1

Alternate Threshold for Low Annual Reportable Amounts; 

Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; 

Response to OMB Terms of Clearance Notice

OMB Control Number: 2070-0143, OMB Expiration Date: 01/31/2003

Background

On January 18, 2001, OMB approved EPA ICR 1704-05, OMB Control Number 

2070-0143, for two years with terms related to burden reduction to be responded to at the time of

submission of the ICR renewal. This submission constitutes EPA’s response to OMB’s terms of

clearance for EPA ICR 1704-05, Alternate Threshold for Low Annual Reportable Amounts, and

is being submitted to OMB as an attachment to its request for OMB approval of EPA ICR 

1704-06, Alternate Threshold for Low Annual Reportable Amounts, due to expire on January 31,

2003.

For this ICR renewal (1704.06, OMB Control No. 2070-0143), EPA estimates that the

total average annual burden hour estimate for the Form A Certification Statement is 13.7 hours

for a facility submitting a single certification statement under the Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313. The estimate of total burden for reporting

using the Form A Certification Statement is 145,534 burden hours. This year’s estimate

represents a substantial reduction in burden, over 500,000, than what is currently in OMB’s

inventory for alternate threshold reporting, 644,761 burden hours. As described in detail in

Section 6 of the Supporting Statement for the EPA ICR 1704.06 renewal, this reduction in the

burden estimate for the Form A Certification Statement is a result of adjustments to estimates of

number of responses, changes to unit reporting burden estimates, and an adjustment for use of

TRI-ME (TRI Made-Easy reporting software). TRI-ME is an intelligent reporting software

program that is expected to significantly decrease the reporting burden by walking filers through

the reporting process, eliminating much of the analysis required to make compliance

determinations and calculate release quantities. Burden reduction with TRI-ME is estimated to be

15-20% for all TRI reporters.

Use and Potential Use of the Form A Certification Statement

Tables 1 through 4 present information on Form A Certification Statement usage over

time and in reporting year 2000. Table 1 presents facilities’ usage of the Form A Certification

Statement from reporting year 1995, the first year that alternate threshold reporting was in effect,

to 2000, the last reporting year for which data have been submitted. Form A Certification

Statement usage increased somewhat from 1995 to 1997, and has remained relatively constant

since 1997. 
2

Table 1: Actual Form A Usage Over Time

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Percent of All Forms 8.8% 10.2% 14.6% 15.5% 15.1% 14.4%

Percent of All Facilities 14.0% 15.9% 23.3% 24.1% 23.6% 23.2%

Note: As of 2000, PBT chemicals with lower thresholds could not be reported on Form A. Excluding reports

on PBT chemicals, Form As comprised 15.6% of all forms in 2000.

Table 2 describes current utilization of the Form A Certification Statement. Expanding

Form A Certification Statement eligibility by raising established thresholds seems premature given

that the Form A Certification Statement is underutilized by reporting facilities at current threshold

levels. Table 3 describes actual and potential Form A Certification Statement reporting in terms

of the number of chemicals affected. Table 4 describes Form A Certification Statement usage at

the facility level. 

Table 2: Reporting Year 2000 Use and Potential Use of the Form A Certification Statement

Number of

Chemicals

Reported on

Form A

Percent of Total

Forms

Number of

Facilities

Percent of All

Facilities

Submitted 13,209 14.4 5,451 23.2

Submitted plus

Potential Form As

23,976 26.2 10,736 45.7

Notes:

1. "Number of Facilities" refers to the number of facilities that submitted at least 1 Form A Certification Statement.

2. "Potential Form As" are Form Rs that have a total of current year section 8.1 through 8.7 of 500 lbs. or less.

 

Table 3: Number of Chemicals Affected

Number of chemicals eligible for

100% Form A conversion 

Total number of chemicals

reported on Form A

Actual 24 32

Potential 50 72

Table 4: Information Affected at the Facility Level

Facilities submitting at least 1 Form

A Certification Statement

Facilities Submitting Only Form A

Certification Statements (no Form R reports)

Actual 5,451 2,942

Potential 10,736 4,677
3

In addition to emphasizing its availability during TRI training sessions, EPA has

considered at length several other options for reducing burden in TRI reporting using the Form A

Certification Statement. Each option considered and its feasability are discussed below.

Alternate year reporting

This option assumes that EPA would modify the TRI reporting frequency to a two year

reporting cycle (i.e., facilities would only report TRI data every other year). Although biennial

reporting appears on the surface to provide a significant avenue for reducing burden for TRI

reporters, statutory findings and the process required to achieve the modification do not support

it. First, to meet statutory requirements on modifying the reporting frequency, EPA must first

notify Congress and then wait to initiate the rulemaking to propose the modification for at least

12 months. In addition, EPA must find: 

(A) ...that the modification is consistent with the provisions of subsection (h) of [section 313]

based on -

 (i) experience from previously submitted toxic chemical release forms, 

 (ii) determinations made under paragraph (3).]

Paragraph (3), in turn, provides that EPA must determine

 (A) The extent to which information relating to the proposed modification provided on the toxic

chemical release forms has been used by the Administrator or other agencies of the Federal

government, States, local governments, health professionals and the public.

 (B) The extent to which information is (i) readily available to potential users from other sources,

such as State reporting programs, and (ii) provided to the Administrator under another Federal

law or through as State program.

 (C) The extent to which the modification would impose additional and unreasonable burdens on

facilities subject to the reporting requirements under this section.

EPA is concerned about the availability of information that would allow the Agency to make the

requisite findings under paragraph 3(B); for example, EPA has received only 1 year of data from

facilities reporting at the lower lead thresholds, and the Agency believes that information reported

annually to the TRI program is not "readily available" from any existing source. In addition, other

EPA and State databases simply cannot substitute for the multimedia data that is reported under

EPCRA Section 313 or the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA). The other existing EPA

databases encompass much more limited chemical information and do not substitute for TRI data

in terms of frequency of reporting, and the ease of use and access that the TRI program provides

to the public. In addition, the potential burden reduction of this option would be limited by the

need for facilities to re-familiarize themselves with reporting procedures in alternate years. 

Although re-familiarization would probably be somewhat less burdensome than first-year
4

reporting, this would substantially reduce potential burden reduction. Finally, EPA requested

comment on a similar option during the PBT rulemaking. See, 64 Fed. Reg. 688, 718-719

(January 5, 1999). The majority of commenters expressed concern that such an option would

introduce confusion for the regulated community and data users and would not significantly

reduce burden. Further, they expressed concern that it could discourage facilities from

establishing common standard procedures for data collection. Commenters also expressed

concern that it would result in data gaps, undermining data consistency and tracking. Many

commenters believed that time-series reporting is a fundamental attribute of TRI.

Streamlined certification of "no significant change" in alternate years.

This option would allow facilities to certify that their releases and other waste

management quantities reported for the current reporting year have not changed significantly from

the previous reporting year. 

This option would not represent a significant burden reduction because facilities must first

calculate their releases and other waste management quantities in order to determine that they

have not significantly changed. In addition, EPA would need to determine whether this option is

equivalent to a modification in reporting frequency and how such arguments would be addressed

(see discussion in Alternate year reporting section above). It would also need to be decided

whether this option essentially grants a de minimis exemption in total quantities, and, if so,

whether total quantity can be justified under the plain language of the statute and whether other

regulatory exemptions need to be modified to take this into account. 

Expanding Form A Certification Statement Eligibility

Under EPCRA section 313(f)(2), EPA may revise thresholds only to the extent that the

revised threshold obtains reporting on a substantial majority of total releases of the chemical at all

facilities subject to EPCRA section 313. For purposes of determining what constitutes a

"substantial majority of total releases," EPA interprets the language in section 313(f)(2), "facilities

subject to the requirements of [section 313]," to refer to those facilities that fall within the

category of facilities described by sections 313(a) and (b)Bi.e., the facilities currently reporting. 

Subsection (a) lays out the general requirement that "the owner or operator of facilities subject to

the requirements of this section shall" file a report under EPCRA section 313. Subsection (b)

then defines the facilities subject to the requirements of this section: 

[t]he requirements of this section shall apply to owners and operators of facilities that have

10 or more full-time employees and that are in Standard Industrial Classification Codes

20-39,... and that manufactured, processed, or otherwise used a toxic chemical listed

under subsection (c) of this section in excess of the quantity of that toxic chemical

established under subsection (f) of this section during the calendar year for which a toxic

chemical release form is required under this section.
5

Thus, in revising the reporting thresholds, EPA must ensure that under the new thresholds a

substantial majority of releases currently being reported will continue to be reported. The Agency

has no information, at this stage, to indicate that it will be able to meet this standard were it to

increase the Form A thresholds.

Further, it is important for the public to know detailed information about even small

quantities of toxic chemicals in waste from facilities that handle high volumes of listed toxic

chemicals. Efficient toxic chemical management practices of these facilities provide an example to

other facilities of these practices. Also, if such facilities continue to be required to use the Form

R, the chances of facilities that manage large volumes of listed toxic chemicals inappropriately

would be reduced.

 Exclude Recycling and Energy Recovery Quantities and Increase the Level of the

Production-Related Waste Threshold from the Current 500 lbs. to 1000, 2000, or

5000 lbs. 

If certain waste management practices are excluded from the waste threshold calculation,

greater amounts of toxic chemicals in waste will no longer be reported, and members of the public

who use TRI information to identify opportunities for increasing such beneficial uses, as well as

initiatives that support reduction measures, could lose valuable information about what facilities

are doing in these areas and how much material is still being managed as waste. 

In addition, Section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) specifically

requires facilities that must comply with section 313 of EPCRA to provide source reduction and

recycling data. PPA section 6607(b)(2) requires reporting of "[t]he amount of the chemical from

the facility which is recycled (at the facility or elsewhere) during such calendar year, the

percentage change from the previous year, and the process of recycling used." Congress passed

the PPA to collect additional data as a means to measure industry’s progress in reducing waste. 

Section 6602(a)(4) of the PPA states that "Source reduction is fundamentally different and more

desirable than waste management and pollution control. The Environmental Protection Agency

needs to address the historical lack of attention to source reduction." Excluding volumes

associated with waste management activities such as recycling and energy recovery from the

waste threshold calculation may undermine source reduction and conflict with national policy

established by the PPA.

In 1998, the National Environmental Trust (NET), examined a proposal from the National

Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Toxics Data Reporting

(TDR) Committee to increase the annual reportable waste amount criterion from 500 pounds to

5,000 pounds. The TDR Committee thought that the loss of TRI data would be too great, and

did not support making any changes to the current level of the waste criterion. The committee

supported attempts to encourage more complete use of the Form A under current eligibility

requirements.
6

The next two tables, Table 5 and 6, present impacts from changing the basis of the

threshold determination and increasing the levels of the production-related waste reportable

amount. These analyses are based on data received for TRI reporting year 2000. Table 5 presents

the estimated impacts in terms of data lost compared to cost savings under different scenarios

when the production-related waste reportable amount is increased from the current level of 500

lbs. to 1,000, 2,000 and 5,000 lbs. The first scenario presented is an increase in the current level

of production-related waste to 1,000, 2,000 and 5,000 lbs. using Form R items 8.1 through 8.7

(the current basis for the reportable amount determination. The second scenario presented

changes the categories of toxic chemical in waste included in the waste reportable amount

calculation (excludes quantities recycled and quantities used for energy recovery - items 8.2

through 8.5 from the waste reportable amount calculation).

Table 6 presents the estimated potential impacts on reporting facilities from the same

options presented in Table 5.
7

Table 5: Estimated Impacts of Various Options (based on 2000 data)

(1) (2) (3) Chemicals on Form A Only (4) (5)

Option Level (lbs)

ProductionRelated

Waste

(8.1.thru 8.7) 

Pounds not

reported on

Form R

Releases (8.1

+ 8.8)

Pounds not

reported on

Form R

Reduction

in 

Number of 

Form Rs No. of 

Chemicals

No. of 

Form Rs

Quantity

(8.1-8.7)

Annual $

Cost

Savings

(million) 

Current Basis 

(8.1 thru 8.7)

500-Full Use 1,330,741 2,389,233 10,767 50 72 4,639 $2.6

1000 3,875,826 4,081,703 14,251 56 87 9,211 $3.52000 9,552,002 7,422,484 18,137 64 108 28,790 $4.45000 28,568,903 17,414,133 23,873 77 161 89,302 $5.8

No Recycling or

Energy Recovery

 (8.1 + 8.6 + 8.7)

500 1,435,168,715 5,473,561 20,368 55 81 185,370 $5.0

1000 1,847,956,425 8,576,614 24,748 64 111 439,094 $6.12000 2,249,751,138 13,693,001 29,179 71 141 468,080 $7.15000 3,284,827,530 28,164,572 34,936 84 213 6,429,245 $8.6

Notes:1. Total Production-Related Waste (sum 8.1 through 8.7) for reporting year 2000 is 37,814,548,752 pounds (PBTs were excluded from this total).2. Total "Releases" including releases from non-production related activities (sum 8.1 plus 8.8) for reporting year 2000 is 7,186,787, (PBTs were excluded from this total)3. Total forms received for reporting year 2000 was 91,513. Total forms minus PBT reporting was 84,612.4. Chemicals for which all submissions may be limited to Form As (total listed toxic chemicals are approximately 650, total chemica

 reported in 2000 was 511. 5. Based on an average cost of $841 per Form R and $596 per Form A. This includes calculations, report completion, recordkeeping and submission.
8

Table 6: Estimated Impacts of Various Options on Reporting Facilities (based on 2000 data)

Scenario Level

(lbs)

Number of

Form Rs

Lost

Number of Facilities Potentially Affected

At least 1

 Form A

Percent of

total 

Facilities

All Reports on Form 

A (No Form R)

Percent of Total

Facilities

Current 

Basis

(8.1 thru

8.7)

500- full use 10,767 10,736 45.7 4,677 19.9

1000 14,251 12,124 51.6 5,276 22.5

2000 18,137 13,438 57.2 6,024 25.7

5000 23,873 15,312 65.2 7,360 31.3

No Recycling

or

Energy

Recovery

(8.1+8.6+8.7) 

500 20,368 14,795 63.0 7,262 30.9

1000 24,748 16,178 68.9 8,175 34.8

2000 29,179 17,345 73.9 9,165 39.0

5000 34,936 18,794 80.0 10,670 45.4

 Adjusting Activity Threshold Amounts for the Form A Certification Statement

EPA established the threshold amounts for the Form A Certification Statement in the

Alternate Threshold Final Rule of November 30, 1994. The current "alternate threshold" is 

1 million pounds of the chemical that is manufactured, processed or otherwise used at the facility. 

A facility that does not exceed 500 pounds of total production-related waste for a given listed

toxic chemical may apply the alternate threshold of 1 million pounds to that listed toxic chemical. 

At the time of the alternate threshold final rule, the 1 million pound threshold was selected by

EPA because it was determined that the 1 million pound threshold would exclude few facilities

that met the 500 pound total production-related waste criterion. The following statements taken

from that final rule support the establishment of the alternate threshold for manufacture, process

and otherwise use of one million pounds and annual reportable amounts of five hundred pounds:

"Through this rule, EPA’s intent was to provide a reporting modification that delivers

some degree of regulatory relief while continuing to capture relevant data. The 1 million pound

alternate threshold represents an attempt to balance these two concerns."

"EPA has established the alternate threshold for manufacture, process and otherwise use

of 1 million pounds in order to provide those facilities with annual reportable amounts not

exceeding 500 pounds per chemical with a lower burden reporting option, while preserving more

detailed data for facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use larger volumes of

chemicals. A 1 million pound alternate threshold for amounts manufactured or processed, with
9

annual reportable amounts not exceeding 500 pounds, represents an efficiency of 99.95 percent

and EPA believes this level is likely to include the vast majority of facilities meeting the category. 

EPA also believes that establishing the alternate threshold at 1 million pounds is an effective

means to retain more detailed information where exceedingly large volumes of toxic chemicals are

managed."

Although raising the alternate threshold would increase the number of facilities that use

Form A Certification Statement, thereby reducing their recordkeeping and reporting requirements,

EPA believes it is unlikely that a significant proportion of facilities are currently prevented from

using the Form A Certification Statement for this reason. Also, under EPCRA section 313(f)(2),

EPA may revise thresholds only to the extent that the revised threshold obtains reporting on a

substantial majority of total releases of the chemical at all facilities subject to EPCRA section 313. 

It is important for the public to know detailed information about even small waste

quantities from facilities that handle such high volumes of listed toxic chemicals. Efficient toxic

chemical management practices of these facilities could provide an example to other facilities of

these practices. Also, if such facilities continue to be required to use the Form R, the chances of

facilities that manage large volumes of listed toxic chemical inappropriately using the Form A

Certification Statement would be reduced. 

Conclusions

If the Form A Certification Statement was fully utilized, an additional annual cost savings

of $2.6 million could be realized. However, increasing the production-related waste quantity or

excluding certain production-waste categories would lead to significant losses of data in terms of

releases and production-related waste that would not be reported. EPA does not believe that the

additional cost savings justify these losses in data to the public. Further, by increasing the

production-related waste criterion or by excluding certain types of waste management quantities,

EPA does not believe it can meet the requirements of EPCRA section 313(f)(2). EPA believes

that TRI-ME and other methods that reduce reporting burden without eliminating data are

approaches that deserve further investigation and investment. Over the period of the ICR

renewal, TRI-ME is anticipated to reduce the burden of Form R and Form A reporting by

approximately $12 million and 283,631 hours. This reduction in burden and cost is much more

substantial than that offered by expanding eligibility for Form A, and does not lead to additional

loss of data.