollars, as presented in Table 3

- 1

.

The WAWR is derived using h ourly labor rates and the relative weight or contribution of each labor category derived using Engineering Studies conducted by Abt Associates. The relative fixed weights

4 Heiden Associates, Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance Costs Under the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule , Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers Association, December 14, 1989.

### 3

- 5 6/ 11 /2013 assigned are 0.03 for Managerial, 0.89 for Technical, and 0.08 for Clerical. 5 Multiplying each labor category’s by its appropriate weight yields a single weighted average wage rate of $50.56.

Table 3

- 1 : The Derivation of the Weighted Average Wage Rate (2011$)

Wage Type Managerial Technical Clerical

Wages and Salaries $40.55 $33.27 $16.00

Total benefits $17.89 $13.34 $7.01

Overhead $6.89 $5.66 $2.72

**Total Loaded Rate** $65.33 $52.27 $25.73

Labor Burden Weights 0.03 0.89 0.08
Weighted Averag e Wage Rage (WAWR) $50. 56

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. Table 9. Released December 7 , 2011.

The Steady State Total Cost incurred by filers in subsequent years of the proposed rule, is calculated by multiplying th e WAWR by the Steady State Total Burden . Similarly, to calculate First Year Total Cost incurred by filers in the first year of the proposed rule, the First Year Total Burden is multiplied by the

WAWR ( see Equation 3 )

.

Equation 3 : Steady State and First Year Cost Calculation

Steady State Total Cost = Steady State Total Burden * WAWR

First Year Total Cost = First Year Total Burden * WAWR

3.2.3 Total Industry Reporting Burden Estimates

The Steady State Total Burden estimated to be incurred by filers in subsequent years of this proposed rule is calculated by multiplying the estimated number of Forms R by the Nominal Form R Unit Burden

, multiplying the number of Forms A by the A/R ratio and th e Nominal Form R Unit Burden , and summing the two products. Non

- Form Activity burden is negligible and assumed to be zero. 6

The number of Forms R and Forms A estimated to be filed by industry sectors potentially affected by the proposed rule is presente d in Table 3

- 2

. Equation 4 presents the Steady State Total Burden calculation for this proposed rule. First Year Burden is calculated by multiplying the Steady State Total Burden by 2.1,

the FTF f factor ( Equation 5 )

.

5 As derived using the Abt Associates Engineering Study ( TRI Reporting Burden Estimates, Memo from Hilary Eustace, David Cooper, Susan Day, Abt Associates to Paul Borst, EPA, July 16, 2004 ) and discussed in the Revising

TRI Burden to Ratio

- Based Methodology ( TRI Regulatory Development Branch, TRI Program Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information, January 2011, EPA Docket ID Number

EPA

- HQ

- OEI

- 2010

- 0825).

6 For supplier notification, it is assumed that the number of facilities that might be required to provide supplier notifications would only be a small fraction of potential supplier notifications in connection w ith the TRI program

overall. For non

- reporter compliance determination, it is assumed that the addition of NP constitute s a modest change when compared to the total number of chemicals subject to the program.

### 3

- 6 6/ 11 /2013 Table 3

- 2 : Total Estimated Forms Under the Proposed Rule

NAICS NAICS Description Forms

Form R Form A Total

325 a Chemical Manufactu ring 2 1 3

325132 Synthetic Organic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 1 0 1

325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 1 0 1

325192 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing 1 0 1

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 13 3 16

325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 2 1 3

325212 Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 1 0 1

325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 9 4 13

325520 Adhesive Manufacturing 1 2 3

325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing 2 0 2

325612 Polish an d Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing 1 0 1

325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing 3 0 3

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing 4 1 5

326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing 1 0 1

326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing 1 0 1

326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing 7 1 8

424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers 1 0 1

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposa l 5 0 5

562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators 1 0 1

Total 57 13 70

a Any chemical manufacturing facilities where the six

- digit NAICS code could not be determined were classified under NAICS 325: Chemical Manufacturing for this analysis.

Equa tion 4 : Steady State Total Burden Incurred by Reporters under the Proposed Rule

2,321 hours = [(57* 35.70516) + (13 *.615*35.70516) + 0]

Equation 5 : First Year Total Burden Incurred by Reporters unde r the Proposed Rule

4,874 hours = 2,321 * 2.1

As shown in Table 3

- 3 , industry would incur 4,874 hours of reporting burden in the first year of the rule. In the steady state, industry reporting burden would equal 2,321 hours.

Table 3

- 3 : Industry Reporting Burden

Form R (#) Form A (#) Form R
Burden (hour s ) Form A Burden (hours) Total Burden (hours)

First Year 57 13 4,274 600 4,874
Steady State 2,035 286 2,321

### 3

- 7 6/ 11 /2013 3.2.4 Total Industr y Reporting Cost Estimates

As shown in Equations 6 and 7, the cost s incurred in the first year and steady state of the rule are calculated by multiplying the burden by the WAWR.

Equation 6 : Steady State Total Cost Incurred by F ilers under the Proposed Rule

$ 117,350 = 2,321 hours * $50. 56

Equation 7 : First Year Cost Incurred by Filers under the Proposed Rule

$ 246,429 = 4,874 hours * $50.56

Table 3

- 4 shows that industry wo uld incur a cost of $ 246,429 in the first year, and $ 117,350 in the steady

state as a result of the proposed rule.

Table 3

- 4 : Industry Reporting Cost

Form R (#) Form A (#) Total Cost (2011$)

First Year 57 13 $ 246,429

Steady State $ 117,350



## 3.3 EPA Costs

The burden and cost to EPA to process Form R and Form A reports are based on information characterizing the resources used by the Agency in previous years. For the TRI program in general, EPA

incurs burden and costs for five categories of activities: data processing, outreach and training, information dissemination, policy and petitions, and compliance and enforcement.

The estimate s of EPA burden and costs are separated into fixed and variable component s

. Activities and expenses that are not affected by small changes in the number of report s submitted annually are reported as fixed costs. These activities and expenses include rent for the EPCRA Reporting Center, development costs for data access tools, comp liance assistance measures, and other activities and expenses listed above. There are no additional fixed costs to the Agency associated with the proposed rule. The incremental burden, or the variable component, is the type of burden that varies depending on the number of forms, particularly concerning forms processing. Table 3

- 5 presents costs associated with form processing by submission media type. In this analysis, it is conservatively assumed that processing c osts for Form R and Form A are the same within each submission media type (paper or TRI

- MEweb).

Table 3

- 5 : Agency Forms Processing Cost by Media Type

Media Type Form Processing Cost Per Form (2011 $ )

Paper $26.32

TRI

- MEweb $3.19

Source: Personal communication with Juan Parra. TRI Information and Outreach Brach. January 9, 2012. Cost updated to 2011 dollars using the Employer Cost Index.

### 3

- 8 6/ 11 /2013 As presented in Table 3

- 6 , 57 Form s R and 13 Forms A are expected to be filed for NP under the proposed rule. The distribution of forms by m edia type is estimated using RY2010 TRI data. 7 Assuming

the same distribution of submissi on media types as in RY 20 10 , the total form processing burden for E PA

associated with Form R and Form A submission s under the proposed rule is estimated to be $ 293, as presented in Table 3

- 6

.

Table 3

- 6 : Estimated Number of Submissions and Increment al Agency Cost by Media Type

Media Type Estimated Number
of Forms R Estimated Number
of Form s A Form Processing Cost Per Form ($) Processing Cost ($)
Paper 2 1 $26.32 $79

TRIMEweb 55 12 $ 3.19 $214

Total 57 13

- $293



## 3.4 Total Costs

T he total cost of t he proposed rule to industry and EPA is estimated at $ 246,722 in the first year of the

rule and $ 117,643 in the steady state. 8 Table 3

- 7 s ummarizes the total costs to industry and EPA as a result of the proposed ru le.

Table 3

- 7 : Summary of Total Costs of Proposed Rule

Description First Year Steady State

Industry Cost $246,429 $117,350

Agency Cost $293 $293

Total Cost $246,722 $117,643

7 In RY2010, 2,007 Forms R were submitted as paper forms and 71,491 Forms R were submitted via TRI

- MEweb; 447 Forms A were submitted as paper forms and 8,997 Forms A were submitted via TRI

- MEweb.

8 The steady state burden created by the rule would be added to the steady state burden of TRI reporting in general during ICR development.

### 3

- 9 6/ 11 /2013 

## Literature Cited

Abt As sociates Inc. (2004). Engineering Studies. TRI Reporting Burden Estimates, Memo from Hilary Eustace, David Cooper, Susan Day, Abt Associates to Paul Borst, EPA, July 16, 2004.

Heiden Associates (1989). Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance Costs Un der the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule , Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers Association, December 14, 1989.

U.S.DOL (2011). Employer Costs for Employee Compensation

– September 2011. Table 9. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Lab or Statistics. Washington D.C., December 7 , 2011.

U.S. EPA (2011a). Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number (ICR) 1363.21,

OMB Number 2025

- 0009: TRI Form R and Form A Toxic Chemical Release Reporting. February 2011.

U.S. EPA (2011b ). Revising TRI Burden to Ratio

- Based Methodology (TRI Regulatory Development Branch, TRI Program Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information, January 2011, EPA Docket ID Number EPA

- HQ

- OEI

- 2010

- 0825

### 4

- 1 6/ 11 /2013 

## Chapter 4

– Smal l Entity Analysis

4.1 Introduction

This chapter addresses the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. Specifically, Section 4.2 discusses the Regulatory Flexibility Act and its applicability to small entities under the proposed rule.

In Sect ion 4.3, definitions of small entities for the industry groups affected by the proposed rule are provided. Section 4.4 describes the general methodology used to determine if the proposed rule results in a significant economic impact to a substantial numbe r of small entities. Finally, Section 4.5 summarizes the results for all small entities affected by the proposed rule.



## 4.2 Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq. ) requires Federal agencies to

assess the effects of regulations on small entities, and in some instances, to examine alternatives to the regulations that may reduce adverse economic effects on significantly impacted small entities. The RFA requires agencies to prepare an initial and final regula tory flexibility analysis for each rule unless the Agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities.

Since 1980, the RFA has required Federal agencies to assess the economic impacts of th eir actions on small entities, including businesses, nonprofit agencies, and governments. Section 604 of the RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule unless the Agency certifies under section 605(b) that the regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA does not specifically define “a significant economic impact on a substantial

number” of small entities.



## 4.3 Definitions of Small Entities

The RFA uses the definition of “small business” found in the Small Business Act, which authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define “small business” by regulation. T his analysis uses the SBA’s definition of a small business for each industry. 1

SBA's small business size definitions vary by industry. In establishing size standards, SBA considers a number of economic and market characteristics that may allow a busi ness of concern to exercise dominance in an industry. Size standards are based on criteria such as annual receipts or number of employees that represent a measure of these characteristics. These standards represent the largest size

that a for

- profit ent erprise (together with its affiliates) may be and still qualify as a small business.

The SBA small business size standards are expansive, classifying most businesses as “small.” For example, the default SBA size standard for manufacturing industries is 5 00 employees. According to information compiled for SBA by the Bureau of the Census, 277,572 of 281,644 manufacturing firms have fewer than 500 employees (USSBA, 2011). Therefore, at least 98.5 percent of manufacturing firms

would be classified as small businesses according to the SBA definition. In fact, this percentage is actually higher, since for certain industrial classification codes within manufacturing, the SBA size

1 SBA's size standards can be found at: http://www.sba.gov/content/table

- small

- business

- size

- standards

### 4

- 2 6/ 11 /2013 standard is 750, 1,000, or 1,500 employees. Table 4

- 1 lists the small business size standards for the industries affected by the proposed rule.

Table 4

- 1 : Small Business Size Standards for Industries Affected by the Proposed Rule

NAICS NAICS Desc ription SBA Standard

213111 Drilling Oil and Gas Wells 500 (empls)

325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing 1

, 000 (empls)

325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 1

, 000 (empls)

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 1

, 000 (emp ls)

325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 750 (empls)

325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing 750 (empls)

325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 500 (empls)

325520 Adhesive Manufacturing 500 (empls)

325611 Soap and Other Detergent M anufacturing 750 (empls)

325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing 500 (empls)

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing 500 (empls)

326112 Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing 500 (em pls)

326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing 500 (empls)

326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing 500 (empls)

326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing 750 (empls)

326211 Tire M anufacturing (except Retreading) 1,0 00 (empls)

326299 All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing 500 (empls)

331210 Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased Steel 1

, 000 (empls)

332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware) , and Allied Services to Manufacturers 500 (empls)

424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers 100 (empls)

424720 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals) 100 (empls)

523130 Commodity Contracts Dealing 7,000,000 ($)

523920 Portfolio Management 7,000,000 ($)

551112 Offices of Other Holding Companies 7,000,000 ($)

561110 Office Administrative Services 7,000,000 ($)

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 35 ,500,000 ($)

562213 S olid Waste Combustors and Incinerators 35 ,500,000 ($)

The RFA defines “small governmental jurisdictions” as governments of cities, counties, towns, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than 50,000 people. No small governmental jurisdictions are expected to incur a burden as a result of the proposed rule.

The RFA defines “small organizations” as any “not

- for

- profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” No small organizations are expected to incur a burden as a result of the proposed rule.



## 4.4 Methodology Overview

This analysis uses annual cost impact percentages to measure potential impacts on small parent entities. The cost impact percentage is defined as annual compliance costs res ulting from the proposed rule as a percentage of annual revenues or sales. For purposes of determining small parent entity impacts, annual compliance costs are compared to annual revenues to estimate the magnitude of the regulatory burden

relative to a co mmonly available and objective measure of a company's business volume. Where

### 4

- 3 6/ 11 /2013 regulatory costs represent a small fraction of a typical firm's revenue, the impacts of the regulation are likely to be minimal.

Cost impact percentages are calculated for the in cremental compliance costs incurred during the first year

of the rule and in the steady state. The incremental reporting cost associated with this proposed rule is estimated using the Ratio

- Based Burden Methodology (RBBM), which is a simplified formulatio n of the previously employed burden methodology. Estimating reporting burden using RBBM produces a burden estimate that reflects overall “average” reporting conditions at reporting facilities. 2 According to RBBM, in the steady state, the average burden i ncurred from submitting a Form R equals 35.70516 hours. The burden incurred from submitting a Form A is 61.5% of the burden of a Form R. To reflect the additional reporting burden incurred during the first year of the rule by both filers reporting to TRI for the first

- time and those already reporting to TRI but considering the requirements of the proposed rule for the first time,

RBBM assumes that reporting burden is 2.1 that of each f orms’ burden in the steady state. To calculate the corresponding cost of th ese burden s , a weighted average wage rate, WAWR, is calculated, representing the average loaded cost for a mix of Managerial, Technical and Clerical labor per hour of TRI reporter

burden . The WAWR is calculated with data from Bureau of Labor Statisti cs’ Employer Costs for Employee Compensation , updated quarterly

. As of December 7, 2011, the WAWR is calculated at $50.56. Applying the WAWR to the estimated burden of filing a Form R yields a cost of $3,843 and $1,820 in the first year of the rule and in the steady state, respectively.

Seventy facilities are expected to report under the proposed rule. Th e universe of potentially affected

facilities was estimated using EPA’s TSCA Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Database, the Directory of

World Chemical P roducers (DWCP), other available publications , and existing TRI reporters . The exact

method used to estimat e the universe of affected facilities is discussed in detail in Chapter 2.

The 70 potentially affected facilities can be divided into the followin g two groups:

• Actual Facilities

– 37 facilities potentially subject to the proposed rule’s reporting requirements, where the identity of each facility is known.

• Modeled Facilities

– 33 facilities, where the identity of the individual facilities is unknown but

where it was possible to estimate the total number of potentially subject facilities by NAICS code via the proxy chemical method, as described in Chapter 2.

For these two groups of facilities, although the estimation of revenues, employment, and imp acts are derived separately, the general methodology used to estimate the impacts on small parent entities consists of the following steps:

Step 1: Identify the universe of affected NP facilities. 3

Step 2: Characterize the relationships between facilities and their parent companies in the

affected universe.

2 For more details on RBBM see Chapte r 3 of this economic analysis, and Revising TRI Burden to Ratio

- Based Methodology, TRI Regulatory Development Branch, TRI Program Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information, January 20011, EPA Docket ID Number EPA

- HQ

- OEI

- 2010

- 0825

. 3 The term “affected facilities” is used in this report to denote facilities that meet the TRI reporting requirements and are expected to submit at least one form for NP . A Form R is completed for a single chemical. Facilities may submit more than one Form R if they manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than one listed TRI chemical. Form A permits multiple chemical reports on the same form if the facility meets alternate threshold requirements. An “affected” company is a compa ny owning at least one “affected” facility.

### 4

- 4 6/ 11 /2013 Step 3: Estimate annual revenue of parent companies 4 in the affected universe.

Step 4: Identify small parent entities based on SBA definitions.

Step 5: Develop small parent entity compliance cost estimat es, based on the number of facilities per parent company estimated in Step 2.

Step 6: Calculate the small parent entity cost impact ratio, defined as the compliance costs as a percentage of annual revenue, as a measure of regulatory burden.

Step 7: Estima te the number and percentage of small parent entities with parent

- level impact percentages in each of three categories: (1) less than one percent of annual revenue; (2) between one and three percent of annual revenue; and (3) greater than or equal to

three percent of annual revenue.

The following sections describe how revenue and business size data (based on revenue and employment) were used to characterize impacts on small parent entities of actual and modeled facilities in affected

industries.

4.4.1 Actual Faci lities

Of the 70 facilities estimated to be affected by the proposed rule, 37 (53%) are identified as specific facilities currently manufacturing or importing NP . For these facilities, the cost impact percentages are calculated using the compliance costs per facility, the number of facilities per parent company for small parent entities, and the annual revenues for each of the small parent entities.

Identification of Small Entities and Generation of Revenue Data

For each parent company, revenue and employ ment data was obtained from Dun and Bradstreet’s (D&B) Private Data Portal (Version 2.6.0, accessed on J anuary 17 , 201 2 ). D&B provides a range of data for over 11 million business locations, including data on number of employees, line of business, key fin ancial indicators, business size, and parent/headquarters.

Where D&B data was incomplete or outdated, alternative resources, such as Bloomberg Businessweek (http://investing.businessweek.com), Manta TM, HooversTM, and individual company website documents

were used to identify company size and revenue data. Using this information, it was possible to classify parent companies as small parent entities using the SBA defined standards for the affected industries.

The revenue and business size data used in this an alysis represent data for global ultimate parent companies that own one or more facilities in the industries affected by the proposed rule. 5 The 37 actual facilities identified as currently manufacturing or importing NP under consideration, were linked to 33 parent companies, 31 of which had revenue and size information available in D&B. Information on the two remaining parent companies was found on each company’s website.

4 For the purposes of this report, “parent company” denotes an ultimate parent company owning an affected facility (regardless of the size of the facility); “small parent entity” denotes a small ultimate parent company (as defined by the Small Business Administration threshold) owning an affected facility.

5 The global ultimate parent is the uppermost parent or headquarters that encompasses all directly related branches, subsidiaries, or parents of a specific bus iness at a specific location. This analysis assumes that a facility, as defined under TRI, is equivalent to a location as defined by D&B. A “facility,” subject to EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements, means all buildings, equipment, structures, and o ther stationary items that are located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites, and which are owned or operated by the same person, that is classified under an SIC code covered by the regulations, has 10 or more employees or the equivalent, and manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses any of the listed toxic chemicals or chemical categories above the specific reporting thresholds. For some industries this may not correspond exactly to the definition of a location by D&B.

### 4

- 5 6/ 11 /2013 The ultimate parent data obtained from D&B includes available revenue data for all subsidiaries, divisions, and branches of that parent, including those not individually affected under the rule. The number of potentially affected facilities per parent company, however, represents the number of facilities owned by that parent company tha t are expected to perform compliance activities for the proposed rule (not the total number of facilities per parent company). The universe of actual facilities and their parents

is summarized in Table 4

- 2

.

Table 4

- 2 : Summary of Universe for Small Entity Impact Analyses for Actual Facilities

Number of actual facilities estimated to experience an impact 37

Number of parent companies 33

Number of small parent entities 10

Estimating Compliance Cost

To evaluate the potential impact of the proposed rule, this analysis uses the number of facilities per parent company for small parent entities, the number of reports filed per facility, and the annual revenue for each

sma ll entity. Of the 33 parent companies identified, 10 (30%) were classified as small parent entities ( Table 4

- 2 ), each owning one affected facility estimated to file one Form R. 6

Estimating Cost Impact Ratios

Co st impact percentages for the first year and the steady state were calculated for each small parent entity by dividing compliance costs (for all affected facilities owned by the parent company) by the parent company’s annual revenue. The estimated impacts on small parent entities owning actual facilities under the proposed rule are presented in Table 4

- 3 below. All 10 of the affected small parent entities would have cost impacts of less than 1% in the first year a nd in the steady state. In the first year, there would be a maximum impact of 0.167% and a minimum impact of less than 0.003%. The mean and median impacts for the first year would be 0.04% and 0.019%, respectively.

In the steady state, there would be a maximum impact of 0.079% and a minimum impact of less than 0.001%. The mean and median impacts in the steady state would be less than 0.019% and 0.009%, respectively.

Table 4

- 3 : Summary of Impacts on Small Par ent Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule **(Actual Facilities)**

Cost Impact Category Affected Small Entities in 1st Year Affected Small Entities in Steady State

# % # %

Less than 1% 10 100% 10 100%

1% to 3% 0 0% 0 0%

Greater than 3% 0 0% 0 0%

Median Impact 0.0 19 % 0.0 09 %

Maximum Impact 0. 167 % 0.0 79 %

Note: An “affected entity” is a company that is identified to be a parent of the affected facility identified in Chapter 2.

6 The number of forms estimated to be submitted by actual facilities is derived in Chapter 2. It was not possible to determine which facilities would file what type of Form under the proposed rule, therefore, in the small entity analysis it was conservatively assumed that all additional forms would be Forms R.

### 4

- 6 6/ 11 /2013 4.4.2 Modeled Facilities

For 33 facilities, reporting was estimated and impacts mod eled by using revenue and employment data available by NAICS code from the U.S. Census of Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) (U.S. CB, 2010).

The SUSB provides annual data for U.S. business establishments by geography, industry, and enterprise size, co vering all business establishments with paid employees. The data provided annually includes counts of establishments, firms, employees, and payroll. Data on total receipts are also provided by SUSB every five years. The data available from the SUSB can the refore be used to identify the number of small parent entities affected under the proposed rule, construct annual revenue, and calculate cost impact

ratios.

As mentioned earlier, a sector’s small business definition is based on either its annual revenue or number of employees, depending on the sector. The SUSB provides information tabulated by employment size or revenue size. For the affected sectors with employment

- based small business definitions, profiles were developed for employment size categories. Fo r the two affected sector with revenue

- based small business definitions, NAICS 562211and 562213 (Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal and Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators, respectively), a profile was developed for each revenue size category.

Id

entify Universe of Potentially Affected Facilities

In order to characterize facility

- parent relationships and determine whether the parents of the affected facilities are small parent entities, the universe of facilities modeled in Chapter 2 was distribute d across SUSB employment 7 and revenue size classes (depending on the sector) for each affected NAICS code ( Table 4

- 4 and Table 4

- 5 ). Specifically, the total NP facility co unt in each NAICS code was multiplied by the number of establishments in the particular revenue or employment size class, and divided by the

total number of establishments in the NAICS code.

Table 4

- 4 : Distri bution of Potentially Affected Facilities by Employment Size Class

Employment Size Class # Facilities

10

- 19 employees 8

20

- 99 employees 9

100

- 499 employees 5

500+ employees 5

Total 27

7 Employment size classes refer to the parent entity size. Parent entities of facilities required to report to TRI should have at least the same number of employees as the facility it owns. Therefore, employment size c ategories with less than 10 employees were not used in the analysis (i.e., facilities expected to report were not distributed into these size categories, and revenue data from these categories was not used to construct estimated small parent entity revenue s).

### 4

- 7 6/ 11 /2013 Table 4

- 5 : Distribution of Potentially Affected Facilities by Revenue Size Class

Revenue Size Class # Facilities

<100,000 0

100,000

- 499,999 1

500,000

- 999,999 0

1,000,000

- 2,499,999 1

2,500,000

- 4,999,999 0

5,000,000

- 7,499,999 0

7,500,000

- 9,999,999 0

10,000,00 0

- 14,999,999 0

15,000,000

- 19,999,999 0

20,000,000

- 24,999,999 0

25,000,000

- 29,999,999 0

30,000,000

- 34,999,999 0

35,000,000

- 39,999,999 0

40,000,000

- 44,999,999 0

45,000,000

- 49,999,999 0

50,000,000

- 74,999,999 0

75,000,000

- 99,999,999 0

100,000,000+ 2

Total 6
Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding applied in distributing small numbers of facilities expected to report across Census size categories

.

Characterize Facility

- Parent Relationships

Compliance costs and impacts are estimated at the parent company level, where a parent company may own one or more facilities. Therefore, it was necessary to estimate the number of NP facilities per parent company, which was done by dividing the number of establishments by the number of firms in the SUSB

data fo r each NAICS/employment or revenue size class. The distribution of facilities derived in the previous section was then divided by this number to obtain a count of NP parent companies for each NAICS/revenue or employment size class combination. The counts of parent companies are shown in

Table 4

- 6 and Table 4

- 7 below.

Table 4

- 6 : Parent Company Distribution by Employment Size C lass

Employment Size Class # Parent Companies

10

- 19 employees 8

20

- 99 employees 9

100

- 499 employees 3

500+ employees 2

Total 22

### 4

- 8 6/ 11 /2013 Table 4

- 7 : Parent Company Distribution by
Revenue Size Class

Revenu e Size Class # Parent Companies

<100,000 0

100,000

- 499,999 1

500,000

- 999,999 0

1,000,000

- 2,499,999 1

2,500,000

- 4,999,999 0

5,000,000

- 7,499,999 0

7,500,000

- 9,999,999 0

10,000,000

- 14,999,999 0

15,000,000

- 19,999,999 0

20,000,000

- 24,999,999 0

25,000 ,000

- 29,999,999 0

30,000,000

- 34,999,999 0

35,000,000

- 39,999,999 0

40,000,000

- 44,999,999 0

45,000,000

- 49,999,999 0

50,000,000

- 74,999,999 0

75,000,000

- 99,999,999 0

100,000,000+ 1

Total 4

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding applied in distribut ing small numbers of facilities expected to report across Census size categories

.

Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Companies

The SUSB data include the total annual receipts (defined as the revenue for goods produced or distributed, or services provided) for each NAICS/revenue or employment size class combination. For each of the affected sectors with modeled facilities, EPA calculates average revenue per small entity using the appropriate employment size or revenue size tabulation. To make this calculati on, the total revenue and total number of firms are summed across all small revenue or employment size classes for each

NAICS code. 8 The total revenue of all small revenue or employment size classes is then divided by the

number of small firms to calculate an average revenue per small firm for each NAICS code.

In some cases, total revenue for a revenue class was not provided in the SUSB data because doing so would disclose the operations of an individual establishment or firm. In these case s the revenue is interpolated by substituting the midpoint of the revenue size class for the average revenue for the NAICS/revenue size class combination with missing data. For this analysis, data by employment size class was fully populated ; therefore no further interpol ation was required.

Because the SUSB data reflect 2007 annual revenue, it was necessary to inflate the revenue to current dollars using one of several indices. The Industrial Production Index (IPI) measures the amount of industrial output from certain indu stries and is used to inflate annual revenue in the manufacturing (NAICS 32) sectors to 2011 dollars (U.S. Federal Reserve, 2011). All other affected sectors (NAICS 42

8 In cases where the small business definition was between the upper and lower bounds of the employment or revenue size category provided in the 2007 Statistics of U.S. Businesses, the entire size category is classified as

small.

### 4

- 9 6/ 11 /2013 and 56) are inflated based on the change in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 2007 to 20 11, which is a measure of overall economic output (BEA, 201 2 ).

Estimate Number of Small Parent Entities

EPA estimates the number of small parent entities in each NAICS code by distributing the total number of NP facilities in each NAICS code among the empl oyment or revenue size classes based on the overall distribution of establishments amongst the size classes in the SUSB data. Because the SUSB provides data broken down by employment and revenue size class, it was possible to identify the number of small

f irms in each sector. Using this method, it was estimated that the 33 modeled facilities are owned by 26 parent companies, 24 of which are classified as small parent entities. Note that , according to the SUSB

data , more than 90 percent of firms in the affe cted NAICS codes have revenues or employment below the

SBA threshold. In addition, due to the small universe of affected facilities that is distributed among the

size classes based on the SUSB data and the resulting effects of rounding 9

, all but two identi fied parent companies are classified as small entities

.

Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs

Compliance cost is estimated at the parent company level ; therefore it was necessary to determine the average number of facilities per small parent entity in e ach affected NAICS. T he average number of affected facilities per small parent entity is estimated at one in all affected NAICS codes, with the exception of NAICS 562211

, where the average number of affected facilities per small parent entity is

estimated at two

. Some facilities manufacturing, processing or otherwise using NP were expected to meet the Alternate Threshold and thus be eligible to file a Form A for NP

. However, a ctivity, release and waste management data necessary to evaluate Form A applicabi lity could not be estimated due to th e limited available information, therefore it was not possible to meaningfully distribute the type of f orm filed across

affected facilities . As a result

, it was conservatively assumed that all forms filed would be Forms R. I t is estimated that the 33 modeled facilities would each file one Form R under the proposed rule, incurring a cost of $3,843 in the first year of the rule and $1,820 in the steady state.

Estimate Cost Impact Ratios

To calculate the cost impact rati os, the first year and steady state compliance costs are divided by the average revenue per small parent entity for each affected sector. As presented in Table 4

- 8 , no small parent entity is estimated to incur impa cts higher than 1 percent under the proposed rule.

9 For example, for NAI CS 325520, distributing NP parent entities according to the SUSB distribution of parent entities for the NAICS overall results in less than 0.5 NP parent entities above the SBA threshold, which rounds to 0.

### 4

- 10 6/ 11 /2013 Table 4

- 8 : Summary of Impacts on Small Parent Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule
**(Modeled Facilities)**

NAICS Description Small

Parent
Entities

(#) Aver age Revenues (2011$) First Year
Cost Steady
State Cost First Year Impacts Steady State Impacts

325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 8 $10,021,632 $3,842.56 $1,820.16 0.051% 0.024%

325520 Adhesive Manufacturing 3 $14,572,551 $3,842.56 $1,820.16 0.034% 0.016%

326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing 1 $15,901,433 $3,842.56 $1,820.16 0.027% 0.013%

326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing 1 $9,898,708 $3,842.56 $1,820.16 0.046% 0.022%

326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing 7 $19,966,724 a $3,842.56 $1,820.16 0.0 22 % 0.0 10 %

424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products

Merchant Wholesalers 1 $19,141,344 $3,842.56 $1,820.16 0.027% 0.013%

562211 b Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposa l 2 $ 3,008,023 $ 7,685.12 $ 3,640.32 0. 255 % 0.1 21 %

562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators 1 $2,473,979 $3,842.56 $1,820.16 0. 155 % 0.0 74 %

a R evenues in C ensus data are presented for >500 employees in aggregate, and no parent entities in this analysi s are estimated in the >500 employee size category

. Therefore , s o as not to overestimate revenues by including parent entities with >750 employee s, the calculation of the average small parent entity revenue for NAICS

326199 is restricted to employment size categories from 10 to 499 employees.

b The average number of affected facilities per small parent entity in NAICS 562211 is estimated to be 2, therefore, the first year and steady state cost of filing a Form R is

doubled.

Sensitivity Analyse s

Because many sectors have a small number of affected facilities (and therefore a small number of affected small parent entities), the small entity analysis calculates cost impact ratios using a single average small parent entity revenue that takes into account the distribution of small parent entity revenues in the sector. In order to ensure possible impacts to the smallest parent entities are not masked, the following sensitivity analyses were conducted.

In Scenario One , impacts were calculated using SUSB data fo r only the smallest employment or revenue size categories with expected small parent entities as follows:

• For the employment

- based sectors, impacts were calculated against the average revenue of the

10

- 19 employee s and 20

- 99 employees size categor ies sepa rately ;

• For the hazardous waste treatment and disposal sector, one parent entity is expected to report in the $100,000

- $499,000 size category, so impacts were calculated using the lower bound of the category ($100,000 inflated to 2011 dollars); and

• For t he solid waste combustors and incinerators sector, since a single facility (corresponding to a single small parent entity) is expected to report, it is assumed the facility could potentially be in the lowest revenue category (<$100,000 ) . B ecause there is n o lower bound for this category, the average revenue for the size category is used.

Under this scenario, impacts of >3% are incurred by two small parent entities (of the 2 4 total small parent entities) in the first year and in the steady state: one small p arent entity in the hazardous waste treatment and disposal sector, and one small parent entity in the solid waste combustors and incinerators sector. Impacts were <1% for the remaining small parent entity in the hazardous waste treatment and disposal

secto r and for all employment

- based sectors.

### 4

- 11 6/ 11 /2013 Note that while impacts above 1% are estimated in Scenario One, the parent entity revenues used in this

s cenario are unrealistically low, and impacts are therefore likely to be overstated. Scenario Two uses

sector

- sp ecific wage data and an assumption of a minimum of ten full

- time employees per reporting facility to develop more realistic impact estimates.

In Scenario Two , impacts were calculated by estimating the lowest revenues considered possible for a facility emp loying only 10 employees. Revenues were constructed using sector

- specific (at the four

- digit NAICS level) wage data obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment

Statistics data series ( BLS 2012 ), deflated to 2011 dollars ( BEA 2012 ) . For each sector, a loaded wage

was calculated by adding estimated benefits to the hourly wage obtained from BLS’ OES 10 and overhead (assumed to be 17% of hourly wages). This loaded wage rate was multiplied first by 2,080 (the number of working hours in a year) and next by 10 (the number of full

- time employees a facility must employ to be required to report to TRI) to obtain an estimate of the minimum revenue a facility required to report to

TRI should have. Note that this method does not account for costs and revenues not directly related to employment, such as input costs, operational costs, facility costs, and profits. It is therefore assumed that the estimated revenues obtained using this method are substantially lower than is realistic for a facility

t hat would report to TRI.

Per

- facilit y compliance costs were divided by estimated revenues to obtain estimated cost impact ratios. Because each facility is assumed to have revenues equal to the minimum revenues necessary to meet the TRI reporting threshold, parent

- entity impacts must be equal to or less than facility

- level impacts. (For example, in the hazardous waste treatment and disposal sector, it is estimated that each parent entity owns two affected facilities; both the compliance costs and per

- facilit y revenues are therefore doubled, yielding the same cost impact percentage as incurred by a single facility.)

Under this scenario, no modeled parent entity incurs impacts of >1%. Because this method estimates the

minimum revenue of a parent entity whose fa cilities are subject to TRI reporting, it can be assumed that no parent entities in any sector incur impacts of >1%.

U nder either scenario, it is presumed that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities given th at fewer than 100 small parent entities are impacted by the rule, less than 20% of affected small parent entities incur impacts of >1%, and less than 20% of small parent entities incur impacts o f >3%.



## 4.5 Summary of Results

The 70 facilities estimated to repor t under the proposed rule were linked to 59 parent companies, 34 ( 58 %) of which were categorized as small parent entities. Thirty

- seven of the 70 facilities were identified as actual facilities and could be linked to 33 actual parent companies, 10 of which were identified as small parent entities. For these 10 actual parent companies, small parent entity impacts are estimated to be less than 1% of annual revenue in the first year of the rule and in the steady state.

For the 33 modeled facilities, it was estimated that the affected facilities are owned by 26 parent companies, 24 of which are classified as small parent entities. S mall parent entity impacts are estimated to be less than 1% of annual average revenue in the first year of the rule and in the steady state.

10 Benefits were calculated using the average rati o of benefits to total compensation for all workers in private industry from BLS’ Employer Costs of Employee Compensation data series (DOL 2013)

.

### 4

- 12 6/ 11 /2013 

## Literature Cited

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce. 2012 . National Income and Products Accounts Table, Table 1.1. 9

. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product

. <http://www.bea.gov/index.htm>

U.S . Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS ), U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012. Occupational Employment

Statistics. May 2012 National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates

. < http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrci.htm >

U.S. CB (2010). Statisti cs of U.S. Businesses (SUSB). http://www.census.gov/econ/susb

U.S.DOL (2011). Employer Costs for Employee Compensation

– September 2011. Table 9. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washi ngton D.C., December 7 , 2011.

U.S.DOL ( 2013) . Employer Costs for Employee Compensation

– December 2012. Table 9: Private industry, goods

- producing and service

- providing industries, by occupational group

. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statist ics. Washington D.C., March 12, 2013.

< http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t09.htm >

U.S. EPA (2011a). Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number (ICR) 1363.21,

OMB Number 2025

- 0009: TRI Form R and Form A Toxic Chemical Release Repor ting. February 2011.

U.S. Federal Reserve. 2011. Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization. Release Date April, 2011. <http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/default.htm>

U.S. SBA ( 2013 ). Table of Sma ll Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes. U.S. Small Business Administration. January 7, 2013

. SBA's size standards can be found at: http://www.sba.gov/content/table

- small

- business

- size

standards

U.S. SBA (2011). United States Small Business Administration. Office of Advocacy

– Research and

Statistics

– Data on Small Business

– All Industries by NAICS Codes, 2008: Employer Firms & Employment by Employment Size of Firm by NAICS Codes, 2008. Information from the Small

Business Administration on the Internet. http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/us_naics6.pdf. Downloaded on August 10, 2011.

### 5

- 1 6/ 11 /2013 

## Chapter 5

– Benefits

In enacting the E mergency Planning and Community Right

- to

- Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990, Congress recognized the significant benefits of providing information on the presence, releases and waste management of toxic chemicals. The T oxics Release Inventory (TRI) has proven to be one of the most powerful forces in empowering the federal government, state and local governments, industry, environmental groups, and the general public to fully participate in an informed dialogue about the environmental impacts of toxic chemicals in the United States. The TRI database provides several types of information, including quantitative information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management practices. Starting in 1987, the collection of t his information enhanced the ability for the public, government, and the regulated community to understand the breadth and magnitude of chemical releases in the United States, and to assess the need to reduce the releases and

transfers of toxic chemicals. TRI data enable all interested parties to establish credible baselines, to set realistic goals for environmental progress, and to measure progress in meeting these goals over time. As such, the TRI Program has become a yardstick by which progress can be me asured by all interested or

affected stakeholders.

The information reported to TRI increases community knowledge and awareness of the quantities of toxic

chemicals released to the environment as well as the potential pathways of exposure to those chemical s. This knowledge then:

• I mproves scientific understanding of the health and environmental risks of toxic chemicals;

• A llows the public to make informed decisions on where to work and live;

• E nhances the ability of corporate leaders and purchasers to more a ccurately gauge a facility’s potential environmental liabilities;

• P rovides reporting facilities with information that can be used to save money as well as reduce emissions; and

• A ssists federal, state, and local authorities in making better decisions on a cceptable levels of toxic

chemicals in the environment.

The benefits of the proposed rule include improved understanding, awareness, and decision making related to the provision and distribution of information on releases and waste management of NP

. The provision of information can lead to follow

- on activities that create additional costs and benefits. In particular, this information can lead to voluntary initiatives by industry to review production processes, set goals for reductions in emissions, and in stitute “good neighbor” policies. If an individual facility owner or operator perceives that the additional information generated to comply with the section 313 reporting requirements provide them with valuable information about their operations and how th ey might be modified, then changes can be implemented to reduce releases of TRI chemicals.

Making TRI information available to the public may provide incentives for facilities to reduce TRI chemical releases, and i n some cases it may encourage facilities to reduce releases where such changes

would not be in the facility’s best interest if the information about the releases was not in the public

domain. Social benefits derived from voluntary follow

- on activities may include decreased costs of waste

treatmen t and disposal, lower probability of accidental releases and lower clean

- up costs in the event of such releases, reduced contamination of natural resources from decreased land disposal, improved air and water quality, and reduced risks to human health. Suc h social benefits are partially offset by the social costs to implement the changes, such as installing scrubbers and substituting materials that are less toxic but more expensive. The net social benefits of the information provided by the proposed rule an d the possible follow

- on activities equal the difference between the total benefits and the total costs of the

activities that lead to the reduction in releases.

### 5

- 2 6/ 11 /2013 The potential benefits of additional TRI reporting can be understood by examining the ways in which different groups of affected stakeholders

— consumers, industry, non

- federal governments and the general public

— use the TRI data. Consumers may use the data to make more informed decisions about the products they buy and to enter into constructive dial ogue with the firms in their communities that release

NP

. Facilities may find opportunities for waste reduction and cost savings through developing reporting data required under the proposed rule. Non

- federal governments may use the data in lieu of, or in support of, their own environmental protection activities. In addition, non

- users of the TRI data benefit from its public provision whenever others use of the data results in improvements in environmental quality.

Some examples of the ways in which various stakeholders have utilized TRI data include:

• Use of the Data by Community and Public Interest Groups: Communities use TRI data to begin dialogues with local facilities and to encourage them to reduce their emissions, develop pollution prevention plans, a nd improve safety measures. Public interest groups use the data to educate the public about toxic chemical emissions and potential risk, and in environmental justice activities.

• Use of the Data by Education and Research Institutions: The TRI data are used in many environmental education programs, particularly at the high school and university levels. Students learn about toxic chemical releases, the potential health and environmental effects of those releases, pollution prevention activities and opportuniti es, and the social and political aspects of environmental protection. Some organizations also conduct educational outreach programs using

TRI data.

• Use of the Data by the Financial and Business Communities: Investment analysts use TRI data to provide reco mmendations to clients seeking to make environmentally sound investments. Insurance companies look to TRI data as one indication of potential environmental liabilities. Consultants and others use the data to identify business opportunities, such as marketi ng pollution prevention and control technologies to TRI reporting facilities. Demand for environmental performance information by investors, insurance companies, and the public has led many companies to develop environmental annual reports similar to annua l reports on financial performance traditionally prepared for investors.

• Industry Use of TRI Data: TRI data are used by industry for activities such as developing waste reduction strategies and improving companies’ understanding of their own production pro cesses. Industry also uses TRI submission information to show environmental progress and as a starting point for engaging with communities.

• Government Use of TRI Data: Government organizations such as the media

- specific and core offices at EPA, EPA Region al offices, and other national, state, and local government agencies routinely use the TRI data. TRI data are used to: develop inspection targeting and enforcement tools; analyze and prioritize long

- term trends in waste minimization; identify candidates fo r the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; to coordinate environmental data internationally through agreements and organizations such as the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, and to set priorities and allocate increasingly scarce environmen tal protection resources to the most pressing problems.

EPA has not attempted to monetize the benefits of the proposed rule due to the lack of quantitative information characterizing the range of users and non

- users of TRI data and the substantial analyti cal challenges associated with conducting an analysis that accurately predicts behavioral responses to the provision of information. In addition , the potentially large numbers of beneficiaries who are not TRI data users, or who are otherwise unaware of the data (e.g., general public) , further limits EPA’s ability to quantify potential benefits

.

The experience since the first forms were submitted to TRI in 1987 suggests that reporting under EPCRA section 313 has produced real gains in understanding about com munities’ exposure to toxic chemicals. In

### 5

- 3 6/ 11 /2013 its report entitled: How are the Toxics Release Inventory Data Used?

– Government, Business, Academic, and Citizen Uses, EPA has documented numerous examples of how multiple stakeholders have used TRI

data (US EPA, 2003). Moreover, a cursory search on GoogleScholar TM reveals thousands of academic articles referencing the Toxics Release Inventory. Listing NP

, and the subsequent use of the reported information, should provide similar gains in understanding of this pa rticular chemical. EPA believes that

NP meets the statutory toxicity criteria of section 313, and is at least as toxic as some of the chemicals for which Congress initially believed there were net benefits due to reporting (i.e., the initial list of sectio n 313 chemicals)

.

### 5

- 4 6/ 11 /2013 

## Literature Cited

U.S. EPA (200 3 ). How are the Toxics Release Inventory Data Used?

– Government, Business, Academic,
and Citizen Uses

. EPA 260

- R

- 002

- 004

. May

.