TRI Form R and Form A ICR Renewal 2014 Response to Comments, including

3 Anonymous, and 1 from PSEG Services Department

 

 # Topic Author Comment/Response

 1 

 7/22/2014

1 Finds reporting requirement to be 

misrepresentative and unnecessary

Anonymous 

Comment (1)

Comment: Our business manufactures large heavy rotating machinery using steel, stainless 

steel, and bronze metals. The "toxic chemicals" contained in steel, stainless steel, and bronze 

are chromium, nickel, and copper to name a few. The scrap metal waste has value and is sold 

as scrap. 

I do not believe the requirement that we calculate and report the "emissions" of these toxic 

chemicals was the intention of the rule. The chemicals are all in a solid state and remain so 

during the manufacturing process.

The reported data skews the value of the aggregate data and gives an entirely false impression 

to those attempting to evaluate the information.

The State and local emergency response entities would prefer we not report these chemicals 

either. Ask them.

Response: The EPA administers the statutory language that requires facilities to report on a TRI 

chemical if they trigger reporting thresholds for that chemical. The law calls for facilities to 

report information on releases and waste management for each reportable chemical. TRI 

reporting requirements align with these statutory requirements. To reduce burden and avoid 

potentially misleading reporting, the EPA has provided several burden-reducing exemptions.

2 Not everyone who should report to 

TRI does report

Anonymous 

Comment (1)

Comment: Finally, I believe the majority of small and medium businesses do not report even 

though they hit the criteria. Technically they are in violation and subject to immense fines.

Response: Facilities covered under TRI must submit reports for each chemical manufactured, 

processed, or otherwise used above threshold amounts. Failing to adhere to the requirements of 

section 313 of EPCRA and its implementing regulations could result in an EPA enforcement 

action against a facility.

3 Toxic Chemicals in Stainless Steel Anonymous 

Comment (2)

Comment: Our business manufactures large heavy rotating machinery using steel, stainless 

steel, and bronze metals. The “toxic chemicals” contained in steel, stainless steel, and bronze 

are chromium, nickel, and copper to name a few. The scrap metal waste has value and is sold 

as scrap.

We want to increase our business. This involves using more steel, stainless steel, and bronze. 
TRI Form R and Form A ICR Renewal 2014 Response to Comments, including

3 Anonymous, and 1 from PSEG Services Department

 

 # Topic Author Comment/Response

 2 

 7/22/2014

We think it is silly that we are asked what we are doing to ‘reduce’ or ‘eliminate’ our use of 

these toxic chemicals.

Response: The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 requires facilities to report source reduction 

practices when completing their TRI reports. Source reduction activities, which reduce the 

amount of a toxic chemical managed as waste, are reported in Section 8.10 of the Form R. A 

facility that did not implement any source reduction activities for a particular chemical would 

not report any source reduction activities in this Section. If the facility wishes to indicate the 

reason(s) it did not implement any source reduction activities, the proposed changes make it 

easier to provide this information in Section 8.11.

4 Request to reduce paperwork for 

industries with a small number of 

reportable chemicals

Anonymous 

Comment 

(3) 

Comment: SOME CATEGORIES SUCH AS RUBBER PRODUCT MANUFACTURER 

ONLY HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF CHEMICALS TO REPORT BUT ARE STILL 

REQUIRED TO COMPLETE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A MANUSCRIPT OF PAGES. iS 

THERE ANY WAY TO REDUCE THE PAPER WORK FOR INDUSTRIES WITH 

MINIMAL REPORTABLES?

Response: Facilities that trigger TRI reporting for listed chemicals must submit a TRI 

reporting form for each chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above threshold 

amounts. TRI-MEweb, which is the EPA’s online reporting software facilities use to prepare 

and submit TRI reporting forms, expedites reporting by completing fields common across 

reporting forms (e.g., facility address and contact information) and can pre-populate forms 

based on prior-year submissions. 

Additionally, facilities have the option of preparing and submitting a Form A Certification 

Statement for reportable TRI chemicals instead of a Form R provided that for each chemical 

the facilities do not exceed 500 pounds for the total annual reportable amount for that 

chemical, and that their amounts manufactured or processed or otherwise used do not exceed 

one-million pounds. Facilities may not report PBT chemicals on a Form A. Guidance on the 

TRI website provides more information on the Form A.
TRI Form R and Form A ICR Renewal 2014 Response to Comments, including

3 Anonymous, and 1 from PSEG Services Department

 

 # Topic Author Comment/Response

 3 

 7/22/2014

5 Request to incorporate sections 8.11 

and 9.1 throughout the form

Anonymous 

Comment 

(3) 

Comment: THE CHANGES PROPOSED SEEM HELPFUL. THE CHANGES TO THE 

ONE SECTION (8.1.1)WHICH ALLOWS THE REPORT PREPARER TO ADD 

COMMENTS DIRECTLY BELOW THE QUESTION WOULD BE A GOOD FORMAT 

FOR OTHER SECTIONS WHERE THE COMMENT AREA IS LOCATED BELOW A 

GROUP OF QUESTIONS.

Response: EPA has made changes in TRI-MEweb to allow facilities to provide optional 

section 8.11 and 9.1 data while preparing other portions of the form. For example, a facility 

may provide information for section 8.11 on the screen for reporting on source reduction 

methods and activities (section 8.10) and can provide information for section 9.1 when 

viewing validation messages or providing information on a facility’s location. EPA continues 

to look for ways to connect the optional text fields to other portions of the form to make it 

easier for facilities to provide useful information on specific elements of the reporting form.

6 Need one sign-in and fewer 

password update requirements

PSEG Comment: In addition, PSEG recommends that the EPA continue to further unify its reporting 

structure under a single log-on and password which abides by the Cross-Media Electronic 

Reporting Regulation (e.g. the CAMD Business System is separate from the CDX structure). 

Currently, one of the major burdens of PSEG’s responsible officials is maintaining a long list 

of log-ons, passwords and challenge questions up to date for certifying quarterly and annual 

reporting obligations (e.g., passwords will expire after 90 days when the reporting obligation 

is annual, thus requiring quarterly log-ons just to update a password).

Response: EPA continually seeks to consolidate all of its electronic reporting tools into a 

single log-on. The current sign-on system allows a user to reset passwords automatically prior 

to expiration or following their expiration by answering a security question. Established 

security protocols protect the information provided by facilities using the single sign-on CDX 

system and support them in meeting their annual reporting obligations. 

7 Optional Information on RMP 

Status

PSEG Comment: PSEG recommends either modifying the proposed changes to Sections 8.11 and 

9.1 (or adding a new optional section) to specifically take into account a chemical’s 

applicability with the 40 CFR Part 68, the Risk Management Plan (RMP) program...PSEG

feels it would be less burdensome on the reporting community and EPA if each facility had 

the opportunity to provide information regarding its RMP status annually. PSEG recommends 

that the TRI Form A and R provides the best place to notify EPA regarding the status of a 

chemical that does not meet RMP thresholds.”
TRI Form R and Form A ICR Renewal 2014 Response to Comments, including

3 Anonymous, and 1 from PSEG Services Department

 

 # Topic Author Comment/Response

 4 

 7/22/2014

Response: EPA is proposing to add a new category to Section 9.1 to allow facilities to indicate 

that they are providing optional information on the status of the toxic chemical under other 

regulatory programs. This category will facilitate the submission of contextual information on 

other programs that frequently relate to TRI chemicals. It should be noted, however, that 

providing such information would not relieve facilities of submitting any required information 

to other regulatory programs, including those administered by EPA.

8 Providing Textual Information 

About Estimated Annual Reduction 

(Proposed Section 8.10(d))

Sharon 

Harriman 

(NASA)

Comment: There should be an option for text rather than just percent because in some cases a 

percent is not meaningful. For example: What would the percentage be for a bullet capture 

system implemented in a shooting range? Would it include all the soil that had to be removed 

from decades of use prior to the new system compared to zero soil contamination with the 

new system?

Response: In this scenario, you would report the amount of waste generated after 

implementation of the new system relative to the amount of waste that would have been 

generated in the absence of the new system, expressed as a percent decrease. If you wished to 

provide a text description about remediation of contamination that occurred in prior years, you 

could do so in Section 8.11. TRI-MEweb already provides a button that allows you to provide 

Section 8.11 information connected to a specific source reduction activity, so it is not 

necessary to add a new text field for this purpose.

9 Final Rule Implementing the PPA Robert Costa 

(Leidos)

Comment: When does EPA plan on issuing a final rule for implementing the PPA? Since the 

proposed rule was issued in 1991 and a final rule is critical to defining what is a waste stream, 

recycling, process stream, pollution prevention, etc. All of which is necessary to have all 

reporters provide consistent data and allow for more meaningful pollution prevention data 

analyses.

Response: EPA has no plans to issue a final rule at this time. EPA has provided guidance on 

these terms in various documents, most notably in Interpretations Of Waste Management 

Activities: Recycling, Combustion For Energy Recovery, Treatment For Destruction, Waste 

Stabilization And Release (published in 1999 and available at www.epa.gov/tri/p2). 
TRI Form R and Form A ICR Renewal 2014 Response to Comments, including

3 Anonymous, and 1 from PSEG Services Department

 

 # Topic Author Comment/Response

 5 

 7/22/2014

10 Categories for Reporting Barriers 

to P2 in Section 8.11

Sharon 

Harriman 

(NASA)

Comment: Comment on: “Providing optional barrier codes that facilities can use in Section 

8.11 to indicate why they could not implement any source reduction activities during the 

reporting year.” There should also be a box for “Other” and a text field to provide information 

on other barrier.

Response: EPA agrees with this comment and is proposing to include a checkbox for “Other” 

barriers. In all cases, facilities will have the option to provide textual information associated 

with the selected barrier(s) in Section 8.11.

11 Categories for Reporting Barriers 

to P2 in Section 8.11

Bobbie 

Dougherty 

(Asahi Kasei 

Plastics)

Comment: This is just for a comment to be considered. One additional category for barriers 

to pollution prevention - Alternate technology not available.

Response: EPA agrees with this comment and believes this represents a common barrier type 

based on information submitted in Section 8.11 for Reporting Year 2012. EPA is proposing to 

add a category, “No known substitutes or alternative technologies”

12 Enforcement for Facilities Not 

Implementing P2

Jerry Ritter 

(J Paper Inc)

Comment: There will be some concern that EPA would do enforcement based on reasons for 

not implementing P2. [This] could be seen as a disincentive to complete that section.

Response: EPA is not aware of any instances where enforcement action was taken based on 

information provided in Section 8.11, either about P2 activities or about barriers to P2. 

13 P2 Considerations Built Into 

Original Process Design

Steve Leeper 

and James 

Rubin 

(Avago 

Technologies)

Comment 1: Should improvements made prior to actual implementation (original design vs. 

actual implementation) be reported as reductions, or should improvements only be reported 

for a process that has actually been run for a period time and then improved?

Comment 2: Totally agree this last question about designing in pollution prevention with new 

systems and getting credit for this up-front thinking! Recommend separate check box for this.

Response: Source reduction includes activities that eliminate or reduce the generation of 

chemical waste. Only newly implemented resource reduction activities are reported in Section 

8.10. Section 8.11 provides facilities a broader opportunity to describe any steps they have taken 

to reduce releases. EPA agrees that a separate check box would help facilities provide such 

information and is proposing to include a separate check box to provide information in Section 

8.11 on ways P2 was incorporated in the original process design. 
TRI Form R and Form A ICR Renewal 2014 Response to Comments, including

3 Anonymous, and 1 from PSEG Services Department

 

 # Topic Author Comment/Response

 6 

 7/22/2014

14 P2 for Chemicals for Which Form 

R Is Not Required

James Rubin 

(Avago 

Technologies)

Comment: Our company does a lot of pollution prevention on chemicals not required to be 

reported under 313 or have not exceeded the threshold to report. Think about providing a 

section to list these activities so public looking at a company could see these activities also.

Response: EPA encourages facilities to report information on pollution prevention and agrees 

that P2 information is valuable even for chemicals for which a Form R is not required. This 

information is not well-suited to the Form R, however, because the Form R collects information 

specific to individual chemicals for which a reporting threshold is exceeded. As mentioned in 

the supporting statement published with the initial ICR, EPA is looking into ways for facilities 

to provide optional, TRI-related information outside of the reporting form (collectively called 

miscellaneous documents). EPA will consider how to incorporate a way for a facility to indicate 

how its pollution prevention activities have reduced its manufacturing, processing, or otherwise 

use of a given TRI chemical to below reporting threshold levels. 

15 Composite Ratio Based on Both 

Activity and Production Variables

Robert Costa 

(Leidos)

Comment: 8.9 - what if you used a composite calculation for ratio using production and 

activities? Will there be a both box?

Response: Under EPA’s proposed instructions, you would check the box corresponding with 

the type of variable that was weighted more heavily in calculating the ratio.