N. Ng kW ~0 .

"OMV Fwars L490 Of 090 0"0

lam pow

J7

FgM Wo AI ftam Um Svwm" or No 0 Ad

stl I Ow 1OW96 so won twig um to im VON 012PwQw fM*%M S I VVI do "t

doo I d4 00 *NW V4wI AV"

0 WWA* 40 00"WVI 0I Uwe 4i Ow Ow so" ww

EPA's Efforts to Improve simr the PuW data bow bnww avallmW in Jww IWO, wa ho lfkvvhnwmallyad"nrwwMwwrfadurr*.Ac%w-n-'I 10MOMUKIhOW

the Data Base C-hW" Wrfr WWWMMW WUnWfly WWSW WMr IWJY GY400 WW"

%-t*rd ivnerm tho Ow "a b&w wm wt 'an-ft"y - rat

rXAM*, wow bwivb&u& "M Ow WYOWO was evagrMaw. 1AWW&W

%uw"A In UW. WW 1Mjwd wMV ffwwft " sum MWAP own up do

wxw uwA4W i"mii(dau nwAqx"jW As a n-I Ow orlww

a-eauxim x -citwA Mr- frourr drwarod to wddAP on . % Ut law"Ir ww.

rral yrI W r 1k ww 44s, T)w "wxung" frAwr ww a6w ad" to

4 Mrs

L&A
b" h2dk66wd (39UWIW DCWMWd AW D"M

eraa* tncm t1j. anxtM other thinff,4 pix-rate alphabetwed li-.s of f2c%bUm' name%. A software provam dId by m called -inxtr m-xis

now tr-*4e--- users to transfer d2ta room rawly from the s)-stem onto

their own cmptzff diskeues. This cqm"hty is bIzI bawm it

red&uvs chary)n for time and theWore helps mintxmze the arAs of

obWnu* dcsired d2M accwding to zm and smw system wwm All of

thew ft-stures nete added incrementally to the system's capabilities,

accordbU to respoit-dble am officials. because of cow consklerations, the

short Ume tha WA had to dv% elop the system and in's desire to obtain

a better sense of users' experleonces with the system before making

changes dud might rewit in only marginal benefits,

a% oftiali recognize the neW to pmW system mwi wkh better reference auderials and more system training, In riscW year JOW. vYA

dnvioped a demwoerstion axnputer disicette ww.- a reference manual

desipsed to bmtnxt users, how to sm cl and rarlev-P data mid perform

VArIOUS WWYSM 14OWeVCr. EPA and %Im have offered Un*cd training to

date. plimarily to 0% WW state officials sid reprementatives ofa few

envi:-wmerdal grvjps. An m% official told us that am intended to offer

inin dMa base trxb&Lcg bemm ofSmwing demand from regional md

State OffkUls.

EPA Has- Not Assemed As rmulred. wA publishes the inventory data in several fonnats other

Um the computerized dots base-intfixft a national report, nwgratic the Value of Various Utpe. computer d1okette, mlIe, and a"=-inan effort to reach as

Data Fonnats many different types of msers as pwdble. Although the agency selected

thiese formats on the bmW of certain afta* It has not yet awxned the

meritil of producing aU thew dos. formats th determine whether the co .

teris have beien met. Development problem, both budptary and techno.

loodcal have also kd to notable delays in the avaftWy of wmne

formats.

AIUMXAO each of the f0mats Will probably satisfy the i P P In of some

users. proI officials belinv that they need to aneess (1) whether

thew fornu" in fact. meet uwW nerds, (2) whether they are beft

effmUvdy diazibuteI and (3) whether the r , -- - to uwm and to ax we

reasonable. 0% ofncials nsPonsible for devekn** the formats told us

that although they nKmanized the nwd for this anewamt. they had am

done one printarfly because wI haw had Undged experience with

mmio; of the ftx7nnts and because funds we v lacking,
__Mul ram

.10 "AaSs- rV - i o I A -

1~14'1 r-N

Inventory Is Produced in MaddpW ForsoM

imt jndhjdgu6$ Owem'DrwAnd for D&L&

Is LA=igdld

At the time of our review, development problems had significuidy

delayed the release of two formats, the maom and the microfiche. WhUe

the magnetic tape containing 1988 emissions data was made available to

the public in May 1990, as of March 1991-about 10 months later-the

cD.Rom and microfiche formats were not yet available . In May 1991,

stated that, subsequent to our review, the agency had resolved the

various budgetary and contractual problems associated with producing

these two data formats and therefore expected to make these formats

available more quickly in the future. EPA also stated that it had recently

initiated a pilot service for assisting users . The service enables the

-public to contact EPA and, for example, have the agency search the data

base for specific information.

Conclusions While cert9in groups representing the public, such as environmental &Ad

public interest groups, are widely using the Toxic Release Inventory,

there has been less demand for the data from individual , * - , Our

telephone poll demonstrated, however, that many residents living in

coundes with high levels of reported emissions would be interested in

learning about toxic emissions from the government.

E :PA has sponsored various types of public oubvach activitim mostly

through public intermediaries, such as journalists and librarians. We

agree with this strategy of targeting intermediaries, since it would be

unrealistic and inefficient for EPA to try to reach every Individual. However, before the agency devotes greater resources to such activities, as it

intends to do, we believe that it needs to develop an effective public

outreach strategy. We also believe that EPA should clarify its role in

interpreting the emissions data for the public .

We recognize that EPA's decision to develop numerous data formats in

addition to the public on-line data base was based on the agency's desire

to meet the information needs of a broad cross-section of potential users .

However, it is unclear whether the benefits of this approach outweigh

the costs, particularly given the agency's limited program resources.

Development problems, which have notably delayed the public availability of some formats, also signal the need for EPA to review its strategies for making the inventory widely accessible .

P&V 41 GAO/BCZDOI-121 Tude NWeen hnown, IP a
Inventory Is Produced In Multiple Formats,

but LadividuAl Citimens'Detnand for Dau

Is Uinited

Recomme-ndations to To make the general public more aware and IG-towledgeable of the Toxic

Release Inventory,we recommend that theAdministrator, EP.A . develop

the Administrator, a public outreach strategy that more effectively publicizes the 2vailaEPA bility of the data. In addition, EPA should cl2jify it-, role in interpretin g

the inventory data for the public. We also recommend that EPA assess

the costs and benefits, to both EPA and the public, of making .the various

data formats available.

Agency Comments and EPA did not specifically address our recornmendation concerning its

public outreach efforts. We support EPA's use of intermediaries to imple- Our Evaluation ment various public outreach activities. However, to fulfill the intent o f

this right-to-know program and reach a broad cross-section of the

public, we believe that it is imperative for EPA to develop outreach strategies to more effectively and efficiently communicate information aboilt

the inventory to the public. We also want to reitemte our belief that EPA

should weigh the costs and benefW5 of the various forinats to both the

agency and the public so that the agency can focus its resources on producing only those that most efficiently and effectively meet the rweds of

data users.

Page 42 GAO/RCE"1-121 Toxic Releinse Inventory Proemat
Inventory Data Need to Be Verifie d

Relatively little is known about the quality of the data that facilities

have submitted-including the accuracy of the release estimates . In the

program's first years, EPA has focused more of its limited inspection

resources on identifying facilities that have failed to report and on

taking action against them than on reviewing the data's quality . EPA has

reviewed the information submitted by a few facilities and found that

some did not submit reports for all the chemicals they were obligated to

report on, and some facilities over- and/or underestimated their emissions. To obtain a better understanding of the quality of fadlifies' data,

EPA recently awarded grants to 15 states to investigate reporting accuracy. Even though the quality of the information submitted by facilities

is uncertain, EPA is correctly transcribing the information that it

received into the data base.

-,wn .About In the inventory program's early years, EPA has used its limited inspec- Utde Is Knc tion resources to identify facilities that failed to report data (nonreData QualitY porters) rather than to examine the quality of data already submittedAs a result, EPA, states, and other users of the data are not assured of

the inventory daWs quality. EPA recognizes that accurate data are necessary for the inventory to be useful ; the agency is therefore working

with several states to develop their capacity to evaluate the data. To

obtain accurate information, EPA and many states provide facilities with

information to help them complete their reports.

EPA Has Conducted Few At the time of our review, EPA regions had visited only 27 of the more

Data Qtjality Reviews than

19,000 facHities that have submitted emissions reports to assess

the quality of the data. As shown in table 4.1, data accuracy and/or

completeneks problems were found in about one-third of the reviews .

The most common problem was the failure to submit reports for all

required chemicals .

According to regional officials, complicated regulations make it difficuk

for some facilities to determine which chemicals and/or chemical

processes would require them to submit a report(s). Region V and VI

officials explained that because the trade names of chemicals can vary

and differ from their generic names, facilities sometimes mistakenly

conclude that the chemicals they use are not covered by the reporting

requirements when, in fact, they are. Some facilities also have problems

obtaining accurate information from their suppliers on the chemical

composition of their purchases, according to agency officials, Facilities

need to know the proportion of a reportable chemical contained in a

Page 43 GAOACED91-121 To3de Releame Invengwy Pt
p. 6

Cbsplar 4

Inventory Data Need to Be Verified

chennica! mixture so that they can determine how much of the chemical

they use and consequently properly determine their reporting obligation- EPA is m-rently evaluai:ing how well EFciWs supplier notification

provisions are worldng, accorcrmg to an agency officiaL

Table 4.1 : Results & Regiens'Orts

Quality Reviews Numberof 7voes of ombisms

Number of Sol@ Vist Fag"to submit dam quality khMOMW ImM=ffaft reports tared

Regim via-- pfflblamls eadmal s

0

a

4 2 0 2

0 a7 a a

IV 0 a a

V

V1 0 a

3

V11 0 a

W 3

a

0

M

X a

9 1

4

TaM 27 6 3 7

Now- Data are for revmws completed as of Much 199M

-Not ftvkable.

Source EFA .

Compliance and enforcemem ofWmls at EPA headquarters told us that

they intend to give greater attention to data quality reviews . However,

they did not expect the number of reviews to increase dramatically in

the near future. An am official explained that because the program is

still new, EPA currently prefers to identify facilities that have failed to

report rather than to divert Hurited brWection resources to asse&,%h% the

quality of the information already suburitted . ,

EPA has also contracted with a consulting f= to study the quality of

data submitted by 156 facilities diat volunteered to participate.2 The

study concluded that the data canta in the IM7 inventory were gew

erally accurate and reasonable. However, in our view, the study's conchisions are questionable for several reasons. Fust, 44 percent of the

280 facilities chosen for the study did not participate . Ifthe quality of

lawseffons to iderofy nortrepormt ftessin am - in daww 5.

2-jWMte_VWt Program" Radian C=Vorjbm('- I Va.: July 19NI A randarn samplee was iniballydrans of 290 facilities that hod submined nVorts for epol year 1997, but ukirnately

Radan visited 156 of the 188 facilities tha hod g lapputidpocinthesuldy.

raw 44 GAO/K=61-121 Tadc Remame Inventory W.-
p.7i A

Chapter 4

inventory Data to Be Verified

their data differed from that of those whovolunteered, then the study's

conclusions would not generalize to the entire universe of facuilies, that

submitted data. Seconil, the data from these facilities were not alwaYs

accurate. Half of the facilities had made at least one major error in estimating their releases, and some erred by a factor of 10 or mom

EPA Is Working With AlthoughEpm does not require states to review the quality of reported

States to Increase information, EPA is working with states to develop their capabilities to

Knowledge of Data's perform such reviews. Thirty-four state officials who responded to ou r

survey agreed that EPA needs to place more emphasis on improving the

Quality quality of facilities' release data to improve the usefulness of the

inventory .

To enhanceEPA's and states' latowledge of the inventory data7s quality,

EPA, in conjunction with the Natioral Governors' Association, awarded

grants in 1989 to four states for projects that included site visits to

determine the accuracy and completeness of facilities' information? In

1990,EPAawarded grants to I I states totaling approximately S I nifflion

to develop quality assurance programs to, among other things, verify

the accuracy of emissions dat&4 Ohio's Environmental Protection

Agency, for example, planned to vm'11, 267 of the state's 1,458 facilities

that reported for 1988. As part of this effort, the agency intended to

vL-it facilities in selected industries emitting large quantities of chemicals and eventudly to develop technical guidance on ways facilities in

each of the industrial categories reviewed should calculate emissiom

Because the proje(U were either still under way orjust getting started,

information was not available on the final results of these 15 pmjects at

the time of our review .

Accordingto Mofficials, the agency has undertaken diis joint federalstatEirdtiative for two reasons . First, stsk are generLUy more fanuffi.-ar

with the facilities within their jurisdiction thanEPA .-tnd are therefore

better able to assess the quality of the informatica pro-vided-includIng

the relative accuracy of the release estimates . Second, maximun use of

the inventory cannot be achieved until government and the public are

assured of its accuracy and completeness . According to theEPA official

responsible for over- eing the project, the agency plans to formall y

3Grant mapients wm 11hroom Manachumus, Rhode 1s1w4 atid Utah.

4G=t rmpwnts -Califonda, CaW-d% Cau*Wcut~ Kums. KamidW, La=wm Maryk~t

Mummm MosourLNorth Camhrka =W Ohxx

Page 45 GA0/2CED*1-1Z1 To3de Releme in"mawy ftev~
®RI : -1t.

Chapter 4

Inventory DaLa Need to Be Verified

assess the projects and subsequently inform its regional offwes and the

states about strategies worth replicating .

EPA and States Are Although they have dore little to check the accuracy of the inventory

Helping Facilities Prepare data, EPA and states have educated faciliti-ei about the inventory program's complex reporting requirements. Er-.% dissemiruites program regzkReports latiorus and guidance on techniques for estimating chemical releasesawd

runs a telephone hotline for facilities to call for information. Additionally, EPA sends fad;lides various types of notices to help them improve

Ahe quality of their reports in the future. To various degrees, the

agency's regional offices have also sponsored and/or co-sponsored sendnars and workshops informing facility representative., of program regmlations and methods for estimating emissions and preparing anissions

reports. For example, Region 111, V, and VI officials sponsored sessions

with such groups as chambers of commerce and trade associations.

According to our survey, 39 states have, to various degrees, sponsored

seminars and workshops for indwstry. Additionally, 46 states distribute

technical instruction guides and copies of forras and pamphlets on EPA

regulations .

Facilities have availed themselves of other sources of assistanceincluding consulting firms and trade associations. According to our

industry survey, between 14 and 33 percent of reporting facilities

nationwide have hired outside consultants.

On balance, facilities found these various resources generally helpful,

although a small percentage found some resources-including EWs hotline--hardly or not at all helpful." Some facility representatives we

surveyed-along with several we visited-said that they had problemrgetting through to the hotline or had received unclear or conbudictory

information. Representatives of some facilities said that industry

associations were more helpful than EPA's hotline .

P&V 46 GAO/WEDOI-121 Toade Release Inventory Pi
AChapter 4

inventory Mta Need to Be Verified

EPA Is Correctly Some of the data users we contacted expressed concern that the data

base has inaccuracies because of data processing errors . Incorrect

Transcribing facility names, chemical identification numbers, and other errors am

In.1formation Into the hinder the retrieval of data that users need for various analyses . We

Data Base found, however, that the data submitted by facilities in key fields in the

1988 data base were genet-ally completely and correctly transcribe-W

Our test of the 1988 data base showed that it was virtually complete,

missing only 2.9 percent ( ± 2.3 percent) of all forms submitted- Furthermore, about 99.7 percent (± I percent) of the information contained

.in I I key fields was transcribed correctly into the 1988 data base As

shown in table 4.2, we estimate that, in the I I data fields we reviewed, a

higher error rate- 1 .5 percent( ± I percent)--occurred in the critical

release/transfer amount field. An estimated 75 percent ~ ± 22 percent)

of these errors reflected omissions or understatements of emissions

levels.

Table 4.2: Results of Trieriscriptlon

Accunicy Test 25-Percent confidence level

E"Mated Loweir bound Mf UPPOrbillitindal

Percentage in percent"a in perewfampim

Onto field saw GIFIRW 3MW

Facility name 1 .5 0.6 32

City 0.3 0 114

County 0 CD7

State a 0 07

Zip code 0.5 0 .1 WEI

Parent company 1 .0 0.3 25

Chemical name 0 07

Chemical Klentification

number 0 CD7

SIC code 0 .5 0.1 115

Release/transfer type 0 0.5

Release/transfer

amounts (>O) 0.5 Z5

8Swwewetoundnoeffors.wep(esento*#*,,Fpp antflowerboundsusirVIlhehypergecrialric

distribution . in the case of release/transfer type. which cxild occur more Ow once an each subTussize .

the bmescis may be somewhat misstated . Esbrnales based an the hypergeornetnc distribution assurnint

not the values in the twids, reviewed represent a simple random sample of &I of the data bese vakum

for the fteld .

8our test used the April 7 . 1990, edition of the databate tape. This tape was used to pi adow the

initial version of the 1988 public data base.

bwe selected data fields that were critical for users to conduct comprehensive searches and analysm

Page 47 GAO/RCED-91-121 Te3dc Releaw Invearsey P V
P. 10

Chapter 4

inventory Data Need to Be Verified

Conclusions If the Toxic Releas~- Inventory is to be used extensively, governmeat

regulators and others must be assured that its data are sound and hzve

been transcribed accurately. We agree with EPA that it was prudent

during the first years of the program to focus on identifying nonreporters rather than on assessing the quality of the information already

submitted. We also support EPA's recent initiative to involve states in

ensuring the quality of the inventory dAa. Nevertheless, we believe that

the agency should now initiate a more systematic and comprehenshe

data quality review effort to help instill greater confidence in the data

and the inventory program overall.

Finally, despite users' concerns that the data base was fraught with

errors stemming from EPA's data processing, we found that EPA has

ensu-. ed that the data base completely and accurately reflects the emissions reports submitted . In our view, the importance the agency amadws

to this critical program area is clearly reflected in the high degree of

processing completeness and accuracy it has achieved.

Recommendations to To better ensure the technical quality of the information in the invew

tory is sojund, we recommend that the Adnihiistrator, EPA plaLe greaur the Administrator, emphasis on verifying the information submitted by facilities, particiaEPA larly the emissions estimates. As part of this effort, the agency shoul d

expand assistance to states to help them develop their capacities to

verify the dam

Agency Comments and EPA did not specifically state whether it planned to implement our reeonimendation that the agency place greater emphasis on verifying the Our ]Evaluation data in the inventory. However, the agency noted that the prograrn

would benefit from more resources to exan-drie the quality of J i

estimates. Although we acknowledge in chapters 4 and 5 that the

agency has limited regional inspection resources, we 6id not specificany

recommend that the agency receive more resources for this efforL In

fact, as we point out in chapter 5, EPA may be able to use its inspectim

resources more efficiently and effectively. We also believe that EPA nW

be able to further leverage its resources by helping more stat develop

their capacity to assess the inventory daWs quality.

Page 48 GAO/XCED41-121 Toidc Release In"wamy Pwoma
Improved Fxfforcement WoWd Help Ensure a

More Complete Inventory

F_-A's efforts to make industries comply with the reporting requirement

have resulted in over 19,000 facilities reporting toxic emissions for

1988. However, 17A and states estimate that thousands of facilities have

not submitted emissions reports ; primarily because they are unaware of

the reporting requirement. Through more targeted outreach, EPA is

try" ing to increase industry's awareness of the reporting requirement .

We believe, however, that enforcement problems may be contributing to

the level of noncompliance. For example, several EPA regions use inefficient strategies to idmtity nonreporters : they do Pot screen facilities

before doing inspections . ALso, EPA has been slow to take action against

nonreporters. It has identified 403 nonreporters but, as of March 1990,

had closed only 68 of 209 civil complaints issued. EPA has not taken

action against thousands of facilities that submitted late reports, primarily becau-se its enforcement resources are limited and it does not want

to discourage facilities from reporting. EPA's enforcement efforts may be

hampered by the absence of explicit authority in the enabling legislation

for the agency to inspect facilities.

Many Facilities Axe At least 10,000 facilities have not, according to EPA and state estimates,

submitted emissions reports. Some EPA and state officials told us that

Not Reporting Their despite their efforts to publicize the inventiory program, many small to

Releases medium-sized facilities remain unaware that it exists or are uncertai n

whether their manufacturing activities or the chemicals they use obligate them to report .

EPA and States Estimate EPA and state officials do not know precisely how many facilities should

Substantial Noncompliance be reporting emissions data because reporting requirements are complex. Determining the number would require an examination of every

facility's operations . However, EPA and states have estimated the proportion of facilities that have not submitted reports . According to an EPA

study published in 1990, which examined the 1987 reporting year, about

34 percenL of the facilitiei that probably met the requirements did not

report their 1987 entissions.1 However, as EPA noted in May 1991, the

proportibit of toxic emissions omitW_j from the inventory because of

noncompliance is unknown. ,See table 5. 1 .)

1 Analysm of Now toSection313 fthe nL,~, ;~~nmg and Cammnity Right-toKnow Act, LrA (Wmash=;LM D.C.: Nw. IVWTO

PaXe49 GAO/RCED-91-121 Toidc Releame Isventary Prep~
Chapter 5

Imprw4ed Enforcement Would Help FAwnre a

Mom Complete InvenUm7

able 5 .1 : EPA's Estimates of

lo"repcirfing Estimate of nonreporters

Industry (cod*) Numbor

Appare! (23) 311 87 .4

Print and publistung (27) 700 68.0

Stone. clay . and/or glass (32) 1,013 59.6

Miscellaneous manufacturing j39) 346 48.6

Textiles (22) 367 42.3

Food (20) 1,164 40 .9

Furniture (25) 232 37. 1

Transportation equpment (37) 612 36.9

flubber (30) 753 36 .7

Machinery (31~, 529 36.3

Lumber and wood (24) 368 34 .8

Primary metals (33) 832 34 .8

Paw (26) 369 34 .6

Fabricated metals (34) 12M 32 .0

Leather (31) 52 298

Petroleum refining (29) ill 22.6

ElectrieW equipment (36) 455 22.0

Instruments (38) 78 18.8

Chemicals (28) 568 1?2

Tobacco(21) 0 0

Totel 10,170 34.2

Note : Data are for reportog yw 1%7.

Source : EPA.

Officials of 39 state environmental agencies we surveyed estimated the

percentage,of nonreporters within theirjurisdictions. Estimates ranged

from 0 percent in North Dakota to 83 percent in Pennsylvania. Using

these data, we estimated that nationally for 1988, at Wast 35.7 percent,

or more than one of every three facilities likely subject to the reporting

requirement did not report . 2

2This e5timm is I 'on the optimistic imumption that them wn full reporting in the 13 states that

did not provide taimates. Our analyss. based on at nonmripliance estimates provided in their

responses to our ma&m questiorinaire% is detailed in appendix L

page so GAO/RCED-91-121 Toxic Releam loweatoey Proilram
Chapter 5

Improved Enforcement Would Help Ensure a

More Complete Inventory

Table 5 .2 : Estimates of Nomporting, by State

. Estimate of nonreponers Estimate oi nonteporters_

State Numbw Petcent State Number Percew

127 25 Montana 1 5

AlasZ- a Nebrask a

Arizona b Nevada 34

wr~a-ws~s- 54 15 New Hampshire 1

California- b New Jersey 275 25

Colorado 9 5 New Mexico 34 50

Connecticut b New York 204 -20

Delaware 6 10 North Carolina

District of Nonh Dakota -0

Columbia b Ohio 151

Florida .41 48 Oklahoma 81 2

150 20 Oregon 83 30

Hawaii 4 15 Pennsykndm 5.029

fd-a~o- 48 50 Puerto Rico 5 3

lllino;s 307 20 Rhode Island 47 2D

Indiana 133 15 South Carolina

Iowa 142 30 South Dakota 10 20

Kansas 92 33 Tennessee 1,206 70

Kentucky 1) Texas 0

Louisiana 95 25 Utah 28 2D

Maine 42 30 Vermont 0

Maryland 84 30 Virginia 0

Massachusetts 587 50 Washington 102 25

Michigan 790 50 ftst Virginia I I I

Minnesota 141 30 Wis--orisin 166 -20

Mississippi 62 20 Wyoming

Missouri 87 15

"Did not respond to our survey.

bDd not respond to our quest*n .

Sowce : GAO's arialysis of data from states, and EFA*s 19M national rewn .

According to the 1990 EPA StVy, only a small Percentage of facilities did

not report intentiorally . Rather, the study concluded, many nonreporters simply were unaware of the program . Additionally, some nonreporters believed that (1) the chemicals they used did not obligate them

to report or (2) their chemical use levels did not meet the threshold criteria. The study furber speculated that many small and medium-sized

facilities were probab)y unaware of the reporting requirement because

Page 51 GAO/RCED.91-121 Tmde Rejesee inventory Pnqpum
14

4

.

j~4

7L- TChapter 5

Impeow Enforeestent Would Help Ensure a

Mom Complete Inventory

they did not em-ploy environmental compliance staff or join trade

associations, which disseminate information on regulatory requirements. State officials in Illinois and Texas, aloig with several industry

representatives we contacted, concurred with EFA.'s assessmei.

M"A's Compliance and To improve compliance, EPA has worked to increase facilities' awareness

ic Release Inventory Program and to take enforcement act ;-3n

Enforcement Actions 0afathinsTonocnreporters. However, the various inspection strategies used

Ngainst Nonrepoiters by EPA rerwris to identify nonreporters are not uniformly effective . In

addition, the agency has been slow to resolve enforcement cases .

I

Various Outreach To increase facilities' awareness of the program and help them deter3trategies Used to Increase mine whether they must report, EPA has taken several measure3 ,

including mailing information pamphlets to thousands of facilitios,

~ompliance issuing press releases, conducting seminars and workshops, and estpblishing a hotline that facilities can call for assistance, according to EeA

officials . The agency's regional offices have also worked, to various

degrees, with the states and business and trade associations to reach as

many facilities as possible . As a result of its noncompliaiiev study, EPA

also has begun targeting certain geographic areas and industries for

informational campaigns.

States have also attempted to increase reporting . Like EPA, 39 of the

states in our survey indicated that, to various degrees, they had sponsored seminars and workshops for industry . States had also (1) worked

with trade associations to help them increasc. awareness of the program,

(2) notified facilities that they may need to submit information, and (3)

distributed niaterials describing the program and outlining the steps

facilities must take to comply .

;ome Regions' Strategies Rather than implementing a unified national strategy for targeting

'or Targeting Inspections inspections-site visits to determine whether a facility is required to

kre Inefficient report-EPA headquarters has delegated responsibility for program

enforcement to regional offices and allowed them to devise their own

strategies . EPA regions have small inspection work forms for the inventory program, which are supplemented by technically qualified volunteers working under a cooperative agreement between EPA and the

American Association of Retired Persons. Given these constrained

resources, the agency must use efficient and effective enforcement

methods. Regions use two basic methods to target nonreporters for

Fate52 GAQ/2CED*I-I' ; 7--ide Release Inventory Program
TAWWW 0

somm- -wr cmemo 6F iwb_-Lsry

inspectu", Orw me-1twxI Ls U) develop a h*t of prArrAi'Al -'v")rr;xwUT1-

them by tek-phrmw tn decide which might be twintepnnn1h. and

own fuAify them of an in~ctitxL The .-mvod mctbod is. U) de%v*gP a 1W

of pitential mmmponen and then axwi,-K-, tmpvojn% withean nuctfying them in advance.

%atimwide. thrmgh March IM. YYA regu)m ctxWucted 1 . 194 ukVmc

tijxw OW identified 4W facilities that had wA ft

.b=tW reqwrrd

nvom. owe rm. s. I .) nw numberu( irdwectiom ra*ed frtxu 49 im

eA" Vill to 261 in flexion V.

F4-wo LI : Mspocftm 00 kWrW7

"Onropodws

20

20

20

20

me

so

v a ve

ODOM

&*Ora#bw~OFOMWNWfto" SNOW

WjW Dow as of usocob IM

SOAW GAOgvwps4ofEPA "m

we found Isdirmtcorn4mimbetwee theprowdurrousedtaumt

hopectimm wo reoorW obmvrm in Wentifying hidlitin "did not

mpwL The I"Dvxjd of nndir4 a nowepxler wag mom thW t1d ON

time% m grftt when rrgkm Kvm WHOM WKI gave them oftunce

notim of bt%pectiom. Thus. Regkmu IV. Vt. VII. and Vill. whk1h do

raw
b,v,mvd weerm-Ad Weaw HAP rj~

Now Camodr- th-at-7

--- -------------- contact facilities before inspections, were leb successful in identif"'k%

nonreporters than the other regions. (See fig, .5 .2.)

mot" 52 &men of EPA mooorw 5~

Taro@" Srmn"s in Ideawyifts

I-We

71P

so

N V VI VIN It a

NOW DIU of V4wCh Im

Swce GW's anoym d Eft go

in May 199 1 . m said that several efforts were under way to help the

regions more effidently and effectively target nonrepordng facilidm for

inspection. For exmpie, a new emputerized targeting data base is carrendy being piloted In four regions and will be used by the remainiM six

regions by June 1991. Several other compliance-related projects are

scheduled for completion by the end of n" year 1991. For examphr,

one project is developing guWance for mloons on how to work with

staus to Identify facilities that may have reported to the state but =K to

the federal govemnwnt, and vice versa.

ftV CAO/MLZD*9-121 Tmk 896raw hm"NOWY PMNW~
Chapter 5

imprvwed Enforcement WonW Heip Eusum a

mom compk-te Inventory

EPA Licks Explicit m-RA gives EPA responsibility for enforcing reporting requirmwrmslApection Authority, However, unlike many oLher environmental statutes, it does not explicitly autho&ze EPP. W inspect facilities for compliance-3 ncRA~"s legfu~

history does not explain why -7pA. was not granted this autha&yAccording to officials in EPA's Office of General CounseL Offre of

Enforcement, and Office of Compliance Monitoring in ors, represemtatives at some manufacturing faeffities have challenged EPA's mabority I&

enter and inspect their premises under EPM& In these shuation%, kispertors have relied on inspection authorities under other KW=l

statutes, such as the Toitic Substances Control Act and the Compingiensive Envi-onniental Response, Compensation, and Liability Jkt. to gain

entrance to facilities. Officials told us that they are concerried, howe%mr,

that as more facilities become aware that EPA does not have expUeft

authority, it may hamper the agency's future enfarcement, efforts Ito

identify facilities that should report their to)dc releases and to veffify

the accuracy of information already submitted. Consequentl~ in May

1991 EPA stated that it fully supported amending a"m to provide it Lte s

authority.

Slow Resolution of EPA has been slow to take enforcement action against facilides thacL,

Enforcement Cases upon inspection, have been found not to have submitted reqaked

reports. As of March 19N, EPA moons had identified 4W nmeparters

but had issued only 209 civil complaints. Only 68 of these 209 connplaints had been resolved (about 33 percent). (See fig. 5.3.)

3See. for exmpk. a*TO-Ide &MOM= CMWV1 Act, Medan 11, 15 U.&C WcCom 261ft theGmWe.

hepave Envkr~ ReVorne. Compenzwon, zW IA"W Act. sEtton lfte], 42MCAmcbm

96"e); wWthe Clew AW Ad. ve~ 114,42 U .S.C. section 7414.

Page 53 GAO/2CED-01-12ITedcReh~elmemwwyr p
.18

7

-'

.- M~mr

Chapter 5

Improved Eallorl Would Help Eumi a

More CAmimpkite, Liriventom y

Figure-5.1 CompWints Issued and

Settled by EPA Regions

100 11111-20W 0111CON10dift

7 0

so

so

40

20

20

3 111 IV V V! vs VN X

pAskn

Conviiiii-i-1311 .mowdSlathd

C-PWM Jaiiiikit Not SWW

C.Ol Not Issued Yixt

Note: Data as of March 1990 .

Sowce. GAl ani of EFA regionl statistics.

Issuance of Complaints Delays in issuing complaints are a key reason why-so few eMorcement

Has Been Untimely cases have been resolved. According to EWs Enforcement Response

Policy for the program, civil complaints against nonreporters should be

issued within 180 days of an inspection. However, our review of agenry

records showed that Regions HI, V, and VI frequently failed to meet this

requirementl (See table 5.3.)

Table SACOMPN&ft A ofLal of Tfto Talton to loom

Nuniber of imam lb Ow "Ift imm

Reigion cognpilaints issual 180-day 900 conwini

22 12 V2

V

V1 17 7

34 1

234

Total 73 20

Source : GAO*s an*l of EFA data.

Page 56 GAO/RCZDOI-121 Toxic Release Inventery Pg
P. 19

bz~ W~

jil

MIN I

ilia- 4&M, -

Cb&pter 5

Impnmed Enforeenwint Woedd Heir Emove a

more CafflapkU InVeRCA"

aA headquarters and regional enforcement officials attributed delays im

issuing complaints to various factors, including (1) the time required to

prepare final inspection reports, otter. prolonged because officiaLs mam

wait for additional documeris from facilities, and (2) the limits that

regional counsels place on the number of cases they will accept, gham

resource limitations and competing case priorities . Region VI, for

example, is generating more cases against nonreporters than its regioniJ

counsel will accept A regiomW counsel said that no matter how Mmuwy

inspections identified nonreporters, his office would handle no more

than 12 Toxic Release Inventory enforcement cases each year Reg=

V's regional counsel has not been able to expeditiously handle all amm

referred for action, largely because. the region has lost staff. Accordfing

to an inspection official, the backlog there has contributed to the

region's decision, in consultation with EPA headquarters, to conducL

fewer inspection3.

Settlement Process Is Delays in the settlement process have also contributed to the backtag cX

Lengthy enforcement cases. As of March 1990, only 68 of 209 complaints had

been settled. The settlonnent process is lengthy primarily because ddk_vs

occur in obtaining required documents from facilities and in negoti2dmg

fines and penalties, according to regional officials. For example,

according to Region V's regional cminsel, negotiations to reduce a

facility's penalties in exchange for its making environmentally bwe&

cial expenditures can be prob-acted if EPA and a facility cannot agrw Cm

an e project that would quality for a penalty reduction.4 A

Region VI enforcement official told us that delays also occur becaume Em

wants to ensure that a facility has complied with other title III requftements before agreeing to a settlement Thus, the region waits for evTi--

dence from local emergency planning committees and/or fire

departments that they have received other required title M forms~ swb

as those on facilities' hazardous che. Ical inventories.

Actions to Address Although EPA does not have a national strategy for dealing with the

Enforcement Backlog backlog of enforcement casm some regions are working to reduce t1be

backlog. For example, Regkm IL V, and VI gave their inspection stdh

responsibility to prepare civil complaints against facilities whos e

and penalties amounted to $35,000 or less . Region I is referring cases im

EPA headquarters for action. Because it has a large backlog, Region V bas

4An__r__Aa1bFbaWfkjW May k,01". for eXampie, a faWWS MgMeiag tonod~

to)dc rekam bY a specif*d amouse ds, maves&uPandme

~-7

page 67 CAO/RCEMI.121 Tolde Relefte in"tatory M
A

Chapter 6

trApraved Eaforeemment WouU Help FAsure a

Udwe Complete inventm

dismissed complaints against facilities that failed to submit reports for

chemicals no longer on the chemical list . As noted earlier, it has also

deci~~ to conduct fewer inspections. Some of these techniques for

reducing the backlog may be worth replicating in other regions ; however, our review disclosed that regions' awareness of strategies being

used was lintitedL For example, officials in Region V, which has the

largest backlog, said that they were not aware that they could refer

cases to headquarters .

The program's enforcement policy provides for fines and penalties EPA Is Not Takir~g against facilities that submit late emissions reports. EPA is taking

Enforcement Action enforcement action against ~Onreporters that submit the required report

Against Late after an inspectim However, at the tirne of our review, EPA had not

determined what enforcement action, if any, to take against facilities

Reporters that subntit late reports wittr-out having been.inspected by EPA .

According to u% data, more than 4,200 facilities have submitted over

11,000 reports for their 1988releases after the July 1, 1989, deadline.

Moreover, at least 3,400 reports were submitted 90 or more days after

the deadline, and 2,268 forms from 941 facilities were submitted 181

days or more after the deadline. (See fig. 5.4.)

Pase GAO/RCMSI-Ul Tozic Releame Inventory P"Wann

ri

JLj
p. 21

ON,

Citapter 5

improved Enforcement Would Help Eanarea

Mom Complete Lavento"

Figure 5A Late Entission Reports for the

19" Inv*nUWY lam NUM6WOOR

am

9110

am

7WO

am

900

3M

1-30 3140 61-M Ih or

Wore

NVnIbW ofVap Lab

Note: A total of 11 .625 en*Aions reWs for ft 1966 kwunintory were subfttted late. as of Onobera

Im.

Sowce : GAO's arialysis of EPA data.

At the time of our review, program officials were discussing what

actions, if any, to take against the thousands of facilities that bad submitted late reports. Itis a difficult issue for the agency to resolve. On

the one hand, EPA wants to collect accurate and complete informatkm

from as many manufacturing facilities as possible and therefore does

not %%-Ant to discourage facilities from submitting their reports, even ff

these reports are for previous reporting years. On the other hand, the

agency recogwes that enforcement actions can encourage faciRles, to

submit their repo:-,%. According to a headquarters enfurcement offiiciaL

the agency also has not f6cined its limited enforcement resources on kite

reporters because the program is relatively skew and its reportizig

requirements are complex. These factors could partially explain why

facilities might submit their rc .)orts late.

In May 199 1, EPA noted that while the number of facilities reporting law

is a concern, this concern must be weighed against the more smm

problems of facilities' failing to report or submitting inacanitte data .

Nonetheless, the agency said that it is planning to undertake a rinIttrear

enforcement initiative for late reporters beginning in fbscd year 199L

rev GAO/11110CEMIL-121, Tede Releam limmomy IP
22

Aid ,

CMPW 3

huproved Emforcement Wm'A H*1P FA=ft a

Mom Zomptete Inventory

Conclusions A: vigorous and efficient enforcement prograra is necessary to encourage

industry to comply with reporting requirements. With greater comp&-

ance, the inventory would be more complete and therefore more usefad

to government regulators and others . We believe that Em's compliance

and enforcement efforts would be improved if EPA~s regions used move

effective and efficient strategies in identifying nonreporters . Moreover,

by acting expeditiously against nonreporters, EPA will send a strong

signal to industry that the program will indeed be enforcedL FInally, we

agree with EPA that without explicit inspection authority, access to facilities to determine compliance could become a problem. While EPA has

generally been able to gain access to facilities under other statutory

authorities, in our view, it may not necessarily be able to obtain wider

these other laws all of the information it needs to determine whether

facilities are in compliance. Moreover, we believe that EPA's need to rely

on other legal authorities weakens its enforcement progrant. Therefom

we believe that future enforcement efforts would be strengthened if t1be

Congress were to revise Um to give EPA explicit authority to inspect

facilities.

Recommendations to Because strong, efficient enforcement is critical to ensure industry's

compliance with the inventory program's reporting requirements, we the Administrator, recommend that the Administrator, EPA, develop an effective regional

EPA inspection sftWegy to better identify nonreporters and issue nationa l

guidance for implementing this sbVegy . In addition, EPA should deveftp

procedures to reduce the backlog of enforcement cases and clarify EPA

headquarters' role in handling such cases .

Recommendation to To strengthen EPA's enforcement of the Toxic Release Inventory Program, we recommend that the Congress amend the Emergency Phmmg the Congress and Community Right-to-Kn6w Act to provide EPA with explicit

authority to inspect facilities .

Agency Comments and EPA generally agreed with our recommendation that the agency asses--

the various targeting strategies regional offices use to identify nmre- Our Evaluation porters. The agency commented that it would be valuable to &;tribtite

national guidance to its regional offices outlining recommende d

targeting strategies . EPA also stated xhat it had several projects Under

way designed to improve how targeting for facility inspections is doneBecause of the magnitude of nonreporting and the agency's limited

m%pection resources for addressing the problem, we continue to believe

P"e 60 GAO/RCZDDI-121 Toxic Rewmae ln~tory Pi
p. 23

MR . dOffing L`Z-~I~ r~ .-W- WChapter 6

Improved Eatorremeni Would Help Enswe a

More Complete Inventory

that the agency should issue nalional. guidance to emsure that its

regional offices are u.-Fing the most efficient and effective strategies to

target faci!ities for inspection .

EPA concurred with our recomineendatk#n t.',.It it iE&ue national guidance

to its regions to help them reduce the backlog of enforcement cases,

stating that it had hiitiated a project to improve the management of

these cases. The agency explained that direction will be provided on

case priontization, ways to effectively use limited resources, and cormmunication strategies. The project is slated for completion by October L,

1991. We support EPA's initiative in this critical aspect of the enforcement program and urge the agency to taii., whatever action is necessary

to help the regions implement effective tecuniques for dealing with the

enforcement backlog.

page 61 GAD/RCED491-121 Toxit Releam Inventory
Tedirdcal Methodology

We used a variety of methods to collect data, including mail-in question- Survey M~-thods naires and a telephone pol! of residents in three counties. Copies of the

surveys, with aggregated responses, are available upon requestMail-In Questiormaires

States We sent a mail-in questionnaire to designated Toxic Release Inventory

Program coordinators in each of the 50 statm Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. We received responses from all states surveyed except

Alaska.

Users of Public Data Base To obtain information from those individuals who had accessed the

public data base, we obtained from NLm a list of 740 user code accounts

that had accessed the file between June 16, 1989,1 and November 30,

1989. After we excluded EPA user codes, we sent confidential questionnaires to the designated recipient of technical materials for each of the

remaining 710 codes.

We received back 512 usable questionnaires, for an overall response rate

of 72.1 percent. Another 14 responded afte- our deadline or returned

partially completed questionnaires. Only four users refteed to partidpate. Among the nonrespondents were 62 users who did not recall

having accessed the data file .

Facilities That Submitted To obtain information from & - regulated community, we sent a con&

Emissions Reports dential questionnaire to a shnple random sample of 1,000 facMes that

had submitted reports for 1987 and/or 1988. 7be 3ample was drawn

from inventory data tapes provided by EPA. 7be tapes, dated January

15, 1990, listed 26,394 facilities that had submitted reports for I or both

years.

We received back 867 usable questionnaires. Another 10 facilities

returned questionnaires too late for us to use in our analysis . Only five

facilities refused to participate . Among the nonrespondents, 40 facilities

told us that their facility was closed or did not recall having subndtted

emissions reports. Except where noted, our results generalize to the

22,884 facilities, we estimate would have responded if we had surveyed

all facilities that reported. However, our estimates may over-or understate the views of all facilities to the extent that nonrespondents hold

ITho n the dae a* pubhc d&M b~ nra bemm xvafl"

pade6z GAO/RCED-91-121 Tude Rel~ hmeawy P op
Appendix I

Teclutic-Al Medmxioloa

different views than respondents. The precision of our estir, is indi

cated with a confi'dence interval at the 95-percent level . 2

To encourage response in all three of our Mau sutvey-% we sent followup questionnaires to those who,-iid not respond to our initial mailingL

These surveys were conducted concurrently from March through July

1990.

Telephone Poll of To assess public awarenew. of, interest in, and use of toxic chen-dcal

Residents in Three release data, we contracted mth Westat, Inc ., a private research firm, to

design and conduct a telephone survey in three counties located in the

Counties states we selected for detailed review. These counties were Afttigny

County, Pennsylvania; Cook County, Illinois; and Harris County, Texas.

n.e survey was conducted using a stratified random digit dialing Procedure" to identify adults 18 years of age or older residing in the three

counties . For each county, a random digit dialing sample of approximately 1,600 telephone numbers was generated . Telephone exchanges

used primarily for business were screened from the sample. Calls

yielding busy tones, answering machines, no answer, or other htermediate results were retned up to three fames before the telephone number

was abandoned so that the number of responses to our survey exceeded

our criterion of 500 per county. As with ti -e estimates for the survey of

facilities, the estimates we present from this survey have a measurable

precision and are stated at the 95-percent confidence level.

As table 1 .3 shows, we obtained responses from 44 to 52 percent of the

eligible samples in each county . FUal data were weighted by age and

gender to more closely approximate each county's population characteristics and to help generate courtty-level . estimates .

29nce we used a probabWtY sample to develm our estimstes, each estbafte has a measurable preciAM or samplft error, which may be ,

.

as a plua/mInus ftum A ismalift errurIndleftes

how closely we can reproduce from a sample the results that we would obtain if we were to tam a

complete camof the univem using the sanat mensurecaus mediods By adding the .

.' Smor

to and subtracting It from the estimate, we can develop upper and Imm bounds, for esicht estimate.

This raree is called a confidence lervel.Saw*"errom and coididence intervab am stated at a certain confklence level-in this cow. 96 1 - ~ P For example a confidence interval at the O&pmwm

conlidence level mesm that in 95 out of 100 instiumes, thesampW* v n coam P we used would prw

duce a confIdence irtervaJ containift the universe value we we estimating

31tandom digkt dialft is a method of obtakid" arandom ,of households with teleplimes and in

desigried to mimmime problem of aomse tourdisted teleThimes and telephonen not yet Date&

Faee 63 GAO/BCED491-121Toxic Release Lavenomy F S

97--
Appendix I

Teckwical blethadoloo

Table 1 .3: Final Status of Random Mot Dialing Sample

AJ!qjLhany County Cook Coint Harris County

Response Respomw Rospinse

rate (sic raw

Number (percent) Number (percent) Number (Peres"

Respondents 556 515 44 503 52

Nonrespondents 564 646 56 459 48

Total efigible 1,120 IWO 1,161 100 962 100

The county estimates we present could over- or underestimate the

county population's knowledge of, opinions about, and interest in the

emissions inventory if the sampled adults who did not participate in the

study or those without telephones have knowledge, opinions, or interest

in toxic release data that dliffers from that of respondents .

To estimate the percentages of facilities nationwide that have and have Nationwide Repo~~79 not submitted one or more emissions reports, we asked the 52 state coor- and Nonreporting dinators we surveyed to estimate reporting rates in their states . A stateEstimates by-state breakdown of the nonreporting estimates provided by 39 coordinators is contained in chapter 5.

We used the states' responses to estimate the universe of facilities obligated to report nationwide. To do th* we first had to make assumptions

about reporting rates for the 13 states that did not provide us an estimate. We developed an optimistic assumption that the estimated

reporting rate for these states was 100 percenL We did not use a lowerbound estimate because reporting rates were clearly above zero for all

states, and we knew of no meaningful minimum rate assumption to use .

Second, we divided the actual number of facilities that submitted

reports for 1988 in each state by the state's estimated reporting rate to

yield an estimated universe of eligible facilities for each state. We then

pooled these estimated universes across states to yield an estimated

national universe of facilities that should have submitted reports .

FInally, we divided the number of facilities that submitted reports

nationwide in 1988 (excluding the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,

Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, which were not in our survey)

by the estimated national universe of facilities that should have

reported to estimate the national reporting rate of 64 .3 percent.

PaSe 64 CAAO/RCM91-121 Tadc Rekqbw Investery Ptogram
Appendix I

Technical MethOC10109Y

To assess the reliability of EPA's automated toxic release inventori data Reliability Assessment base, known as the Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS), we used

of EPEA's Automated probability san.,oles to determine whether the information in emissions

Inve.ntory Data reports was completely a-Lid acca-Lately transcribed into TRIS . The prPOL

sion of our estimates is indicated by confidence intervals or sampling

errors at the 95-pe -cent level of confidence .

Completeitess Test To determine whether EPA's data base contained all the reports subnutted, we used cluster sampling to compare original documents sul>-

mitted to EPA to TRIS.4 From 591 boxes of reports submitted for the 1988

inventory, we selected a random sample of 125 boxes to review . W-ithin

each box of reports, we randomly selected one report between the first

and thirtieth report and then every thirtieth report after the first report

selected . Using this methodology, we pulled 578 reports. We then

checked to see whether these reports were present in, or absent from

the data base.

Accuracy Test The computer riles EPA provided for our use contained 80,230 submis

sions for the 1988 inventory. From these riles, we drew a simple random

sample of 400 reports. We compared I I fields from each submission on

the data base with the documents submitted. (See ch. 4 for the names of

the fields selected.)

All of the fields we reviewed occur once per submission except thew

code, the release/transfer type, and the release/transfer amount, which

can occur multiple times per submission. The release/transfer type

describes the types of toxic chemical releases and transfers that facilitiez can report. The release types are nonpoint air, point air, water,

underground, and land. The transfer types are publicly owned treatment, works and off-site.

4aw tea na uwlu& 1.704 ermsens mWa tha ime wbmi eiecuudcally by facilities.

Page 65 GAO/RCZMI-IZI Tozic Relemsee Inventory Program
Standard Industiial Classification Codes

Covered by Repoiting Requirements

Code Industry

20 Food ai nJ koidred products

21 Tobacco product s

22 Textile mill product s

Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics and other similar matenaJs

24 Lumber and wood products, except furniture

25 Furniture and fixtures

26 Paper and affied products

27 Printing, publishing. and alliand industries

28 Chemicals and allied products .

29 Petroleum refining and related industries

30 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products

31 Leather and leather products

32 Stone. clay, glass. and concrete products

33 Primary metal industries

34 Fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment

industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipmen t

36 Electronic and other electrical equipment and components, except computer equipment

37 Transportation equipment

38 Measuring . anaJyzing .and controlling instruments: photographic, medical, and optical goods : watches and clocks

39 Miscellaneous manufacturing industries

Page 66 GAO/ECED-91-121 Toidc Releam Inventory PnWam
An a N al-MIAS ull~ j

AAR

iiiventory Chemicals for Reporting Yc-ar 1911coo

Acetaldehyde

Acetamide Bi%2-chloro-I-m*Vj1e1ty.)~

Acetone Bis(240~ adpoe

Aceio;

;t,de Bwnokrm

2-Aceyaminotiuorene Btomwrn@Vww (methyl bn=Wo)

Actolein -3-Butadeene

Acrytanwde ButylAlaywe

Acrylic acid n-wyl AMW

Acrylonitrde sec-Butylak=W

Aldrin [1 .4 tert-Butylat"

1 .2 .3.4 . 10, IO-h-_xarNoro-I .4.4a .5ZSw But)i benpiO*Ua*

hexahydro (I akpfe . .4 &Vft .4a beta.- ButYraldwoll

5 aipna .8 alpP.- As beta 12-ButyMne oxide

Allyl alcoW C I Aw grow 3

Allyl chloride C I Saw grow 4

Aluminum (fumex dust) Cl Bawredl

Aluminion oxide (Wous fcom) C I . Ovect MCI[ 38

2-Arninoanthraquirione C I Dirwo Me 6

4-Amjnoazobenzene C I Direct tPrown 95

4-AminobohenYl C I . Clispem Wow 3

I -Amino-2-melftylanthraquinone Of Food red 5

I-Ammonia C 1 . Food red 15

Ammonium nitrate (solution) C I Solverlt owlge 7

Ammonium sulfate (solutm) C I Solverd yWbw 3

Aniline C 1 . Solvent yesow 14

o-Anisidone C I *ofv" yeftw 34 (auramm)

p-Anisidone C I Vol yeftw 4

o-Anisidm hy&oChloride Cadmium

AnIhracene C4twm cywwrade

Antimony CSOW

Arsenic 3a.4 .7 .7avvehydro-2-

Asbestos (froble) (trch1wwwMO)M*J

Barium (14whanwa.

6j;zal chloride moVIkarbeffWal

Benzamide Carbon da0eft

Benzene Carbon leirsoMonde

Carbono WiNift

Senzoic Irchionde (beirimnaftnde) Ca

jimolA 04onde Chloraimbertlbwk= wd. Samino-2.

Benzoyl peroxide

PGOOT WA/UZM.121 Tede §Woww Is- way ftmom
..

.

--w Om for Repardft Year 190

ChWdane 14.7-fmtharkwidan .

cwa4e.

12.4 .5.6.7,8 .3-tvc~o2 .3'%L4.7.7whex*q*o-j

Chlorrw

DOdwootomonwthmw

12 Dcr*xoeftm fe"le chr-hW4-0) 2ChkwowR&0Vr*nOr-O

CIAMobertzow

Crdwdm=ime jow2mmacetic aad . 4- Ochiwwne"uww(meMylem CN"IdOl

cftwo~ alpft o-chwo0wro) awn . 2.40mlftvOww'd

12DCt*"WOPWW 4V&GXY .WP#i eStCf) 2-3Z)chWmomow*

ommemam (earo imw4e)

c%wolorm I-%Dchwwopyww

CnWanetww (freOY Iftnde) DKoiarvos (phosphoric wO, 2

cidwome" "W" dct*XOBowr)4 dww" ester]

Oftwow

Docolol (benzwwnetaid. (4-dd~

Cmwo"micrw 11 .1 &aWw-4-chWophem& .aWm--

-5 .6, (Vchiwom"~)

D^voxybuUm

C)vompffn DWVWXAWWo

ccom" Dij2-e#Ow)tO) phftftte (DEHM

Oemle Dw2ril phthWate

COPM Do"agate

pC.re$KWW 3Z L)Nmthoxybenzxbm

Ciesd ("wred mome(s) 4Dwwrqiwmvazobw=m

MCA"a IT Dw*tWienzKbm (o-tokW*)

1 .1-DwwftO hydranm

PCJ"

C4#nww 2

d

.4 DOWOVtiphenol

Ckwnww hydraMOX40 Dow" phViftte

Cuokmm (banzarownre. F+hydroxy-* Dww" KM&to

so) nqM*obonzow

o0mbobenzone c#cwwmw 2.4-0 (Acom mg.

pOn"bmzww a4<fto**xovw=ym 4.64)nWo-o-and DmCl&OMo*Vhwvfl OOM

(cwb&Wovmw wdixs 0- 2.40n"phenol

W-14chlwo-2- 2.44wvvotokwo

pmponyl)~1 2ADrotrokokxm

z4owrovermsois Dnwotoi~ (mmod mffws)

2 4DWrmxwvl" sultals MN=44 phdVftto

4X*AMvW*WWvti~ 1.400mo

DWTW%Xckam (Mmod wonws) 12DOwyhydmam (hydruobanzwwl

24cwff-wwkam

Paw Twft

VO
AppendLx M

lavmtory ChemScals for Serwrtins Year '988 I

Diazomelham 2-Etho:,yethanol

Dbenzofuran Ethyl acrylate

1 .2 Dibromo-3-chlor.opropane (DBCP) Ethylbenzene

1 .2 Dibromoethane (ethylene dibromide) EW chlmofonnate

Dibutyl pnma!ate E"ne

Dichlorobenzene (mixed ~Somers) E"ne glycoi

1

.2-Dichiorobenzene Edlyleneimine (azMine)

1 .3-Dichlorobenzene Effryiene oxide

1

.4-DichWobenzene Ettrylene ft"ourea

3.3*-Dichlorobenzidine Fluometuron [urea. N."rneth"'-(3-

trifluoromethyiWwnyl]-] Methyl iodide

Formaldehyde Metty isobutyl ketone

Freon 113 [ethane. 1,1 .2-trichloro-122- Me" mccyanate

Irdluoro-] Medwy! meffmcrylate

Heptachlor ft 1,4 .5,6 .7 .8.8-Heptachkxw Michler's ketone

3a.4,7 .7a-tetr2hydro-4.7-niethano-ll+ M*bdenum trioxide

andenel Mustard gas [ethane. 1, 1 --Ihiok~ [2-

Hexachlorobenzene diWo-)

Hexachloro-1 .3-butadiene Naphttalene

Hexachlorocyclopentadsene a4ft-Naphthylamine

Hexachloroethane beta-Naphthylamine

Hexachloronaphthalene K%"

Hexamethylphosphoramide Mtric acid

Hydrazine Nitholtriacefic acid

Hydrazine sulfate S~Mtro-o-anisidine

HydrochloricacAd Nitrobenzene

Hydrogen cyanide 4-Wrobiphenyl

Hydrogen fluorede Pfitrofen [benzene. Z4-dichloro-144-

Hydroquinone ndrophenoxyY]

isobuttyraldehyde Nitrogen mustard 12-chWo-W2-

bopropyl ak*xA (manufacturing-suang chloroeffwyl~N-methylethanamine]

acid process. no supplier notifkmtion) MItroglycenn

4 .4'4sopropyhdenedohenol 2-MtropNwaA

11sosafrole 4-M

Lead 2-mtrqxopww

Lav3ane Icyclohexane . 1 .2,3 .4,5.6- p4ktrosodohe~

hexachloro-.0 -afpha.2.W^-.3-beta- N.N-arnevvyiendine

4 &". .5 aWw.6beta+] N-MtfosodWi-but)iarvune

1601allec whydnde N-Mtrosodoeoligmine

Mardeb (carbamodittme wid. 12- "trosodirnedwylarnkm

ethaneoyltxs. manganese complex] WWrosodpNertylarnine

Vlaniwlese "trose4"Hxopylamine

(conanuio

GAO/RCZ"I-121 Toxic Rej~Inguawy pbwg~
Append1z M

Lmwn-AwyCbe-Ims- fOr RePOrTing Ter HIC

Mercury N-Nitrosomettr/lvirr/famine

N-Nitrosomo(ptxline

Methanol

N-Mtroso-N-ethyiures Me' ho)rychlor [benzene, 1 . 1'~2 .2,2-

trichloroethylidene)bi$ [4-melhoxy-I N-Nitroso.N-metWureE

2-Methoxyethanol N-NUOSG=6004,be

Methyl acrylate N-14itroscpOendine

Methyl tert-butyi ether Octachloron2phthalwe

4.4' Methysenebis(2-chlerc aniline) Osirnium tetroxide

(MBOCA) p Rlion [phosphoroMioic acid. o. o

4 .4*-Methylenebis (N,N-dimethyl) dietyk>j4-nitrophenyl) ester]

benzenamine Pentachlorophencl OrP)

Methyterebis(phenylisocyanate) (MBI) Peracefic acid

Methylene bromide Phenol

4,4'-Methylenediandine p4t4nyWrwxKIiwr.ine

Methylethyl ketone 2-Phenylpherxg

Methyl hydrazine Phosgene

Phosphoric acie Triazquone [2.5-cyclohexadiene-1 .4-

Phosphorus (yellow or white) dione. 2.3.5-tris(l-aziridjnyf~j

Phthalic anhydride Trichlorfon Wmphonic acid, (2,Z2-

Picric acid trichloro-l-hydroxycth*. dimethyl

Polychlorinated biPhenYls (PCBs) ester]

Propane sultone 1 .2.4-Trichlorobenzerie

beta-Propiolactone 1 .1,1 -Trichlorcedum (methyi chloroform)

Propionaldehyde 1.1 .2-Trichloroeftne

Propoxur [phenol . 2j 1 -methylethoxyY . Trd*mmthykm

methylcarbamate) 2,4 5 Trichlorophenol

Propylene (propene) 2.4 .6-Trichlorophend

Propyleneimine Trifluralin (benzenearnine. 2."initroPropylene oxide N.N-dipropyl-4-(trJIffuorometh*1

Pyridine 1.2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1 .1 .2-TfichWoelhane Ouinoline

Ouinone Trichloroeftylene

Ouintozene [pentach6ronitrobenzene) TrichkxWluoromethane

Saccharin (manufacturing . no supplier 2.4-5-TrichWoomid

notitication) [1 .24Wnzisothiazol- 2.4.6-TrichWophenol

3(2H~we. 1,1 -dioxide] Tdfkwahn [benzeneamine, 2,6-dinitroSafrole N .Ndovpy"itrifluoromethy1~1

Selenium 1,2 .4-Trimet1twmene

Silver Tris(2.34&omopropyl) phosphate

Styrene Urethane (e" carbamate)

Styrene oxide Vanadium (fune or dust )

Sulfuric acid Virryi

acetate (conbnua*

pme 70 GAOAK30).$1-121 To3de Rek~Inwaawy Fkwo~
SSW_

MAIN=

am=

Appendix M

Inventory Che-1-1- for Reporting yew IM

Terephthalic acid Vinyl bromice

1 . 1 2.2-Tetrachloroethane Vinyl chloride

Tetracniorethylene (perchlor ;wih.1le-e) Vinylidene cNwicLTelfechlorvinpnos [ph.-.~-~~oric acid . 2- XYlene (mixed isomers)

chloro-1(2,'J,5-tnchlorophenyQ ettwnyl rrt-X,/;ene

dimethyl ester) o-Xylene

Tetrachlorvinphos [phosphoric acid, 2- p-Xyiene

chi(xo-l-(2,3,5-trichlorophenyl) 2,6-Xylidine

ethenyl dimelhyl ester] Zinc (fume or dust)

Thalliurn Zineb [carbaniodithioic acid. 12-

Thioacetamide

4 .4'-Thiodianiline

elhanedi~lbis-. zinc complex)

Thiourea

Titanium tetrachloride

Thor;urn dioxide

Toluene

Toiuere-2,4-diisccyanate

Toluene-2,6-diisocyanate

Toluenedlisocyanate (mixed isorners)

o-Toluidine

o-Toluidine hydrcchloride

Toxaphene

page 71 GO3/RCEDqj-jzI T02fic Releiiiiiie Inwestwy P
A

Des, cliption of Data Fonnats

To furnish the public with informadon on the emission of toxic cheadcals nationwide and in their communities, EPA has developed an on-line

public data base and other formats . In addition to producing the formats

listed in table IV-1, EPA and state agencies will provide, upon request,

copies of the individual release reports.

Table IVA: Availlablitty of lnv~y Data

For.mts Format Dow Coverage Source Price

Public data base National NLMa $18-25/hour

K4agnetic tape National GPOb $5M

NTISF $1 .10D-1

Compact disk National GPO $23

NTIS $45

National report National GPO $21

Fiche State GPO $6-iz

NTIS Not determined yet

National GPO $107

NTIS Not determined yet

Computer diskette State NTIS $5M

GPO $15 per diskette

National NTIS $1 .830 (Mase)

$1,980 (Lotus)

GPO $900 (Mase)

$1 .1 10 (Lotus)

*Address : TRI Representative. National Library of Medicine . Specialized InMrmation Services . BOW

Rockville Pike, Bethesda. MD 20894. Telephone: (301) 496-6531 .

bAddress : U.S. Government Printing Office, 710 North Capitol Street, N.W- Washington. DC 204M. Telephone : (202) 783-3238.(202) 275-0186 (for the magnetic tape format).

cNTIS "is the 1600 density magnetic tape for S1550. TheGM0 density tape &ists $1,100. Addresis:

National Technical Inlormation Service . U.S. Dept . of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road . Springbaldl. VA

22161 . Telephone : (703) 4874650,(703) 4874763 (for the magnetic Ups and con"ter diskette ~wMats) .

Page 72 GAO/RCED411-121 Taide Release Invenamy randrawo
List of Selected Publications by the Federal

Govenunent, State Govenunents, and

Enviromnental and Public hiterest Groups

Federal Goverrument Carney, Jon, C.J. Ludington, and U.S. EPA, Region VI. Use of Govemment

Data to Identify Industrial Pollution in Fort Worth . Dallas, Texas Feb.

1989.

Lautenberg, Senator Frank, and Congressman .james Florio. Air T03jc

Report; New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metro Area. Washington,

D.C: Apr. 1989.

Molinah, Congressman Guy. Toxic Chemical Inventory: Toxic Chemical

Presence and Releases to the Environment in an Area of Northeastern

New Jersey . Washington, D.C. : Apr. 1989.

Subcomrruttee on Health and the Environment, Committee on Energy

and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Henry A. Waxman,

Chairman. The National Toxic Release Inventory: Preliminary Air To3dc

Data. Washington, D.C. : Mar. 1989.

State Goverranents Community Right-To-Know Annual Report. Trenton, N.J . : New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Environmental

Quality, Bureau of Hazardous Substances, Mar. 1989.

Comparison 1987 vs 1988 Data SARA Title III, Section 313 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Report . Frankfort, Ky.: Kentucky Department for

Environmental Protection, Feb . 1990.

Louisiana Toxics Release Inventory 1988. Baton Rouge, La. Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality, Apr. 1990.

More Than Fifty Eight Million Pounds of Chemicals Released Annually

to the Connecticut Environment. Hartford, Conn.: Department of Environmental Protection, Apr. 1989.

New York State 1988 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Review. Albany,

N.Y. : New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Dec .

1989'.

Second Annual Toxic Chemical Repo . Springfield, Ill. : Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Feb. 1990.

Virginia SARA Title Ill Section 313 Release Summary Report. Richmond,

Va. : Virginia Emergency Response Council, Department of Waste Management, Nov. 1989.

Page 73 GAO/RCED411-121 Ta3dc Releam Lmventary Prwo~
N p~36~ . --,~-

Appendix V

IJA ofSelected PubLIcations by the Federal

Government, State Governsnents, and

Environme-ftal and Public Interest Group s

1987 Section 313 "Toxic" Chen-dcal Emission Report (draft) . Salt I ~2

City, Utah: Utah Department of He<h, DivLsion of EnvironmentAi

Health, Mar. 1988.

1988 Toxic Chemical Release Report . St. Paul, Minn. : Minaesota DepwtiWent of Public Safety, Emergency Response Commimion, Nov . 19&qAir To3dcs in New York State: A Citizens'Guide to the Riptato~w

Enviro=enW and To-~c Data. Albany, N.Y. : New York Environmental instiPubldc Interest Groups, tLuatwe wanithAth're American Lung Association of New York State, July ISM.

Conununity Right To Know : A New Tool for Pollution Prevention. Washington, D.C. : OMB Watch, Jan. 1989.

Dean Norman L ., Jerry Poje, and Randall J . Burke. The Toxic 500: The

500 Largest Releases of Toidc Chemicals in the U.S., 1987. Washingcmm,

D.C. : National Wildlife Federation, Aug. 1989.

Entropy, Carl Reller. Environmental ~~Iince Audit of Four(yj and

Gas Facilities in Kenai, Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska. Sept. 1990.

A Fragile Shield Above the Golden State : California's Contribution to the

Chemical Destruction of Earth's Protective Ozone Layer San Francisno,

Calif. : Citizens for a Better Environment, Apr . 1989.

Frank, Debra Joy, and C. William Ryan. The Good, The Bad and The

Toidc. Most of CaliforriWs Largest Toide Emitters Are FaHing to Redh3ce

Their Emissions and Use of Toidcs. Los Angeles, Calif. : California Pub&

Interest Research Group, Mar. 1990.

A Future Too B College Park, Md. : M=71and Public Interest

Research Group. Aug, 1989.

Gordon, Ben, Joe Thorriton, and Jeff Howard (eds .). Wyandotte: A

Chemically Dependent City. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Dec . 1989.

Haight, Laura, and Bridget Barclay . To3dc Tides : Your Right to Know-A

Report on Toxic Discharges to the Hudson River Drainage Basin Using

Information From the Federal Emergency Planning and Commwdty

Right-to-Know Act Poughkeepsie, N .Y. : Hudson River Sloop Clearwzwr~

Inc., Oct. 1989.

F&V 74 GAO/RCMSI .121 Toxic Releam Invenesay Fmonses
p. 37

Ane"X V

List of Sek-cted PubUcations by the Feders;

Cvovernment~ State Gwernments, and

EnArenmenud and PuMk interest GroaW

Klaus, Marshall, Kathy Aterno, Andrew Buchsbaum, Geoff Lomax,

Hillel Klaus, and Charles Griffith. L)a: er, To the Ozone Layer in Mic&

igan. AnnArbor, Mica. : July 1989-

Lippeatt, David, and Andrew Buchsbaum, with Charles Grj;fith and

Anne Woiwode. Out of Control: Air xic Pollution Controls and To Air

Emissions in Michig Ann Arbor, Mich. : Public Interest Pesearch

Group in Michigan, Nov . 1989.

Manufacturing Pollution: A Survey of the Nation's Toxic Pollutem

Washington, D.C.: Citizen's Fund, May

Mulhern, Joan . Toxics Released : An Inventory of Toxic Chemicals

Released in Vermont. Montpelier, Vt.: Ve.rnwnt Public Interest Reseasch

Group, May 1989.

Pennsylvania Toxic Chemical Rele-ase Inventory Report. Philadrlphia6

Pa. : Delaware Valley Toxics Coalition, Jan. 1990.

Permit to Pollute : A Study of Connecticut's IndusUial Dischargem Wk!st

Hartford, Conn. : Connecticut Public L-tterest Research Group, OcL 1909.

Poisons in Our Neighborhoods: A Survey of Toxic Pollution [49 simtes]

Manufacturers. Washington, D.C. : Citizen Action, Oct. 1989.

Poie, Jerry, Norman L Dean, and Randall J. Burke. Danger Downwind:

A Report on the Release of Billions of Pounds of Toxic Air PollutantsWashington, D.C.: National Wildlife Federation, Mar. 1989.

Sheiman, Deborah. Memorandum Subject : Top jNre~nty n Industrial

Sources of To3dc Air Emissions. Washington, D.C.: Natural Resomves;

Defense Council, June 1989.

Sugarman, Quincy. Toxics on the Rise: Oregon's Industrial Air Fbnud=L

Portland, Org. : Oregon Public Interest Research Group, Oct. 198PIltle III Emissions Data for Silicon Valley Industry-by Company.San

Francisco, Calif. : Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Aug. 1988.

Toxic Air Emissions in North Carolina- An Update for 1988. Raleigh,

N.C. : North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund, Aug. 19M.

Page 75 GAO/RCEM41-121 To3de Release InventoryP g
8~

Appenedix V

List of Selected Pubtleadons by the Federal

Government, State Governments, and

EnAronmental and Pubijc Interest Groups

Toxic Air Pollution in Illinois : An Analysis of 1987 To3dc Release Invez"itory Reports . Chicago, III.: Citizens for a Better Environment and LT&

cago Lung Association, Feb . 1999.

To)dc Air Pollution in Maryland. An Analysis of To3de Release Reports

From Manufacturmg Industries for 1987. Washington, D.C.: Nattual

Resource-s Defense Council ; Sierra Club, Potomac Chapter, Maryland

Waste Coalition; American Lung Association of Maryland, Aug. 1988.

Toidc Air Pollution in Ohio- Uncontrolled and Unregulated Coltunbus.

Ohio: Ohio Citizen Action, Feb. 1990.

Toidc Air Pollution in Virginia: An Analysis of To)dc Release Reports

1988 Emissions Submitted by Manufacturing Industries to the

Department of Waste Management in Compliance with the Enwrge=7

Planrdng and Commurtity Right-to-Know AcL Annapolis, Md.: Sffm

Club, Virginia Chapter, Jan. 1990.

To3dc Pollution in Massachusetts: An !jd~i by Industry Analysis

Chemical Releases and Opportunities for To)dcs Use Reduction- Boston,

Mass. : Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, Apr. 1989.

Toxic Trends: New Jersey's Most To3dc Disch~~rs 1987-88 and 7heir

Progress Toward Pollution Prevention. New Brunswick, NJ.: New

Jersey Public Interest Research Group, Oct . 1989.

To)dcs Unleashed: A Report on Toidc Chemical Releases in Lucas

County. Columbus, Ohio: Industrial Sta Policy Center, Apr. 1989.

To3dc Waste and Mortality m 1,ouisiana!s Cherrucal Corridor. Wadwington, D.C.: Greenpeace U.S.A., Nov. 1988.

Waking a Sleeping Giant A Citizens Guide to To3dc Chemical Rekmses

Reported Under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Commurft

Right-To-Know Act. Frankfort, Ky.: Kentucky Resources Council, May

1988, revised Aug. 1989.

A Who's Who of American Ozone Depleters : A Guide to 3,014 Factories

Emitting Three Ozone-Depleting Chemicals . Washington, D.C.: Natur-A

Resources Defense Council, Jan. 1990.

Page 76 GAO/RCED-91-121 Toxic Release Inventory P w
p, 39A,

Conunents FYom the Environrnental

Protecdon Agency

Note : GAO comments,

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix .

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASH .NGTON . D .C . 2046 0

YX 15 in OFF OCE OF

POLICY. PLANNomG AND EVALUATIC09

Mr . Richard Hembr a

Director

Environmental Protection Issue s

Resources, Co=unity, and Economic Development Division

U .S . General Accounting Offic e

Washington, D.C . 20548

Dear Mr. Hembra :

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed the

General Accounting Office (GAO) draft report entitled Toxic

Chemicalst EPA's Toxic Release Inventcry Useful . But Can be

improved (GAO/RCED-91-121) . In accordance with Public Law 96-

226, 1 an providing the formal Agency response to the draft

report.

in general, the report rresents a fair and balanced

See comment 1 . evaluation of the toxic release inventory (TRI) . Some of the

comments on the enclosure doscribe changes in program management

which have been made since th2 GAO review was conducted and which

are relevant to the findings . In other cases, EPA will need to

make policy decisions regarding future program directions . Some

of these will be affected by resource availability to carry out

new initiatives .

The enclosure presents the Agency's reactions to the draft

report . The paper in organized into two sectionsi (1) comments

on GAO,s findings related to organization and management of the

Toxics Release Inventory (Sec . 313 of the Emergerricy P1 ...ing and

Community Right-to-Know Act [EPCRAI) and (2) comments related to

enforcement of the reporting provisions of EPCRA.

In addition to improving the management of the toxic release

inventory program, the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances

(OPTS) is actively workJng with foreign nations on environmental

release data . At the Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Group and

Management Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD) this month, OPTS will lead a seminar to

familiarize foreign Member nations with the fundamentals of

toxics release reporting and right-to-know-prograns .

Page 77 GAQ/VCZM1 M Toxic Release Invesitery Prersast
Appendix VI

Comments From the Enviz-onmental

Protection ASency

2

OPTS will sponsor another TIRI workshop for OECD member

nations and Central and Eastex-n European nations in November .

The workshop will provide pzactical info.-mation on the collection

and use of environmental. ruleass data, industries that may be

affected by the reporting; companies that provide envirensAntal

services ; and environmental and public interest groups .

Thank you for the opportunity to review the report and the

Agency looks forward to receiving the final GAO report .

Si erely,

Richard D . ko~rgeej

Acting Anxistant Administrator

Enclosure

Page 78 GAO/UCE"1-121 ToxicRelesee Inventory Programi
41

Anwadix VI

Commeafs Fmoz tM EnvUmmoud

Pnaecdou ASeWY

EPA COMMENTS ON GAO DRAPT RZPORT--TOXIC CHEMICALS : ZPAIS

TOXIC RELEASE IMM=RY USIM, BUT CW_DL_D2W_V?&

May 1991

ts an General ram Xana22N=j

Public Access . In the Executive Summax"I and in Chapter 3,

GAO implies that demand for toxic release inventory (TRI) data by

See comment Z the general public is limited. Our experience is to the

contrary. in the period since public access to TRI data has been

aviilable, we have received in EPA headquarters alone over 5,000

requests for TRI data from a broad range of different groups . In

contrast to our experience with other government information

programs (e .g., IPOIA)v soot requests for TRI d&La are not

received from industry . On the contrary, less than 50 garcent o!

TRI information requests are from industry . We have received

thousands of information requests from individuals, non-profit

organizations, research organizations, the sodia, etc . In

summary, we believe the situation in much more positive in ter_~ i

of public acc~tjs than portrayed by GAO.

See comment 3.

With further regard to public access, GAO way want to

mention that a pilot user assistance service (TRI US) began in

1990 . This allows users to call and request assistance in

accessing the database. A variety of requests can be filled,

including the completion of reasonable ow-rches for particular

information . In Chapter 3 (*EPA Zfforts to Improve the Data

Base*), GAO may want to mention the availability of the Toxic

Dump tool . This is computer software dervelop--d by EPA and

available free of charge . It downloads the National Library of

Medicine (KIM) data into a format that allows for easier

manipulation . GAO should also be aware that EPA has begun an

evaluation of the various public access means .

Availability of Data on compact disk-read only memory fCD_-

ROMI and Microfiche . At the time the GAO was conducting its

survey, we were experiencing both contractual and technical

problems with respect to producing the TRI data in these two

media . we believe, however, that these problems have been

substantially overc~mo . There were two contractual problems .

EPA experienced a more than 9-month delay due to the fact that

our funds were in the form of an extramural allocation, while the

Cwovernment, Printing Office (GPO), our publisher, accepted funds

from intramural (i .e. printing) accounts . we have since resolved

this difficulty throufth an Interagency Agresiment that allows us

to apply extramural ftmding to pay for theme printing services .

in addition, the contractual problem that GPO was experiencing

with respect to microfiche production has been resolved .

Page 79 GAO/JKXD-01-1'.1 Tadc Re1osom bnvntwy Pisross

"r
Appesmft V1

C4=nents P the EnvirosswnW

PnKecUon Aoe-.y

2

Major technological problems affected the CD-ROM format and

Gpo,i contractual ability to provide the sort of search and

output software that we considered necessary and which existed .

Subsequent to the GAD study, GPO completed a procurement process

that allows thm to tap the software of a nism r of different CDROM publication systems - We are in the process of testing on*

such packe.90 . upon completion of this testing phase, we expect

to move rapidly to publish a CD-ROM with TRI data from Reporting

years 1987, 1*18, and 1989 . Having resolved the contractual and

technical issues, we would expect each year's publicatioz. of CDROM,in the future to proceed mcch more smoothly and rapidly .

See -offvnent 4 .

Facility Coverage . We agree with GAO that

expansion of facility coverage would broaden the usefulness of

TRI . EPA is already -Aanininq possibilities for expanding the

standard industrial classification (SIC) codes subject to

reporting requirements . Certain issues related to facility

coverage were considered by Congress and by EPA at the time EPCRA

was passed, and som of these present special problems .

With respect to agricultural chesoLz&ls, it should be noted

that there are approximately 800,000 farms in the d' .5 . Each farm

would need to go to the effort of determininq .whether they met

the chemical, poundage, and size criteria for reporting . our

analysis led us to conclude that very few fams would actually ba

required to report due to the fact that the active ingredients of

pesticides qenerally occupy only a very mall percentage of the

total quantity found in pesticide formulations . Thus, including

farming would substantially Increase the overall burden of

reporting while not substantially achieving GAD's goal of

obtaining more Information on pesticide use .

GAO also raises the question of whether the present

exemption from reporting for small businesses should be changed. f

Several issues no" to be considered here . First, &liminarinq

this particular exemption would substantially increase the burden

on businesses, while not necessarily increasing the amount of

information received due to the separate 10,000 pounds usage

threshold . In addition, GAO already currently quostPAs the

quality of missions estimates found In TRI reporting . Smaller

businesses are less likely to have enviromwntal engineers an

staff and to have resources to hire consultants . Thus, were the

coverage to be Increased to Include smaller businesses, there

would be sub,!:tantial questions concerning the accuracy of the

data from suzh additional reporters .

Page 80 GAO/RCEDOI-121 Tozic Relessr 1wwatery Pnnpan
Appendix V1

C

F the EavifusneaW

rmleedam Afency

3

See commail 5 . with regard to fod*ral facilities, we believe such

expansion is worthy of consideration. we note, however, tbe.

inclusion of such facilities would raLse the issue of naticisal

security exemptions .

Re=rtablo Chemicals . In the Executive Summary under

See cornment 6. 'Including Morr Emissions', we suggest changing the sentence am

line 10 to reads 'For aze is, the 1988 inventory reflected

limited information on the agricultural sector and the I billica

-pe,unds of pesticides Lt used that year., The statement as it

retads is not entirely accurate, mince there are pesticides and

herbicides on the TRI list of chesticals . Also, the last

on page 22 could be changed to reads I . . . pesticides are c=mz

to only a limited extent by the inventory . ,

See coffvrmt 7. on page 34 of the report, W might note that ZPA added

nine chommicals to the TRI list . This was an action initiated by Now on p. 30 . EPA and not the result of a petition. The Agency also has plamwe

to add chemicals from the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 which

are not already an the TRZ list. In general, work is underway to

establish criteria for expanding the TRI list of chemicals . ZIPA

is looking at ways to set priorities for chemicals to be addedNow deleled frcwn the Data Use. On page 24 there is discussion of an EPA ftgLam

reporl. vill project which incorrectly describes the project. Them is

only one chloroflourocarbon (CPC) currently on the Soctton 313

list of chemicals . Starting with the 1991 reporting year sevesm

CFCs and halons will be reportable.

The question of the extent to *ddch See =nment B . EPA should interpret ta*for the public is a difficult one- On

the one hand is the n to provide data which the outside world

can use without any biases which might be reflected Ln EPA's

interpretation. On the other hand, the Agency feels a

responsibility to assist users in understanding that data

interpretation can be fraught with uncertainties . ZPA has

attempted to Vzc mte understanding of potential risks through its

Risk Screening Guide, which is widely available and helps t3se

public to interpret release numbers . ZPA's interpretation of

data for particular areas of the country can present very

s*nsitiv* issues for local and state officials and other

interests .

General Enhancements To/outlook for TRI . The GAO brWly

discusses last year's Pollution Prevention Act and its rel

to TRI . EPA La very enthusiastic about how the now information

will further the Agency's own pollution prevention efforts . It

should be stressed, nevertheless, that the Lapact of pallutins

page 81 GAO/NCMOI-Ul Toxic Refiesse lawasow P a
Agg VI

Comments Fs dw Environmental

ftatertloft Agency

r

4

proveztLon data will be significant and implementation dijfjcu_j=

in terms of managing the TozLce Release Inventory at a time wbem

federal resources are limited . This will be tl," case, in facc.

with regard to any additions to TAX reporting or offor" to

improve data quality and data use . in Chapter 4, the CAD

recommends the need for a *comprehensive data quality review

of fort . - ZPA agrees that the program would besof it from re

resources for quality of data estLoations, and this will I - See, comient 9

even more important when we begin to receive the now Pollution,

Prevention Act data.

See corrwnew 10 Lack of- Explicit Tnavection Authority . The GAD report

correctly states that ZPCRA does not provide ZPA with explicit

statutory authority to conduct compliance inspections . It is

important to note that ZPCRA also does not provide CPA with otbar

explicit and standard investigatory powers, such as subpoena and

warrant authorities. As the report indicates, amending ZPCRA va

add explicit investigatory authorities is a matter for

Congressional consideration . ZPA would fully support an

amerA1nont to ZPCRh that would add expllicit investigatory powermin the smantims, ZPA has boon successfully using the

precedent set by the Supreme Court's decision in Marshall v.

Barlow,s Inc. 436 U .S . 307 (1978) to gain entry into a facility- This case presented a challenge to a warrantless OSHA search of a

business. While the Supreme Court upheld the challenge, it alsto

provided guidelines for conducting consensual LnspectLons . The

Agency has developed its policy to conform to this case .

See comrnent 10 . Targeting of Facilities

__

r-r Inspections . One of GAO's

criticism* was that some regions were pro-screening facilities

better than other regions . The regions are implementing a

neutral Atialnistrative Inspection Scheme (xAxs) in accordance

with the 1989 Compliance Monitoring Strategy . This MAlS does mat

require pro-screening by phone and advance notice of inspectiam.

but rather permits each Region to select the mechanism best

suited to its particular program and experiences . Some regions

believe that pro-screenLng unfairly punishes facilities that

volunteer incriminating information over the phone . ALso, theme

regions believe that 'no-knock* inspections contribute to

compliance .

EPA is developing a pilot database -- ESCRAL Targeting Sysimmi

that will facilitate automated, intelligent targeting . the

system will assist in efficiently and effectively identifying

facilities that have not met Section 313 reporting requirementsThe system will create and prioritize inspection target lists,

maintain historical records, evaluate past targ*tinq efforts andl

modify future targeting strategies . Developed Lz 1989, the Zma

Page= CAO/RCED412-M Tax6e Release lavemenry Pomp
Appendix VI

CAmuments From the Environmental

Pmeectioa Agency

5

Targeting System L* used in four reqions now and will extend to

the remaining regions by June 1991 . If the system is successful

in the field during an elght week evaluation phase, and is

appropriate for other statutory programs, EPA will consider

expandinq the ZPCRA Targeting System to other media progress .

Pro-scrooning of facilities and targeting capabilities will

be further enhanced by three projects that EPA plans to complete

by the and of Fiscal Year 1991 . The first project in the

development of SIC Code/Industry guidance . A contractor will

'develop generic fact shoots on SIC codes that are subject to

section 313 reporting and common industries within those codes .

The fact shoots will explore the typical processes and common

chemical substances that are associated with a particular SIC

code/Industry. For targeting purposes, this information can be

cross-rateronced with Dun and Bradstreet and toxic release

inventory systom (TRIS) to moo if a company reported the expected

types or amounts of chemicals .

The second project is Data Quality targeting/inspection

guidance. This guidance will build upon a project that EPA

completed in which algorithm were developed to determine the

accuracy of estimated releases by an industry. The information

Used to develop these algorithms was captured from Reporting

years 1987 and 1968. Generic fact sheets on processes,

types of equipment used in these processes and estimates for

process releases will be developed for SIC code/Industry. This

information and TRrs can then be cross-reforencod for targeting

purposes .

The preparation of guidance on state coordination with

regions in targeting facilities is the third project. We plan to complete the guidance by October 1 . EPA will provide guidance on

how the states' Form R records can help regional inspectors

identify companies which have reported to the state, but not the

federal government. This project will also have the capacity to

identify a 'failures to report* (reporting to the state but not

the federal govornnnnt) violation which may result in the

assessment of an administrative civil penalty .

See comment 11 . Regarding the recommendation in Chapter 5, we believe it would be valuable to distribute national guidance outlining the

rec led process/otiaps which the regions should complete in

establishing their regional inspection targeting strategy for

L . Examples of targeting strategies which have le effective for specific regions can be attached to the guidance .

PaW83 QAO/RCED-01-121 Toxic Release In"mmery Pbsomma
Arpendix V1

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

6

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), thxough

a cooperative agreement with the EPA to provide qualified older

workers for Agen--ywide programs, provides wr=kers for the EPCR&

]program . The AARP program provides asaistance in conducting

compliance inspections and in initiating and processing

enforcement actions . The curr nt workplan for AARP services

calls for expanded responsibilities t provide assistanco to the

approximately 8

federal EPCRA enforcement staff and to the

inventory program .

Actin 8 Mainst Nonr*lDOrtOrS . EPA's top priority in ZPCRA

Section 313 compliance monitoring and enforcement is

nonreporters . This priority issue mandates that we focus our

compliance and enforcement capabilities an achieving this goal .

The ZPCRA Section 313 enforcement program has bean, and continues

to be, a success . EPA has workable solutions for those elements

of the program which can be improved. For example, as outlined

above, EPA is developing tools to increase its ability to take

action against nonroporters. Another solution is to aggressively

pursue nonresponders . Regional EPA authorLties have already

conducted close to 1500 Ln apsctions over the last two years to

identify nonresponders .

See comment 12 . GAO's reliance an a 1987 compliance survey and a Stnts~byState best estimate overstates the nonreporter problem. The 1987

compli nce study in the only valid study conducted on this issue

and wa: done to determine compliance for the first year of TRI

reporting . The result was 66% compliance. No additional

scientifically valid, complianco survoys have been conducted

since that time . in addition, the results of the 1987 survey

should be reviewed in light of the 1991 data for this reporting

period . Since the study was conducted, thousands of 1987 reports

have been collected by EPA.

GAO's reference to the 1987 compliance study an the "1989

EPA Study" could be misleading because it implies that at the end

of three reporting years the compliance rate in 66% .

Furthermore, it is not evident what effect a 34% noncompliance

rate for 1987 has on the data. For instance, are the 66%

r*portinq 95% of all emissions?

GAO's State-by-Stato survey appears to be based an best

estimates . It in not clear who GRO investigators spoke with, the

level of expertise of the individual questioned, and on what

information or analysis the interviewee based their estimate of

noncompliance . The basis of the survey should be explained since

the survey does not appear to be based upon statistically

ignificant data . Considering the universe of potentially

ubject facilities, EPA has far exceeded the 6% detection rate

one would expect from random calling of those facilities . EPA's

inncr,rative nonreporter targeting techniques have enabled EPA to

surpass the expected detection rate.

page 84 GAO/RCED-61-121 Toxic Kiebwm Inventory Pagnme
A

Appendix VI

CAmments From the EnvironmenW

Protecdon Agency

7

See cornmen ; 10 . EPA has two projects that affect nonrespondern . A project,

cheduled for completion by October 1, will provide guidance on

how headquarters and regions can manage the enforcement case

backlog. We will provide direction on case pricritization,

effective utilization of limited resources and better

communication strategies . We have been successful at identifying

nonreporters and taking enforcement action against them .

The second project provides information to headquarters un

the Regions' enforcomment actions against nonr*sponders . The

Strategically Targeted Activities for Results System (STARS) is a

national database system that senior Agency managers use as a

diagnostic tool to monitor enforcement actions, among other

things . Reqions participate in this system by setting go^lB for

inspection and compliance rates and enforcement actions .

Headquarters compares actual in"ction, compliance and

enforcement figures against goals and monitors whether regions

achieve and maintain a projected compliance levels . One of the

accomplishments* that we track quarterly is the ZPCRA

Significant Noncompliance which Includes nonreporters .

Action Against Late Reporters . The number of facilities

reporting late is a concern to EPA; however, it is a concern

which had to be weighted against the more serious problems of

nonrepor-ting and data accuracy . Fortunately, for the time being,

late reporting does not delay the release of the TRI data . Late

reporters who report after the magnetic tape in cut for the

National Library of Medicine have to be added later when the tape

is updated -- so there in a perLod when the public does not have

access to information from some late reporters . This past

winter, EPA Headquarters and Regional offices coordinated the

development of a multi-year enforcement initiative for late

reporters which is scheduled to begin this Fiscal Year.

It in of interest to note that many late reporterf are

-generated" through enforcement actions . A major enfor,:ezient

action, and the ensuing publicity, generally Increase ti . : number

of facilities submitting reports once they realize they may be

subject to an enforcement action.

Enforcement -6a222aAm. In less than 18 monthr, EPA's

enforcement offices worked to design and implement three coastto-coast enforcement initiatives under ZPCRA . Two initiatives

concentrated on the TRI reporting requirement . The results of

all three initiatives tally more than 90 cases filed, more the 3

million dollars in proposed penalties, nationwide press regarding

the reporting requirement, and attendant increases in TRI

reporting . For instance, In the weeks following the first EPCRA

enforceme4t initiative, EPA received more than 1600 additional

TRI forms from an additional 400 facilities .

Pad*85 GAO/RCED*l-l2lTo3deReleambweagwy]P,
-1,

*

Appendix VI

ComuNnts prom the Environmental

Prowtion Mena

The EPCRA Section 313 enforcement program has also met cthew

enforcement standards by which now enforcement programs will he

measured . For instance, Ln rY 1990 the enforcemint progretc

preduced one of the highest median penalties o! all the

administrative programs .

The final major success of the ZPCRh enforcement program has

been the environmentally beneficial expenditures (EBZs) generated

through enforcement efforts . Although use of FBZs does lower the

average penalty collected, the significance and importance of

these expenditures has received much praise and recognition .

Through the enforcement process, EPA has been able to change

corporate behavior and reduce the use and the emissions of toxic

chewtcals well in advance of the regulatory process . Examples of

EBEs collected through Section 313 enforcement are attached .

ZBEs are tracked through STARS . The number of cases closed

during the reporting period In which 201_2r_A= settlement terces

are KBEv are monitored and evaluated by senior Agency officialsCurrently, EPA is studying ZBE projects and will be developing

information and guidance materials on pollution prevention ard

waste minimization technologies. These materials will anoint the

Regional offic-s which negotiate these unique sattlemonts .

Attachment

Page GAO/RCED411-121 TazJe ReWase Inventaty P
Odom Samb

Appendix VI

Comments Mrom the Environmental

Protection Agency

The following are GAO's comments on Ent's letter.

GAO Conunents 1 . We have included a summary of this in-formation in the executive

summary of the report.

2. As discussed in chapters 2 and 3 of this report, we agree -'Ath EPA that

since the inventory has been available, certain segments of the general

public-most notably national and community-based environmenW and

public interest groups-have requested and extensively used the dM&

However, at the time we conducted our review, EPA, state, and industry

representatives indicated that individual citizens had not requested data

as frequently. In addition, industry representatives accessed the system

most frequently during the public data base's first 15 months of operation. Finally, the 50-percent use rate for industry applies only to the

public data base and does not refer to the types of organizations and

individuals that may have requested information from EPA and stat3. We have included a summary of this information in chapter 3 of the

report.

4. We have included a summary of this information and our response in

chapter 2 of the ceport.

5. We agree with EPA that certain national security exemptions may be

necessary for federal facilities because of some of the toxic chemicals

they emit. We have clarified our recommendation to the Congress in

chapter 2 of the report to ensure that this factor is taken into account

6. We have clarified our discussion in the executive summary and

chapter 2 of the report.

7. We have clarified our discussion in chapter 2 of the report .

8. We agree with EPA that there are many difficulties associated with

interpreting the inventory data and that caution must be exercised so

that interpretative biases are not introduced . Nonetheless, EPA, as

steward of our nation's environmental agenda chargedd wit h

human health and the environment, should take the lead in interpreting

the data for the public. Reporting major polluters and the volu Of

toxic chemicals they emit does increase the public's awareness of toxic

emissions nationwide and in their communities. However, as EPA is

aware, the level of emissions alone does not tell the complete story about

Pao 87 GAO/RCEMI-121 Toxic Release Inventevy P g
A W

Appendix'R

Cemments From the Enviroamenul

Protection AgencY

the potential health and envirorurtentzl effect, ; of these emissiotm W&

therefore continue to believe that F.PA should make a concerned effarttn

place the inventory data into meaningful perspective so clat ineNwidmi

citizens and communities can work Icnowledgeably and effectiveiy'sith

gover-runent and indus' try to reduce poilution .

9. We have included a su raxiary of U tis information and our responseirt

chapter 4 o's the report.

10. We have included a suminary of this information in chapter 5 oftie

report.

11. We have included a summary of this information and our responwhrchapter 5 of the report.

12. We do not believe that the information we present in this jL epor

overstates the extent of nonreporting . The results of our mail survey&re~

based on responses we. received from state environmental coor&natm

who, on the basis of their laiowledge of eligible and reporti.ag facEllifs

in their state, estimated what the nonreporting rate was in thebr stale

Moreover, the 36-percent nonreporting estimate we present is bibm* a

conservative estimate, since our methodology assumed that the 13

states that did not provide estimates -had 100-percent reporting- Pbuffy,

the results of our survey are consizatent with Em's study of nonrqpomfng7

for the 1987 inventory, which showed an estimated 34-perceut anumporting rate. Consequently, we believe that the information in this

report demonstrates that nonreporting is a problem-a problem

not corrected, will seriously affect the completeness and usefubmssof

the inventory. For additional details on our survey methodology, see

appendix 1 .

t

Page as GAO/RCED-01-121 Toxic Release Invensow Fj re a
p. 5

Major Contributors to This Report

Resources, Peter F. Guerrero, Associate Director

Barry T. HUI, Assistant Director Community., and Lawrence J . Dyclanar, Assistant Director

Ecoriomic James Donaghy, Assignment Manager

Alice L London, Senior Evaluator-in-x'-,'harge Development Division, Carolyn Boyce, Senior Social Science Analyst

Washington, D.C. Thomas F. Noone, Senior Systems Analyst

Sarah E. Veale, Evaluator

Nicholas W. Greifer, Evaluator

Chicago Regional Joseph Klauke, Site Senior

Office

Page 89 GAO/RCED411-121 Toxk Release Investany P ng
2%11 Ottlering Inforniation A,

The first fi o ach ve copies fe GAO re trf~e port are Additio Wes . fial copare 52 each. Orders should,be- se~nt t6 the f~~wing address, accomn~- t 110 partied by a check or money order rna4e out t6the Superin e etv.

of Documents wherr necessary . Orde~s for.* 00 or more copies to biintailed to a single address are discounted 25,0e'reenL

Lao

U.S.-General Accounting Off ice

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20877

Orders. maj 5-6241 also be. placed by calling (202) 27 .
tates First-Class Mai

~Gene lAccountingOff ra cei -&FeesPaid*-'~ l 'Postlige

--,,,-,WAshin9t4n`,', D.C. GAO '2054&

Permit No.G100

--OMcialBusines

Penalty for Privite-Use,'$30.0

J.
p. 54

APPENDIX N

EPA PUBLIC RELEASE ON 1994 TRI DATA, APPENDIX D
United States Office of Pollution EIPA 745-R- -002

Environmental Protection Prevention and Toxics June 1996

Agency (7408)

'aEPA 1994 Toxics Release Inventory

Public Data Releas e

T'

A" lip

. . .

.

.

7
p. 56

1994

Toxics Release

Inventory

Public Data Release

U.S. Envirorumental Protection Agency

Off~qe of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7408)

Washington, DC 20460
p. 57

CONTENTS

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

List of Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

1994 TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY PUBLIC DATA RELEASE : INTRODUCTION . . I

What is the Toxics Release Inventory? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Who Must Report? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

What Must be Reported? 4

What are the Benefits and Uses of the Data? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

What are the Limitations of the Data) 5

Program Accomplishments and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

How Can I Obtain Additional TRI Information? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

CHAPTER 1 : 1994 TRI RELEASES AND TRANSFERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

What to Consider When Using TRI Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Toxicity of the Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Exposure Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1994 National Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1994 TRI Data by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4

Releases and Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Movement of Transfers Among States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Releases by County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1994 TRI Data by Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Multiple SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Top 50 Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Top 10 Parent Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

1994 TRI Data by Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Ammonia Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Use, Toxicity, and Environmental Fate Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Chemical-Specific Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Metals and Metal Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Ozone Depleters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

OSHA Carcinogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Releases and Transfers of All TRI Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
p. 58

ntents

CHAPTER 2 : PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF

TRI CHEMICALS IN WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

What Waste Management Information is Collected? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Quantities of TRI Chemicals in Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

National Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

State, Industry, and Chemical-Specific Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Comparing Waste Management Data to Release and Transfer Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Understanding What Specific Elements Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Source Reduction Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Relating Waste Generation to Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Understanding the Production Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Comparing Waste Generation to Value of Shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Assessment of Progress in Source Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Calculating an Indicator of Changes in Quantities of Toxic Chemicals in Waste . . . 159

Changes in Quantities of Toxic Chemicals in Waste at the National Level

. . . . . 162

CHAPTER 3 : YEAR-TO-YEAR COMPARISON OF TRI DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Chemical List Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Threshold Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

New Transfer Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

National Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Total Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Total Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Facilities and Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Releases by Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Transfers by Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Changes in Releases and Transfers by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

1993-1994 Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

1988-1994 Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Change in Releases and Transfers by Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

1993-1994 Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

1988-1994 Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Facilities with Greatest Changes in Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Relationship of TRI Releases to Changes in Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Changes in Releases and Transfers by Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

1993-1994 Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

1988-1994 Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
p. 59

Contents

CHAPTER 4: TRI REPORTING PROFILES FOR 33/50 PROGRAM CHEMICALS . 271

introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

33/50 Program's National 50% Reduction Goal Achieved Ahead of Schedule . 274

33/50 Program Chemicals Outpace Other TRI Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

33/50 Program Participants Account for Most Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

Air Emissions Account for Majority of 33/50 Program Reductions . . . . . . . . . . 276

Organic Chemicals Dominate Inorganics in 33/50 Program Reductions . . . . . . . 276

33/50 Program Chemicals in Production-related Waste Projected to Decline . . . 276

33/50 Program Chemicals Targeted for Greater Source Reduction Activities . . . 277

Company Participation in the 33/50 Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Numbers of Companies Participating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Reductions Pledged by Participating Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Actual Reductions Outpacing Pledges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

33/50 Program Participants Are Continuing Their Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

33/50 Program Releases and Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

33/50 Program Chemical Releases and Transfers, by Medium/Transfer Type

and by Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

Transfers to Energy Recovery and Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

33/50 Program Chemicals in Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

33/50 Program Chemicals in Waste, by Medium/Management Method

and by Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Source Reduction Reporting for 33/50 Program Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

Source Reduction Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

Methods Used to Identify Source Reduction Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

Looking to the Future : Wrapping Up 33/50 and Looking to a Next Generation . . . . . . . 303

National Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304

33/50 Program Company Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

33/50 Program Success Stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

For More Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

CHAPTER 5: TRI REPORTING BY FEDERAL FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

1994 National Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314

Reporting by Agencies and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5

Reporting by Department of Defense Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

Reporting by Department of Energy Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

Top Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 1

Reporting by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

Reporting by Industrial Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

Reporting by Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

Release and Transfer Data from Contractor-operated Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
p. 60

fmccntents Co

CHAPTER 5: TRI REPORTING BY FEDERAL FACILITIES, CONTINUED

Waste Management and Pollution Prevention Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 331

Projected Quantities of TRI Chemicals in Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

Comparisons Between Federal Agencies for Chemicals in Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

Source Reduction at Federal Agencies . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

Future Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 338

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Industry Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. A-1

The Federal Facilities Executive Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3

Federal Acquisition and Community Right-to-Know Executive Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4 Pollution Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5

Materials Accounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9

Alternate Threshold Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-10

TRI List of Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12

Air Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-17

Water Discharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-20

Underground Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-23

Solid and Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-25

Exposure and Health Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-27

33/50 Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-30

Compliance and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-33

APPENDIX B: PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY . . . . . B-1

Accessing Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Products and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2

Assistance Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2

Federal Depository Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3

Electronic Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3

On-line Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-4 Printed Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-7

APPENDIX C: TRI DATA QUALITY PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Identification and Assistance to Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Data Entry Quality Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Correction and Normalization of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Accuracy Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2 Compliance Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3

1V
p. 61

Conte

APPENDIX D: USES OF TRI DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Public Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Voluntary Emissions Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-2

Pollution Prevention Targeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-3

Legislation and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-3

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4

Risk Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D4

Environmental Justice Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-6

Geographic Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-6

Enforcement and Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-6

"Green Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-7

Taxes and Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-8

APPENDIX E: REGULATORY MATRIX: TRI CHEMICALS IN OTHER FEDERAL

PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

APPENDIX F: TRI FORM R FOR 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

APPENDIX G : EPA REGIONAL OFFICE AND STATE TRI CONTACTS . . . . . . . . . G-1

EPA Regional Section 313 Coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

State TRI Public Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-3

TABLES

CHAPTER 1 : 1994 TRI RELEASES AND TRANSFERS

Table 1-1 . TRI Releases, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 1-2. TRI Transfers, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 1-3. TRI Releases by State, 1994 (Alphabetically Ordered) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 1-4. TRI Transfers by State, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 1-5. TRI Releases to Air, Water, and Land by State, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 1-6. TRI Releases by State, 1994 (Ordered by Total Release) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 1-7. Transfers of TRI Chemicals in Waste Within a State, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 1-8. Receipt of TRI Chemicals in Waste from Out of State, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 1-9. Total Transfers of TRI Chemicals Received, Including Intrastate Transfer s

and Transfers into the State, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 1-10. Transfers of TRI Chemicals in Waste Out of State, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table I - 11 . States with Net Imports of TRI Chemicals in Waste, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 1-12 . States with Net Exports of TRI Chemicals in Waste, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 1-13. Top 50 U .S. Counties for TRI Total Air/WaterALand Releases, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 1-14 . TRI Releases by Industry, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 1-15. TRI Transfers by Industry, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

v
p. 62

APPENDIX D

USES OF TRI DATA

INTRODUCTION dischargers, identify chemicals or geographic

areas of concern, and highlight perceived needs

The TRI data were first released to the public in for further action .

1989 . Since then, TRI data use has expanded

rapidly, both in terms of the number of data "Manufacturing Pollution," a report prousers and the variety and complexity of their duced by Citizen's Fund in August 1992,

projects. This appendix summarizes the major aggregated 1990 TRI data from different

categories of TRI data use and provides a few facilities by their parent company. The

examples of representative uses in each report summarized releases of all TRI

category. chemicals, as well as subsets of chemicals

that could cause cancer or birth defects .

PUBLIC AWARENESS 0 "Poisons in Our Neighborhoods," a report

Each year, the EPA develops this national produced by Citizen's Fund in November

summary report and a state fact sheet compen- 1993 ), summarized 1991 TRI data nationally

dium to distribute to the public at the time the and by state. 'the report attempted to

complete national TRI database is first released. measure the progress of manufacturers in

These reports help raise public awareness of the preventing pollution and included report

TRI data and provide ready access to aggregate cards evaluating the pollution prevention

information that helps track progress in reducing efforts and performance of the top 50 wasteemissions. Twenty-three states prepare similar generating facilities in the chemical

summary reports for their TRI data . industry.

Many public interest groups disseminate TRI 0 "Troubled Waters: Major Sources of Toxic_

data by analyzing and compiling it in summary Water Pollution," a report released by the

reports . A bibliography prepared by the U .S. Public Interest Research Group in June

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know 1993, examined TRI releases to surface

in summer 1994 lists well over 100 state and waters and to publicly owned sewage treatlocal reports and more than 30 national TRI ment plants. Release of the report was timedreports compiled by public interest groups. to focus public attention on water and sewer

These reports may focus attention on top discharges during Congressional attempts t o

revise the Clean Water Act . The report made

D-1
p. 63

onEAppendix D - Data Us e

recommendations for amending the Act to In 199':) . the Minnesota Citizens for a Better

provi I Env'ronment released a report profilinIc-; the ide the public more information about I I

toxic releases to waterways and to state's "top 40 toxic polluters" based on

strengthen enforcement. emissions of certain prionity chemicals. The

report was designed to provide enoug h

"Where the Wastes Are," a report released information to support local efforts to

by OMB Watch and the Unison Institute in negotiate with facilities for emissions reducApril 1994. examined facilities receiving the ions . Since publication, activists have t_~ ti 1 1 1

largest quantities of shipments of TRI worked with 18 of the 40 facilities identified

chemicals in waste . The report identified the in the report.

largest off-site recipients overall and in

particular categories, such as incinerators VOLUNTARY EMISSIONS

and landfills. The report also profiled certain REDUCTION S

companies active in the operation of thes e

toxic waste management facilities . The public availability of the TRI data has led

Because the public now has access to informa- many corporations to commit publicly to voluntary emissions reductions . One welltion about what potentially harmful substances known pledge was Monsanto's 1989 commitare being released into their communities, they ment to reduce its worldwide air emissions of

can use this information to begin to understand toxic chemicals by 90% by 1992 . In addition to

potential risks and to work with facilities to providing the impetus for these reductio n

reduce those risks . pledges, the TRI data also provide the public

with the measurement tool needed to trac k

• After an analysis of 1987 TRI data revealed companies' progress, as well as providing the

that an IBM plant in the "Silicon Valley" companies a means of demonstrating their

area discharged the largest quantities of commitment and success .

ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs )

in California, a public interest group A number of national, state, and local voluntary

organized a campaign to reduce those emissions reduction programs have sprung up

emissions . Within months, senior manage- since the beginning of TRI reporting . Many of

ment at IBM had pledged to completely these programs use TRI data to set toxic

eliminate the use of CFCs in their products emissions reduction goals and to track progress

and processes at the plant by 199' ) .

in meeting those goals . Most of these programs

•

Following the release of an environmental provide positive recognition to companies or

group's report identifying a local facility as facilities that meet their reduction pledges

.

-

the 45th-largest emitter of carcinogens to air EPA's "33/50 Program" targeted 17 priority

in the nation, community activists in North- TRI chemicals for emissions reductions of

field, MN, worked with the Amalgamated 33% by 1992 and 50% by 1995, from 1988

Clothing and Textile Workers Union to call levels . Chapter 4 of this report discusses the

for emissions reductions . Contract nego- 33 )/50 program and its early achievement of

tiations between the union and the facility the 50% reduction goal .

resulted in an agreement for a 64% reduction

in the use of toxic chemicals by 1992 and a

90% reduction in toxic emissions by 199' ) .

D-2
p. 64

TM

DO&*%

Appendix D - Data Use

L_

• Louisiana's Environmental Leadership assistance grants . The report will also be

Pollution Prevention Program is a statewide used to target large companies for particlemissions prevention and reduction program pation in a Governor's Pollution Prevention

that seeks a 45% reduction in toxic chemical Challenge Program to reduce toxic emisemissions by 1997, using 1992 data as a sions and hazardous waste generation Z~l .

baseline . The program sponsors th e

Governor Awards for Environmental The Pollution Prevention Division of the

Excellence to promote public recognition of state of Georaia's Department of Natural

industry achievements . Resources used TRI data in the process o f

identifying the technical assistance needs of

• The states of Kentucky, Ohio, and West manufacturing sectors that generate chemiVirginia have Joined together in a "Tri-State cals posing the greatest relative risk to

Initiative" to identify, prevent, and public health and the environment . First, the

remediate environmental threats in an area Division prioritized chemicals based on

known for its industrial base and its toxicity and regulatory factors. The Division

susceptibility to air inversions . Program then examined manufactun*ng sectors

coordinators are using a risk assessment releasing the highest-priority chemicals and

process to focus on sources of greatest identified particular subsectors for further

concern. The program will use voluntary assessment . The program is now conducting

industry commitments and cooperative in-depth manufacturing sector assessments,

efforts between industry, the public, and including focus groups and site visits, to

,crovernment to achieve reductions in releases determine what processes produce th e

Z

of TRI chemicals and criteria air pollutants . wastes, what multi-media waste problems

exist, what pollution prevention activities

POLLUTION PREVENTION are currently being undertaken, and what

TARGETING

additional opportunities exist.

Many government agencies are using TRI data LEGISLATION AND REGULATION

to identify pollution prevention opportunitie s

and better target their technical and financial The large quantities of toxic emissions reported

assistance resources . under TRI have highlighted the need for

changes in environmental regulations and

The Pollution Prevention Program of the legislation. Environmental groups have used

Colorado Department of Public Health and TRI data to lobby for new or stronger national

the Environment used TRI data, in combina- and state environmental protection laws or

tion with other air and water emissions data better enforcement of existing regulations . -

and hazardous waste data, to identify 10 Government agencies have used TRI data to set

industry sectors which are responsible for priorities for regulatory development an d

the largest quantities of hazardous waste implementation .

generation or toxic emissions in the state .

This study will serve as the basis for estab- TRI data provided the impetus for passage

lishing priorities for pollution prevention of pollution prevention laws in many states .

activities and for distribution of technical Many of these laws require facility pollutio n

D-3
p. 65

TM

DO Rftf

Appendix D - Data Us e

prevention planning ; some laws charge about toxic chemical releases . the potential

facilities fees based on quantities of toxic health and environmental effects of those

chemical emissions or waste generated . releases, pollution prevention activities and

opportunities, and the social and political

The magnitude of largely unregulated air aspects of environmental protection . Some

toxics releases revealed by the TRI data organizations are also conducting educational

identified the need for additional air toxics outreach programs using TRI data .

legislation and helped create the political

climate necessary to pass such laws . The Students in the Environmental Studies

release of the first national TRI data in 1989 Depanment at Dickinson College (Pennhelped lead to the passage of stringent air sylvania) use TRI data to conduct toxic

toxics requirements in the Clean Air Act waste audits on communities or facilities .

Amendments of 1990. TRI data helped spur Students identify epidemiological an d

the Louisiana state legislature to require the environmental health effects, occupational

state Department of Environmental Quality exposure standards, and other relevant

to issue regulations identifying 100 priority information. Students arrange plant tours

pollutants. setting emissions standards for which focus on toxic chemical use reduction

those pollutants, and targeting a 50% and "good neighbor" agreements between

emissions reduction from 1987 levels by facilities and communities. They also meet

1994. A public interest group report on with local citizens, environmental organizaunregulated air toxics emissions in North tions, labor unions and others .

Carolina led the state's Environmenta l

Management Commission to set limits for The John Snow Institute Center fo r

105 air pollutants. Environmental Health Studies has developed a tutorial entitled "Environment and

TRI data were used by some states in Health: How to Investigate Community

developing their lists of waters impaired by Environmental Health Problems." This

toxic pollutants under section _3)04(l) of the tutorial introduces the public to TRI and

Clean Water Act. Public interest groups in other resources which can be used t o

10 states used TRI data to petition EPA to identify and address local pollution sources.

add certain other bodies of water to these Audiences include librarians, local officials,

lists. For example, in North Carolina, the members of the media, environmental

Clean Water Fund used TRI data and stream advocates, the general public, and students

flow information to show that toxicity levels from high school to graduate level .

in 15 areas exceeded state and federal criteri a

for protecting human health and the . RISK SCREENING

environment.

TRI data are used extensively to identify and

EDUCATION prioritize potential risks from toxic chemical

releases . Risk screening processes using TR I

The TRI data are being used in many environ- data can help governments and others target

mental education programs, particularly at the facilities, industries, chemicals, or geographic

high school and university levels . Students learn areas for ftirther investigation or follow-up

D-4
p. 66

TM

Daft""

Appendix D - Da a Use

actions . including voluntary reduction efforts. evaluation of sources of sediment contamitechnical assistance, incentives and disincen- nation in the U.S . This project identified

tives, regulation development . or enforcement. point source pollutant discharges that ma y

result in sediment contamination and

Simple risk screening techniques may sum TRI analyzed these releases based on their

release data or release and transfer data by potential sediment hazard . Chemical release

facility . geographic area, industry sector, or amounts were weighted by the compound's

chemilcal. These approaches rely on certain relative toxicity to aquatic or human health .

assumptions. such as equal hazard potential as well as relevant fate and transport factors .

from all chemicals and equal exposure potential The study identified chemicals, geographic

for each environmental medium . areas, and industrial categories of greatest

concern for sediment contamination .

Other approaches weight the TRI data by the

toxicity of the released chemical. Weights may Three EPA Regional offices are developing

be qualitative or quantitative toxicity rankings, a screening process that will allow decisionor they may be based on toxicity values, such as makers to focus pollution prevention efforts,

a cancer potency or an acceptable dose level . exposure and risk assessments, or epidemiMore complex systems incorporate exposure ological studies on areas of greatest concern .

evaluations, including information about The first phase of the process produces a

chemical fate, envirorimental dispersion, and the "Chronic Index," which ranks TRI releases

size and characterization of receptors . in terms of their relative toxicity . The results

of this Index are aggregated by facility, by

• New York State's Department of Health chemical, and by geographic area using a

developed a risk screening protocol which grid system . The second phase of th e

uses TRI air release data to produce relative process will produce a "Vulnerabilit y

risk rankings for facilities and chemicals Index," which describes the susceptibility of

within the state. The procedure combines air populations by scoring demographic

emissions data and toxicity potency data to attributes such as age, economic status, and

give a quantitative risk screening score for minority status .

each facility . Three separate rankings were

developed, based on carcinogenicity, non- EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and

cancer endpoints, and a combination of both Toxics is nearing completion of its TRI

factors . The results of these rankings "Environmental Indicators Model," which

suggested to the Department of Health that provides year-to-year indicators of the

there is a need for more careful evaluation of potential impacts of TRI chemical releases

potential health effects resulting from large on human health and the environment . The

releases of noncarcinogenic compounds indicators consider TRI release and transfer

such as respiratory irritants and small volumes, chronic toxicity, exposure

releases of very potent inorganic potential, and size of receptor populations.

carcinogens . Both generic and site-specific exposur e

characteristics can be incorporated. The

• EPA's Office of Water used TRI data and model will allow targeting and prionitization

other water emissions data in its National of chemicals, industries, and geographic

Sediment Contaminant Source Inventory, an areas .

D-5
p. 67

TM

Appendix D - Data Use

I

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE combining data from multiple sources . because

ANALYSIS it allows overlays of data for the same

geographic areas for display and analysis . GIS

Public interest groups, academics, and can show locations of emissions sources (such

government researchers are using TRI data to as TRI sites) relative to receptors (such as

investigate environmental justice issues. TRI residential populations or water sources) ,

data can be used to help determine whether environmental characteristics surroundina the

members of racial or ethnic minorities or people sites, and political boundaries . GIS users can

with lower-income levels may experience higher perform calculations, such as determining the

levels of exposure to or risk from toxic number of people within a certain distance of a

chemicals released by industrial facilities. facility, and can build sophisticated models to

evaluate potential risks .

Researchers from EPA's Office of Health

Research recently published a study of The New Jersey Department of Environnational and regional differences in county- mental Protection and Energy used TRI data

level TRI air emissions according to the in a GIS to prioritize facilities and

ethnicity or race and household income of geographic areas for implementation of

the populations. Using a measure known as pollution prevention measures . A grid

a "Population Emissions Index," a system of two-mile by two-mile cells was

population-weighted average emission for used for aggregation of air releases and land

each county, the study found that all releases . Minor watersheds were used to

minority groups except Native Americans aggregate and map water releases . In order

tend to live in counties where TRI air to study the cumulative impact of many

emissions levels are higher than in counties releases in the area, chemicals were grouped

where whites live . However, the data also based on health and environmental effects.

suggest that household incomes tend to b e

higher in counties with higher TRI air EPA's Office of Information Resources

releases . Management sponsored the development of

a Population Estimation and CharacteriResearchers at the University of California, zation Tool, which uses GIS technology and

Santa Barbara's Center for Geographic demographic data for risk-based and

Information and Analysis used 1989 TRI environmental justice applications . The tool

data and 1990 U.S. Census data to examine allows users to estimate and characterize

and map significant relationships between populations within a given radius of a single

the race and income of populations and their TRI facility or multiple facilities and to

proximity to TRI sites in Los Angeles . identify areas of multiple potential exposure .

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ENFORCEMENTAND

SYSTEMS COMPLIANCE

Many organizations are incorporating TRI data Because the TRI data include detailed facility

into computerized Geographic Information identification information, as well as releases to

Systems (GIS) to analyze and display TRI data all media and transfers to off-site locations, TRI

and to examine potential impacts in particular is particularly well-suited to multi-media

geographic areas. GIS is particularly useful for enforcement and compliance planning, priorityD-6
p. 68

MR

ON 0aft"M

Appendix D - Da ~a Use Awwwic%

setting, and targeting . TRI data can be integrated means of establishing potential liability

with other release and waste generation data, under the Comprehensive Environmental

monitoring data, and compliance history Response, Compensation and Liability Act

information to provide a more complete picture and the Resource Conservation an d

of facility or industry compliance with environ- Recovery Act .

mental regulations.

EPA's Office of Research and Development

"GREEN INDEXING "

and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Investment analysts, researchers and others are

Assurance are developing a "Multi-Media using TRI data, along with other environmental

Ranking System" to prioritize sites for and social data, to rate companies~ comparative

enforcement actions and to evaluate the environmental performance . Demand for

effectiveness of environmental laws in environmental performance information by

reducing risks from sites . The system ranks investors, insurance companies, and the public

sites based on their multi-media releases of has led many companies to develop environpollutants, their potential risk to human mental annual reports similar to annual reports

health and the environment, and the history on financial performance traditionally prepared

of lecal violations by the facility. The :Z for investors.

system combines TRI data with data fro m

EPA air and water databases. For each site, The Clean Yield Group, an investment

the system develops a Chemical Ranking portfolio management group, compares

Factor based on chemical toxicity and fate companies' TRI release data to their indusinformation, a Vulnerability Ranking Factor try averages of pounds of toxic chemicals

based on the climate, soil type, and other per dollar of sales. This serves as a rough

environmental properties surrounding the yardstick to gauge how a company measures

site, and a Population Ranking Factor based up against other companies in its industry

on the demographic characteristics sur- and allows the investment firm to track how

rounding the site . the company's release performance i s

improving from year to year.

EPA and many states are also using TRI data to

attempt to identify violations of various environ- The Investor Responsibility Research

mental statutes, such as the Clean Air Act and Center, Inc ., a not-for-profit researc h

the Clean Water Act. organization for institutional investors, uses

TRI data in developing its Corporat e

• Twenty states use TRI data to target permit Environmental Profile Directory . This

compliance inspections of facilities . directory presents quantitative, consistently

derived data that allows investors to evaluate

• EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has used and compare corporate environmenta l

the TRI data to aid in identifying potential or performance . The corporate profiles include

actual violations of the National Ambient TRI release and transfer data, as well as an

Air Quality Standards for lead . "Emissions Efficiency Index" which

compares toxic chemical emissions to the

• EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emer- company's domestic revenue .

gency Response has used TRI data as a

D-7
p. 69

TM

"ftww

Appe ~dix D - Data Use

-I

Fortune macazine used TRI data as a central - The Institute for Southern Studies, a public

element in compiling a "green index" of interest group, used TRI data in producing a

America's biggest manufacturers . The report entitled "The 1991-1992 Green Index:

magazine examined companies' environ- A State-by-State Guide to the Nation's

mental records and developed a relative Environmental Health ." This report ranked

ranking system that assigned companies states according to numerous environmental

scores from zero to 10 in 20 performance criteria, including toxic chemical emissions.

categories, including the amount of toxi c

emissions per dollar value of sales and their TAXES AND FEES

percent reduction in toxic chemical emissions. The article included lists of 10 leading A number of states base fees on the number of

companies, 10 "laggard" companies, and 10 TRI reports filed or the quantity of TRI chemimost improved companies . cals released and/or transferred from facilities .

Some states use TRI data to tax facilities or to

The concept of "green indexing" can also be modify their taxes. Taxes and fees can serve as

applied to industry sectors or to geographic important incentives to prevent waste generation

areas . For example, TRI and other environ- and pollution . mental data can be used to rank industries based

on their comparative potential for environmental The "environment-to-jobs" ratio calculated

harm or to rank states based on indicators of in Louisiana was included in an environtheir environmental quality. mental scorecard that was developed and

implemented to modify tax exemption s

A researcher in Louisiana developed a granted to facilities to encourage and reward

method for normalizing the TRI data to job creation. If a facility's environmental

allow comparisons among facilities, score (including its "environment-to-jobs

industries, and states to help evaluate the ratio") was low, the amount of the tax

comparative effectiveness of pollution exemption could be decreased .

control strategies, policies, and programs.

The method calculates an "emissions-to-jobs The U.S. Internal Revenue Service used TRI

ratio," the number of pounds of emissions data to identify companies releasing CFCs in

per job in a given industry and location. This order to enforce a tax imposed on releases of

ratio is then compared to a national or other CFCs . average to determine relative performance . It

can also be tracked over time to evaluate

improvement.

D-8
p. 70

APPENDIX 0

COMPARISON OF MEK EMISSIONS IN OZONE

NONATTAINMENT AREAS TO MEK EMISSIONS IN ALL AREAS

01
p. 71

COMPARISON OF MEK EMISSIONS IN OZONE

NONATTAINMENT AREAS TO MEK EMISSIONS IN ALL AREA S

Industrial releases of MEK to air, land and water, based on the 1994 TRI data, are

summarized in the text of the petition. The tables in this appendix compare MEK air emissions

in ozone nonattainment areas to total releases of MEK to air in all areas .

Table I presents in the left column the total number of facilities reporting MEK

emissions in each reporting range (I bs/yr) in all areas (attainment and nonattainment) . The

middle column shows the number of reporting facilities in each reporting range just for

nonattainment areas . The reporting ranges are indicated in the right column .

Table 2 shows the percentage of reporting facilities found in ozone attainment

areas in each reporting range, using fewer reporting ranges .

The information in the tables show :

I . Only 38 percent of all facilities that reported MEK air emissions were located in ozone

nonattainment areas (899 out of 2,389) .

2 . Of the facilities located in nonattainment areas, only 4 .2 percent (38) reported MEK air

emissions above 100,000 lbs. (50 tons). This figure represents less than 1 .6 percent of all

reporting facilities (38 out of 2,389) .

3 . Only 12 facilities reported MEK emissions above 200,000 lbs . (100 tons) in ozone

nonattainment areas . This represents less than 0.5 percent of all reporting facilities (12

out of 2,389) .

4. As the reporting range increases, the percentage of reporting facilities found in ozone

nonattainment areas generally decreases . Of the facilities reporting more than 500,000

lbs. of MEK air emissions, only 0 .2 percent (5 out of 2,389) were located in

nonattainment areas .
p. 72

TABLE I

. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..................... ............... ....... ............................................ . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . *,., ., ., ., .,.,.,.:' .'-. . ..:.: :.:

.

.

.

. .

.

...

.

.

.

. . . .. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. ... ...... .. ........... . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r, U . . .. .. . X .... ................................................................ .. .. .... : . . . . . . . . . .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ... . . . .. ... . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .

........................................ . . .......... .... ................................ ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -:-X,X~X... ...................... -X,X,X~X~X: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . W.: . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ......................... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .

Number of

Total Number Reporting Facilities

of Reporting in Ozone Reporting Range

Facilities Nonattainment Areas (Ibslyr)

1,380 612 0 - 15,000

700 208 15,001 - 50,000

160 45 50,001 - 100,000

90 24 100,001 - 200,000

19 3 200,001 - 300,000

16 4 300,001 - 400,000

2 2 400,001 - 500,000

15 4 500,001 - 750,000

2 0 750,001 - 1,000,000

4 1 1,000,001 - 2,000,000

1 0 above 2,000,000

0

2
p. 73

TABLE2

. . . . . . . . . . .

................. .. ...................... ...

. . . .

.

... . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .

. . . .

. .. . . .

. . . .th. . . . . . . 1 0.

. .. .... ............................. . . . . . ....... .. ...... ............ . ......................... ... .. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... ..

.

. . . . .. .

. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . :x*i . . . . . . . . ....................... .............. ..... ..... . . .

. ... . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... . .. . . . . ............ ......................... . . . . .. xx~~ . . . . .. . . . . . . . .... .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percentage of

Facilities: Found in Reporting.Range

Vzone NonattainmentAreas (lbslyr)

44.3% 0 - 15,000

29.4% 15,001 - 100,000

25 .9% 100,001 - 500,000

23 .8% 500,001 - 2,000,000

0% above - 2,000,000

3
p. 74

3

BEFORE THE

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

APPENDICES TO PETITION OF

THE CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

KETONES PANEL TO DELIST METHYL ETHYL KETONE

UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE EMERGENCY PLANNING AND

COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT OF 1986

VOLUME 11 OF V

CRI

SUBMITTED BY

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

1300 Wilson Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22209

(703) 741-5000

November 27,1996
p. 75
p. 76

LIST OF "PENDICES

Volume I

A. Table of References

B. Exxon Chemical Company MEK Technical Product Brochure

C. Report of the ENSR Air Dispersion Modeling Study

D. MEK emissions by zip code

E. Table of Ambient Air Concentration Levels ofMEK (taken from a study conducted by

the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in 1978)

F. Houston Regional Monitoring Report (excerpts )

G. North Baton Rouge Volatile Organic Screening Study

H. IRIS Database entry for MEK

1 . 1988 EPA Memorandum from J.V. Nabholz to EPA Chemical Review and Evaluation

Branch

J. Table Summarizing Acute Toxicity of MEK to Aquatic Organism s

K. EPA Memorandum from Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation to EPA

Office of Toxic Substance s

L. EPA TRI Information Collection Request Report (excerpts)

M. GAO Report on EPA Uses of TRI Data

N. EPA Public Release on 1994 TRI Data, Appendix D.

0. Comparison of NIEK Emissions in Ozone Nonattainment Areas to NIEK Ernissions in

a Areas

Volume 2

P. Legislative History of EPCRA Section 313

Volumes 3,4 and 5

Q. References
p. 77

APPENDIX P

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF EPCRA SECTION 313
p. 78

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF EPCRA SECTION 313

INTRODUCTION

A legislative history of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of

1986 ("SARA") has been prepared by the Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division of

the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress . The legislative history was

prepared for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and consists of seven

volumes. Included in these volumes is the legislative history of Title III of SARA -- the

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 ("EPCRA"). In the following

pages, we present a summary of those portions of the legislative history of EPCRA that pertain

specifically to the chemical listing criteria set forth in Section 313(c). Copies of the relevant

excerpts from the legislative history are attached .

The legislative history of EPCRA Section 313 is presented in three parts . First, we

review the deliberations in the Senate in 1985, which culminated in the passage of a bill that

contained annual toxic chemical emissions reporting requirements similar to those that were

ultimately included in EPCRA Section 313 . Second, we review the deliberations in the House of

Representatives in 1985, which also culminated in the passage of a bill that contained annual toxic

chemical emissions reporting requirements . Third and finally, we summarize the Conference

Report dated October 3, 1986, reflecting the results of negotiations between the House an d

Senate conferees, and excerpts from the debates in the House and Senate leading up to the

passage of SARA by the Senate on October 3, 1986, and by the House of Representatives on

October 8, 1986. SARA was signed into law on October 17, 1986.
p. 79

The legislative history of Section 313 demonstrates that Congress clearly intended

the Section 313 listing criteria to include only "toxic chemicals," i .e., chemicals that can cause

adverse effects on humans or environmental species when ingested, inhaled or otherwise absorbed

into the body . There is nothing in the legislative history to support an interpretation of the

Section 313 listing criteria that would include non-toxic VOCs based on their potential to

contribute to the formation of ozone.

1 . Defiberations in the Senate

A. Introduction of S.51

The legislative history in the Senate begins with S.51 -- a bill to extend and amend

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

("CERCLA") . As introduced on January 3, 1985, this bill did not contain any community rightto-know provisions. See pages 413-54. 1

B. Proposal for a Hazardous Substances Inventory

Following hearings held in February, 1985, including one day of hearings held in

Newark, New Jersey (pages 661, 665), Senator Lautenberg (New Jersey) proposed an

amendment to add a new Section 106 to provide for a Hazardous Substances Inventory . See

pages 999-1000. This amendment was accepted and included in S . 5 1, as reported on May 24,

1984 . See pages 883-88.

The provisions for the Hazardous Substances Inventory included a requirement

that covered facilities prepare an inventory of CERCLA hazardous substances manufactured or

stored above a threshold amount (the threshold applied only to storage), and include in the

Page numbers refer to the pagination of the entire legislative history as compiled by the

Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress .

2
p. 80

inventory certain information on releases of CERCLA hazardous substances to the environment .

See pages 601-02, 884-85 . These provisions were based on requirements in existing New Jersey

right-to-know legislation (page 602), and represented the first attempt to include a chemical

emissions reporting requirement in the Senate bill .

The Hazardous Substances Inventory provisions were intended to facilitate

emergency response planning, and also to provide basic information about the use and releases of

hazardous substances and their potential adverse effects on the health of the general public . See

page 606. Statements by Senator Lautenberg reflect that the amendment was prompted to a

great extent by the tragedy that occurred in Bhopal, India in 1984 . See pages 409, 665-66 and

999-1000. However, the Hazardous Substances Inventory expressly included chemicals that

presented risks of chronic as well as acute hazards . See page 887. There is no indication in any

of the remarks in the Congressional Record or the Committee Report that would suggest that the

Hazardous Substances Inventory provisions were intended to address releases of non-toxic

VOCS.2

C. Proposal for a Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (Amendment No . 648)

On September 19, 1985, Senator Stafford of Vermont, Chairman of the Senate

Cornmittee on Environment and Public Works, proposed Amendment No . 648 as a new Section

106 of S .51 . See page 1081 . This amendment proposed annual chemical emissions reporting

requirements that more closely resemble EPCRA Section 313 . Specifically, Amendment No . 648

2 The Lautenberg amendment provided for the selection of additional chemicals based on

11reactivity, toxicity, volatility, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, neurotoxicity,

and production levels . " See page 887 . The references to reactivity and volatility clearly

were intended to address the potential for sudden or accidental chemical releases . These

criteria were later included in Amendment No . 638 to S .51, proposed by Senator Lautenberg

on September 18, 1985, which established much of the framework for what ultimately

became Sections 302-04 of EPCRA . See page 1034 .

3
p. 81

proposed to : (1) limit the reporting requirements to facilities that have ten or more full-tim e

employees and are in SIC Codes 20 through 39; (2) require EPA to publish of a list of "toxic

chemical substances" which "(i). . . are known to cause or are suspected of causing in humans

adverse acute health effects, cancer, birth defects, heritable genetic mutations, or other health

effects such as reproductive dysfunction, neurological disorder or behavioral abnormalities, or

(ii) because of toxicity, persistence, or tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment, may cause

adverse environmental effects ;" (3) require covered facilities to submit a "Toxic Chemical Release

Inventory Form" for each such chemical, including information on the annual emissions to air,

land and water; and (4) make this information publicly available through a national toxic chemical

release inventory computerized database . Amendment No. 648 was agreed to and was inserted

into S.51 in place of the provisions for a Hazardous Substances Inventory that had been proposed

by Senator Lautenberg . See page 1083, 1094 .

D. Debate on Amendment No . 648

Amendment No . 648 to S .51 is discussed at considerable length in the

Congressional Record. See pages 1081-94 . Comments by Senator Stafford and other supporters

of Amendment No . 648 indicate an intention to require emissions reporting only for "toxic

chemicals. " The following excerpts are illustrative :

Senator Stafford :

The intent behind this amendment is to require

manufacturing facilities handling substantial quantities of toxic

chemicals to report the annual quantities of these chemicals they

dump into the environment . These reports when compiled will

constitute an inventory which tells us where the toxic chemicals are

and where they are being released into the environment . Such an

inventory will be a valuable tool for environmental regulators, for

the health professionals, the concerned public, and the companies

themselves .

AC

4
p. 82

The inventory will provide the basic what, where and how

information that is vital for sensitive management and control of

toxic chemicals .

It will include only chemicals that can harm public health or

the environment when released . . . .

After the Bhopal disaster and the continuing litany of

chemical accidents in this country, the public wants to know and

the public has the right to know about the releases of toxic

chemicals

'

deliberate releases that occur every day as well as

accidental releases . This amendment, will . . . provide that

information.

Public concern about toxic chemicals is at an all time high . . Chemical substances that are known to cause cancer, birth defects,

and other serious diseases are being released daily into ou r

environment not only by accident, but also by design.

In short, . . . a toxic chemicals release inventory offers the

possibility of making the management of toxic chemicals more

efficient . Scarce resources can perhaps be targeted to where the

problems are greatest. (Pages 1083-84) (Emphasis added .)

Senator Lautenberg :

This inventory is to be used by State and Federal agencies

to improve toxic chemical management by monitoring use and

tracking releases of these substances . An effective inventory will

help us better understand the flow of igNio into the environment

and thereby aid in preventing future Superfund sites . It will also

provide critical information to Federal and State air, water, and

hazardous waste programs to track compliance and enforcement

efforts within these programs . As in the State of New Jersey, such

information can help inform and direct research efforts . Finally, . . .

the inventory will provide the Government and the public with

information about daily and routine exposure to toxics in our

environment-something essential to protecting the public health .

(Page 1089) (Emphasis added .)

5
p. 83

The discussion on Amendment No . 648 does not include any references to ozon e

nonattainment or VOCs . There is no suggestion or indication that Amendment No . 648 was

intended to apply to non-toxic VOCs .

E. PassaLre of the Senate Bil l

On September 26, 1985, the Senate passed H .R. 2005, a bill unrelated to

CERCLA, as amended. The Senate amendments struck out the entire text of H .R. 2005 and

inserted the full text of S .5 1 . Thus, H.R. 2005, as passed by the Senate, contained the toxic

chemical release inventory provisions proposed by Senator Stafford in Amendment No . 648 . See

pages 1344-49 .

H. Deliberations in the House of Revresentatives

A. Introduction of H.R. 281 7

The legislative history in the House of Representatives begins with H .R. 2817,

which was introduced on June 20, 1985. This bill included a Title III -- Community Right-toKnow and Emergency Planning . See pages 1647-64 . Title III included a requirement for

submission of Material Safety Data Sheets ("MSDSs") to state and local officials (analogous to

EPCRA Section 311), and emergency response planning and notifications provisions (analogous

to EPCRA Sections 302-04), but no requirement for annual reporting of releases of toxic

chemicals to the environment . See description at pages 2054-58 (report of the Committee on

Energy and Commerce). Title III of H.R. 2817, as reported on November 12, 1985, contained

the same provisions . See pages 3003-55 .
p. 84

B. Introduction of H.R. 3852

On December 4, 1985, H.R. 3852 was introduced, and the language from H.R.

3852 was then substituted in its entirety for the language in H .R. 2817. (As a practical matter,

H.R. 3852 became H.R. 2817.) Like the initial H.R. 2817, this bill also included a Title III --

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know. See pages 3837-74. This version of Title

III, however, included in the "basic notification requirements" an annual emissions reporting

requirement for environmental releases of "extremely toxic substances ." See Section 313(c) --

Extremely Toxic Substances Status Sheets -- at pages 3 848-5 1 . The bill included a requirement

that EPA publish a list of extremely hazardous substances, defined as substances "which are so

acutely toxic that their release into the environment in any amount or form may present an

imminent and substantial endangerment to human health ." Seepage3851 .

C. Proposal of the Edizar Amendment

On December 5, 1985, Representative Edgar (Pennsylvania) proposed an

amendment to Section 31 l(c) of H.R. 2817 (the "Edgar amendment"), specifically designed to

extend the annual emissions reporting requirement to include chemicals that present chronic health

hazards. See page 4193 . The Edgar amendment proposed that the following language be added

to the definition of "extremely toxic substances" :

and chemicals (such as vinyl chloride, benzene, asbestos, and

polychlorinated biphenyls) which are known to cause or are

suspected of causing cancer, birth defects, heritable genetic

mutations, or other chronic health effects in humans .

The Edgar Amendment was accepted on December 4, 1985 (pages 4205-06), and again, after

further debate, on December 10, 1985 (pages 4353-54).
p. 85

D. Debates on the EdLyar Amendment

As indicated, the Edgar amendment was debated and voted on twice. Following

the first debate on December 5, 1985 (pages 4193-4204), the Edgar amendment was accepted by

a margin of 183 to 166, with 85 members not voting. A request for ffirther debate was made on

December 10 (pages 4315-17), and following such additional debate (pages 4347-53), the Edgar

amendment was again accepted, this time by the narrowest possible margin : Yeas -- 212; Nays --

21 1 ; not voting -- I I (pages 4353-54) . The winning margin was provided only when two

members changed their votes . See page 4354.

The debates on the Edgar amendment indicate that the amendment was intended to

require annual emissions reporting only for a limited number of directly toxic chemicals -- i.e.,

chemicals that can cause adverse effects when ingested, inhaled or otherwise absorbed into the

body. The following are excerpts from the floor debate :

Representative Edgar:

Mr. Chairman . I am offering an amendment which would

require firms handling hazardous substances to report routine

releases of those substances which are not only acutely toxic, as

provided for in the bill, but also those chemicals that pose serious

chronic health risks .

The bill before us calls on firms handling hazardous

substances to provide emissions data for a presumably short list of

extremely toxic, acutely hazardous chemicals . But across the

country, thousands, if not millions of tons of toxic chemicals are

released into the air, water, and ground each year which have a

tragic long-term effect on the people who live nearby . Year after

year, day after day, hour after hour, toxic releases pour into the

environment, contaminating the air we breathe, the water we drink,

and the ground on which our children play .
p. 86

. . . The Edgar-Sikorski amendment would include chroni c

chemicals because there is no reason to draw an arbitrary

distinction between chemicals that have immediate health effects

and those which can cause cancer, birth defects and other long-term

health problems. (Page 4193) (Emphasis added . )

Representative Edgar :

[In response to questions concerning the number of

chemicals that would be added by the Edgar Amendment.]

On the national toxicology program list there are only 11 7

demonstrated carcinogens. Only 22 are firmly known. Ninety-five

are suspected carcinogens .

. . . First, in the New Jersey experience, we are talking

about 154 chemicals .

. . . The thresholds that already exist are now simply going

to cover approximately 150 additional substances which may have

chronic long-term impact in the same way .

. . . But it is the experience in Maryland and New Jersey that

already has this provision as part of their law, that it is less than

150. . . . (Pages 4195-96).

Representative Waxman :

. . . [W]e have what are called chronic hazardous substances

and those are substances that cause cancer, birth defects, leukemia,

serious problems, but nevertheless you do not see the impact of

them immediately.

This amendment that is before us, the Edgar-Sikorski

amendment, would say that if you are going to have an inventory

and let the public know what they are being exposed to, they ought

to know what chronic hazards they are being exposed to .

9
p. 87

These are very dangerous chemicals, such as dioxin, PCBs ,

chloroform, formaldehyde, EDB . . . . (Page 4200).

Representative Florio:

. . . Just to respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the

void that is not filled in this scenario is that unless we have this

amendment, we can have annual emissions out of a smokestack, out

of a facility involving vinyl chloride, PCB, dioxin, asbestos, and no

one is required to report that that information is available to the

people in the town that it is being injected into their air, so the

gentleman's observations about acute reporting are correct .

The deficiency is that chronic contaminants that are equally

as dangerous, only not as quickly perceptible as being dangerous,

are not going to be reported under the bill as it is contained now .

Under the gentleman's amendment, it will make the change .

(Pages 4201-02).

Representative Sikorski :

. . . The millions of Americans in thousands of

neighborhoods, your neighborhoods, exposed to toxic chemicals,

your constituents and your neighborhoods, have a fundamental

fight to know about the hazardous chemicals, acute and chronic,

that are released into the environment hour after hour, day after

day, year after year. . . .

Now, despite a section 11 2 in the Clean Air Act . . ., we still

cannot answer basic questions about even the most common and

deadly toxic chemicals .

First, which chemicals are being produced and in what quantities?

How much is being shipped off as commercial product and how much is

being lost in the manufacturing or transportation process? How much is

spilled or released into our waters, our air and our land?

[T]his bill, H.R. 2817, as drafted, actually prohibits the

Environmental Protection Agency from answering those questions

for your constituents. As drafted, it prohibits inclusion of these

chemicals which pose a chronic health hazard to human health on

this list of substances covered by the emissions data requirements . While providing information on emissions of a few acute chemical

hazards, chronic chemicals would be exempted fi-orn coverage.

10
p. 88

. . . The question becomes, if you believe your constituent s

in the communities in your area have a right to know of cancercausing chemical releases, vote "yes . " Ifyou do not think they have

the right to know, go ahead and vote "no . " (Page 4202) (Emphasis

added. )

E. Passne of H.R. 2817 and H.R. 2005

The Edgar Amendment was included in H.R. 2817, as passed on December 10,

1985. See pages 4354-55. The House then immediately passed H .R. 2005, inserting in lieu of the

Senate amendments thereto the full text of H.R. 2817. Thus, an annual emissions reporting

requirement, in the form proposed by representative Edgar, was included in S ection 3 11 (c) of the

House version of H.R. 2005 . See pages 4660-65 .

M. Conference Report and Passage of H.R. 2005, as Amended in Conference, by the

House of Representatives and Senate

A. Conference Report

House and Senate conferees on H .R. 2005 were appointed in February, 1986, and

spent much of the following eight months discussing and resolving differences between the House

and Senate versions of H .R. 2005 . The results of this negotiation were reflected in a Conference

Report dated October 3, 1986 (H.R. Report 99-962) . See pages 4818-5163 . The conference

report also included a summary of the requirements of Title III . See pages 5097-5128.

Section 313, as reported out of conference, combined elements of both the House

and Senate versions of the annual emissions reporting requirements . With respect to the

identification of the toxic chemicals covered by the reporting requirement, the final version of

Section 313 more closely resembled the Senate version, with three important changes :
p. 89

First, the environmental effects criterion were modified to expressly provide fo r

selection of a chemical only if it was known to cause or could reasonably be anticipated to cause,

because of (i) "its toxicity;" (ii) its toxicity and persistence in the environment," or (iii) "its

toxicity and a tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment," a significant adverse effect on the

environment of sufficient seriousness, in the judgment of the Administrator, to warrant reporting .

The Senate version had referred to "toxicity, persistence, or tendency for bioaccumulation in the

environment. " The revision of the environmental effects criterion to refer three times to the

toxicity of the specific chemical being considered, and to expressly require a finding of "toxicity,"

"toxicity and persistence" or "toxicity and a tendency to bioaccumulate," reflects a clear intention

to limit the environmental effects criterion to chemicals that can cause direct adverse effects on

environmental organisms .

Second, the health effects criteria were modified to delete the reference to

chemicals merely "suspected" of causing adverse health effects . This modification was consistent

with an intent to tighten the health effects criteria so that annual emissions reporting applied only

to a subset of the universe of toxic chemicals . There is no indication of any intent to reach

beyond the universe of toxic chemicals to capture non-toxic VOCs . Had Congress intended to

include non-toxic VOCs, or even a subset of these VOCs, it easily could have done so .

Third, the initial list of toxic chemicals subject to the annual emissions reporting

requirements was identified as those chemicals on the list in Committee Print No . 99-169 of the

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, entitled "Toxic Chemicals Subject to

Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 ." The

Senate version had used the much longer list of CERCLA hazardous substances as a default list in

the event that EPA failed to promulgate an initial list within a specified period of time . The

12
P. 90

substitution of the list in Committee Print No . 99-169 for the much longer CERCLA list was

consistent with the intention of Congress to require reporting only for toxic chemicals .

The Conference Report described the purposes of the Section 313 reporting

requirements as follows :

The purpose of this reporting requirement is to obtain available

information about releases of listed toxic chemicals to the

environment. . . .

. . . The information collected under this section is intended to

inform the general public and the communities surrounding covered

facilities about release[s] of toxic chemicals, to assist research, to

aid in the development of regulations, guidelines and standards, and

for other similar purposes . (Pages 5114-15) (Emphasis added. )

The Conference Report contains 28 references to "toxic chemicals" or "toxic

substances, " as well as other references to "toxicity criteria" and a "toxicity evaluation . " There

are no references to ozone nonattainment, VOCs, photochemical reactivity, or any need to

evaluate a chemical's contribution to ozone formation .

B. Floor Debates

H.R. 2005, as reported in the conference report on October 3, 1986, was passed

by the Senate on October 3, 1986 and by the House on October 8, 1986. The floor debates in the

Senate and House of Representatives provide further evidence that Congress intended to require

annual emissions reporting only for chemicals that can cause adverse effects when they ar e

inhaled, ingested, or otherwise absorbed into the body . The following excerpts are illustrative:

13
P. 91

Senator Stafford :

Mr. President, I would like to continue my commentary

with a few remarks about the Community Right-to-Know

provisions of this bill . I was privileged to serve with two of my

colleagues, Senator Bentsen and Senator Lautenberg, as Senate

representatives to a subgroup of the Superfund Conference that

developed the conference substitute language for this title .

These provisions were developed in large part as a result of

the terrible disaster in Bhopal, India, at which deadly fumes of

methyl isocyanate, a pesticide intermediate, were released

accidentally into a sleeping community, resulting in death or injury

to thousands of people. A strong worker and community fight-toknow movement already was developing in this country . The

Bhopal disaster focused public attention on the fact that extremely

dangerous chemicals are present at chemical manufacturing plants

and other facilities in communities all across America . This title of

the Superfund bill recognizes a basic fact: that citizens have a fight

to know about these chernicals-what they are, where they are, and

how much of them is present.

But the bill goes beyond concern about accidental releases

of these toxic and hazardous chemicals . It also recognizes that the

public has a right to be informed about routine releases of these

chemicals to the air and the water and the land . . . .

In implementing this section, the Administrator should keep

in mind that its primary purpose is to inform the public about

routine releases of toxic chemicals . . . . (Pages 5184-86) (Emphasis

added.)

Representative Edgar:

. . . This legislation, which contains the Emergency Planning

and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, will, at long last,

unveil the ways in which toxic chemicals are handled in this country

and provide the public with the information they need and deserve

to learn about the hazards of toxic chemicals.

The heart of the Federal Right-to-Know Program is its

reporting requirements, which are intended to provide a

14
p. 92

comprehensive picture of the community's and Nation's exposure to

toxic chemicals . . . .

Section 313(b) specifies the facilities covered by the toxic

chemical release reporting requirements, but also provides the

Administrator with the discretion to include additional facilities . . .

The principal consideration is whether the addition would meet the

objectives of this section to provide the public with a complete

profile of toxic chemical releases. . . .

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know

Act of 1986 will offer the public and policyrnakers a vital

opportunity to understand the magnitude and scope of toxic

chemical exposures . A large measure of public concern over toxic

chemicals in recent years has stemmed from inadequate,

incomplete, or nonexistent information. This lack of information

has led to fear, misguided policies and misplaced priorities . This

act is intended to provide a comprehensive view of toxic chemical

exposure and, hopefully, provide a basis for more sensible and

effective local, State and national policies . (Pages 5313-16)

(Emphasis added .)

CONCLUSION

The legislative history of EPCRA Section 313 demonstrates clearly that Section

313 was intended to require annual chemical emissions reporting only for "toxic chemicals" --

chemicals that can cause adverse health or environmental effects upon direct exposure . The

legislative history is replete with references to "toxic chemicals . " In contrast, there is no

discussion of ozone nonattainment, photochemical reactivity, VOCs or the contribution of VOCs

to ozone formation in the troposphere . There is no indication anywhere in the legislative history

that Congress intended to require annual emissions reporting for non-toxic VOCs . The only

reasonable conclusion is that Congress intended to provide for the development of a national

inventory limited to releases of toxic chemicals to the envirorunent .

15
p. 93

101st Congress

(OMMIT'TEE PRINT S PR T

'd Sessio n

A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SUPERFUND

A.NIE\*D.NIE .N;TS A.ND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF

1986 1 PUBLIC LAW 99-499 )

TOGETHER WIT H

A SECTION-BY-SECTION INDEX

PREPARED BY THE

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

POLICY DIVISION

OF THE

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

OF THE

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

FOR TH E

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND

PUBLIC WORKS

U.S. SENATE

VOLUME I

OCTOBER 1990

Printed for the use of the Senate Committee

on Environment and Public Works

U .S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

73-032 WASHINGTON : 1990

For sale bv the Superintendent ot Documencs . Congressional Saies Otfice

U 5 Government printing Office, Washington . DC -'11411-2
p. 94

407

F r o -n the ~:ongres i

31 A 5 ,

t ae .ments of -, e ii a t o r s

a n r ev o n ~ n Q u c n

By Mr. STAST'ORD tfoir hirrLSelf . !or Senate action on -ost. if not

.%fr- CHAn3L 501111' . D01119"ISACCE. no later than tnL1 Sor~rig .

Mr. Hviorwitcy, Mr. HART. Mr. I would Nke now '.0 ~LSCum nr'e~

MoyivtxAx . Mr. MiTcm-, Nif r. each of the OlLs I Mave -nenuored

BAuctis . N(r. LAoTirmsexG. an d

Mr CRANST014) :

S . 51 . A bill to extend and amend the

Comprehensive Environimenta.1 Response. Compensation and Liabilit y

Act of 1960 . and for other purposes ; to S-tom.0 : .r%0 .MCNT ~C- or

the Committee on Environtrient and aM Also InErOdUCIng tne SUDer",1:~Z

Public Works. I-Drovpment Act 01 1985 It J eWer

By Mr. STAFMRD (for himself. ~~aiiv a combination of Superf-nz!

Mr. CKAFM Mr. DUUMSCRG92. 41rlr~drnents reported from the ccm

Mr. Hunriazzy . Mr. MOTNIRAN. mll!ee auring .he last Czinaress. t,

Mr. UtTcKzLL. Mr. SAticus . and 10(e of 17 to I with 5orne oufter ro-s

Mr. EAoTms=G): tivety minor Superfund awendmer:~A

S . 52. A bill entitled the "Acid Rain adopted by the Senate !&at year by

Control Act of 1%3-; to the Cor.init- vote a( 93 to 0.

tee on Environment and Public Works. There is one ch"e. liowever. Be

cause there was some controversy re

By Mr. STAPMR01 gLrd)ng the victims assistance prov i

S. $3. A bill to ansend the Clean slons of last year s cornznittee bLU, it -S

Water Act and foe other purposes: to possible that a modified version will ~w

the Committee on Envitronment and advanced durtng this yeiar's CoM.1101ttee

Public Works. consideration. Therefore. with tne

10VVIRDINIM"AL UXLNATt*W assent of the sponsor of those pro~i .

Mr. STA"X)RD. Mr. President I stons. Senator MITCMELL the bill car.

am taking the eiartlest possible oPpor- tains only a blank where that !anturuty to introduce several bills for Cuage was found.

consl4emililon by the Environment and In addition to the Superfund I.mPublic Works Commlttft and I "it provement Act. I am proposing two

unanimous consent that they be print- amendments to it. The first vropo&es a

ed in the Recovis. Th4m bills Include taxing scheme for raising the $7 .3 bi ;

the Superfund Improvement Act of lion, 5-year exterLsIon proposed by zti~e

IOU. the Acid Raus Control Act at committee last year . I am introducing

IOU. the Clow Water Act Ameirid- this amendment to assure that if t1lie

meats of 1111U. uM FNederal-ald high- need for floor action on extreme~y

way leglit"oo. 3eniator DostiontgRon short notice arises

. :here wiU be &

is also today Introducing a bill to taxing scheme available t.0 the Senate

amend the ftft Drinkirm; Water AcL which has been widely circulated and

The Cootmittee on Environment and exiarruned.

PubUc Works completed action an All The second amendment I am offerof then Issues in the 94th Concress ; Ing would establish a private nght of

none was taken up by the Senate. Failaction for the victims of hazardous

ure to ect an siny of thm of them substances released Into the environ- isouqw-highways. Superfund. at clean ment

. I expect that there will be can- waliff-aAaris ftdefw

funds will not siderable debate prior to the commit- be availablie foe those programs

. Fall- tee or Senate votes on this proposw ure to act an any one of

the lIV41 and am Introducing it now so that meam lad= ground to eavirounstritIal there will be ample og)portujuty for

contsollastIM or Infrastructure

dem. oe both.

the senous consideration it deserves .

Thk early mroductiloo, Is Intended To assure availability of these proto siass that the committee will take Posials. they Lee printed in the Rwoxo

up Itheop Iiiiiiiiiies early in the 99th Can- under "Amendments Submitted".

grim ancL I bellev*. hawai bills ready
p. 95

408

NOTE . - pp . 115- 120 amendment. similar to Cme e91s,a, :on contain tne oili approved by tne Environment and

Public Works Committee. during con.

as introduced, sideration of the continuing resolucion

which is reported in early October. Unfortunately . oppo .

in this volume at sition to Superfund renewal by the ad . ministration hindered approval or the p 413 till 1 .

The legislation Chat we are introduc .

ing today directs and authorizes funds for the testing of toxic chemic" most

commonly found at Superfund sites . It

requires that health assessments be

done at every site listed on the Nation .

LI Priority Ust and that A More effec .

tive program be established for Provid . p p . L 3 0 - 132 Ing information to citizeru who ire

worried about the health ramifications

Mr of exposure to nearby abandoned. IAUTICNBIERG. Mr. President. waste sites.

I am pleased to Join my distinguished It requires that EPA replace house, coUejLgue from Vermont. the chairman hold water. when warranted by condi- of the Environment and Public Works Irons around a site . This provision. Committee. as an original cosponsor of which I offered In committee . requires legislation to reauthoruie the Nation S that Our citizens have at least the very Superfund program. basics : not only clean water to dnnk . The cleanup of abandoned toxic but also to bathe in. to wash their waste sites is a too pirtonty for New clothes In. and to use for other essen.

Jersey . In no other State is the Super- tial household purpose&

fund program more important. Fully The bill also refines the Federal.

9S of the 786 sites on the National Pri- State relationships tinder SuperfunL

ority LAst for clesnup are in New otuch are one of the most critical ele. Jersey. The most dangerous site in the menu of any effective cleanup pro- country. the Llparl landfill. is located grLm This is one of the areas that I

in the suburbs of Camden. These is devoted substantial attention to in not one county In New Jersey free of 0011111MAtee because of its importiagice slus which threaten humman health to a successful Procravii

. I was very w and the surrounding imirtforussent. DFIciAtive that the comnuttee saw fit Therefore. I applaud Senator STar- 14 Adopt then amendments. They rosts's hard work last year to strength- would clarify the right to the States to

en wA renew Suserfund and his Lnten- raw th*Lr own funds; extend the stag.

tion to Put Superfund at the top of uu Of limitations for filing natural re- our committee*s agenda this year. source damage cliums; allow States to

Mr. President. it is vital that the get credit for State money spent to

Congress take up consideration of the clean UP SuPerfund sitem eligible for Superfund Program as soon as posim . Ped@nd assistance. and to assure that ble. The Superfund Program expires in the treatment of ground and surface September. It is imperative thgg Su. eager be considered a pan of the perfund be reauthorized with suffi

. CVU~,Wde t. while this bW in a cient laid time so that the Envtron- n

mental Protection Agency can gear up good Starting Point it is modest In

to run an expanded and accelerated We". It does not contain the LdminUi.

program- trative assistance program for compen- The legislation that we are introduc- miting victims; of toxic exposure in- Lng today is virtually identical to the cluded in last year's bill. Nor does it bill approved by a vote of 17 to I by contain a cause of action for seeking In* Environment and Public Works relief in Federal courts. I expect that Committee last September . This bill the committee will be very active on

was submuently referred to the these important issues this year. The Senate Flibanee COmiisuttee. where it Pilot administrative program offered languished in the waning hours of the by my colleague. Senator MITCH110C.L. Wh Congress. represented a good first step . and I

In an effort to gain Senate approvLL look forward to working with him and 3enstair BLADLffir and I offered an other members of the committee in

fashioning victims' compensation pro.
p. 96

409

,,stuns ,rnrri~nts to respond to -M, 'I

n Addit 'ers ' :

0

n . a number of issues -r- isas,

:e(l ~nresolved last ear in an effort to Does the NaLional Ro!saorsp 7

,or? e

.1

str Ong consensus late M 'he iet up under Superfind :iai~

session last ,ear. %It President . I ask oility to PCOvlde or coora :ral.e

unanimous consent that the text of Lial services in the event of A -~ .sa,-

rry additional views to the Environ (to- ~oulcl relief 1,-;nds -i~ -i

menE and Public Works Committee a,.ailable during ind ~rnmeajate_

report on taist year s biii be inserted in lo%ing an emergency '

I he RECORD at the conclusion Of my r e How would Victims Of -XOOSLlr~

marks. These views indicate the areas compensated '

that I would like to see added as To what extent do ~;rr,nt .,a ::

amendments to the bill introduced provisions under Suoterfund -7cc- a .

today . the institution of safetv measur~s '

mor" Are Penalties for nonre;)~ort :nq

The recent tragedy in Bhopal . India, leases steep enougin't

raises severai critical issues relevant to In addition to these r~spons e

the reauthor=tion a( Superfund The the specter of daily exposure zi cnelethal release of methYl isocyanate by cals, emitted as byproducts of :nerr :1 .

the Union Carbide plant swept over processes has been raised tiv Bncci,

the populated city early in the morn- To respond to spills ind eai(ii ~'

ing . Investigations have confirmed chemicals. we need to kno . ~rere 'i

that plant personnel fled, emergency cilities are located, ~nat cnernica

equipment failed to work . and evacu- they use or produce. and in ~ria'

aucin meausures; were not Instituted volume these chemicals are releaze]

until after the release of the poisonous on a routine basis .

gas . In the wake of the worst industri- I intend to introduce amendments

al accident in history .

cl

tizens and offi- Superfund this year to address 3orne

cials around the globe are asking . of these issues . It is my hope that Con

Could It happen to us? gress will consider my egtsiat~z 7

Nowhere is the question of WetY within the context of reauthorizaL ;on

more important than in the State of of Superfund.

.New Jersey. The State is the most 41C.Co TO cxr*mo surrPrUND

densely populated State in the Nation . Mt President, the long-awaited st- It is also the third largest producer of its mandated by Superfund were chemicajis . Recent incidents in the issued in December. They confir-m

State . including an explosion that re- that i6e cannot afford to delay the ex

leased malathion Into the air over pansion and acceleration of the Super

heavily populated atress. are cause for fund program. No longer can an)orie

reevaluation of safety precautions and dispute that the time for study has

emergency response capabilities in ended. The major findings of the stud- New Jersey and other communities Leg are persuasive EPA expects that

acrou the Nation . over 2.000 sites Witt be listed on the

Federal emergency response authart National Priority List. Ano

t

tier 22 000 ties stem for Superfund. In fact. EPA sites are candidates for he NPL. :f

hu carried out more emergency re- these sites are added at the current sponse actions than plianned cleanup ratio of one to every six . the !ist rnai actions . although most people associ. grow to 3 .700 to 4 .200 sites . These fig

ate the Superfund progriun with the ures could be substantially increased cleanup of abandoned toxic waste its more active hazardous waste fac~~t sites. ties. municipal and industrial landfilLs- The Bhopal incident rams a host of mining waste sites. leaking under questions the Congress should pursue ground storage tanks and sites can

during consideration of Superfund leg- Laminated by radioactive wastes atricl filiation: can pesticides become eligible for Super What percentage of the Amen fund action. More than half of the '.5 public lives within LO. 20, or 50 miles most commonly found substances at of facilities that handle hazArdous ma. Superfund sites are known or suspect

terials? ed carcinogens. and substances fro m Do we know what these materials over 75 percent of these sites have in~ are and what hazszds they present to filtrated into ground water sources .

adjacent communities? It is our responsibility to give EP A What is the adequacy of emergency the direction and resources to eflec procedures of State and Federal Gov- tively mitigate the dancers these
p. 97

410

toxic, present . There is no question strengthen this program which is at

chat the job is a very tam one . and sucr, critical Importance to New that significant resources wUl be Jersey .

needed to maxe the Superfund an ef- There being no objection . the views

fective program . EPA estimates that Nere ordered to be orinted in the

the average Cost Of clearting up an Ritcoan. as follows :

abandoned waste lite IS over $9 coll- Exxisty I AnciTtowat. Vtrws or SgwATon lion . This figure does not take into ac- L.AcTicimosic on s. 2211192

count inflation. deteriorating condi- -he criziman and -analng %Ihonty

tions at many abandoned waste sites . memaer Of "he committee tave tx,r"" compensation for damages to natural ttal feadersnio in securing nearly nauu .

resources. and, of critical tmPOrt&nCe mous committee acoravau of S 2392. 1 hooe

-mailie zoruiderzt;on at tnts ne state of New Jersey . the long cne Senate wil l

*er, -UP Dill a mign Priority Defore tne 98th Congress ~n zosts of maintaining cleaned Ad)ourns.

sites The choice made between com- The In"0641111inCe Of an eXOGulded and accel .

pieteiy cleaning up site%- or simply erated Superfund Program cw1not Do ~ndor

containing wastes. will also influence Stated . Citizens wno live :n continual feaz of

cleanup costs- contaminated pound water . &Jr. And soi l

Gi~en them assumptions . EPA esti- from abandoned waste sites deserve .a nave

mace$ that the cleanup of the first this program mpiemonted " 4u6ckLy and

1 .800 Superfund sites will cost between effecilivoij, so tiossible . The sheer mitighliludo

%11,-. and S22 .7 billion. This range rt- of tho tam. &no the no for in* Envirodfleets trio assumption that responsible mental Frociertion Agency and the States t o

most* monsoonal and financial commit- parties will contribute so percent of ments without a low of continuity, requires

the cleanup 0011tA in calculating the in" the 3ullierfund Program be reauthor .

SI I .-. billion figure and 40 percent call- ized well before it exparesm October 1943.

cuisting the $22-1 billion figure. Rs' In 9he interest of agounnill itmisly action

covery from responsible parties hoot On & 202. the COMmittiet Considered a 3-

been about 25 percent. a much lower you $7 5 billion reauthorization of Current

Programs . Members at the committee Vote

tigiure. ora"ded with the opportututy to offer

Clearly .

the Program will have to big amendments. and several won adopted that

funded at A level far higher thLZI the will improve the existing Slulmrfund Prw

original S1 .6 billion. LAfft You. the isnals, To focti age commium consideration

Senate rnvlro-ent and Public Works Of S. 11612. however. several important mum

CommItcee recommended a

funding were has consuclored. I hope trio Senate will

level of 31 .5 billion over the next be 11116110 to address the= when It considers 3.

years. The House Of Representatives S. 3M dam not address the *am at the

approved, a funding level of S10 .2 bu- program 3uperfund sites am being added to

lion. To adequately fund this vital irks national priority list " an astounding

public health program . the Congress rate. Currently. there are S49 stee on in*

will have to increase Superfund M w4M over trio next several years. the ftvt.

sources significantly . While our bill ronmontal Protection Agency expects Cho

does not contAtin A funding title. which list to from 'A LAN to 2-M 31UL Everyeffort should be Road* to ensure that EPA

will be developed Primarily in the Fi' hall side4uste r=Cugtft to IfUU&&& cleactuse

nance Committee. I will support PM %ing that it do = as Quietly all Doosible. This

posais to expand and broaden the el' may require an Locrimse in funding and alisting tax base. LAst year. the tnvir*n* rwtim about use Vice " 911111:11 ULM Me

ment and Public Works COMMItt" d4l' addedto trio NFL GM Mil? I with whXh

veloped Information on a

number of recoodhaL LovestLitatillnill feasibility studios

proposals to Spread the tax burd*rL and raine" actions we undertalm .

This was an Important effort which Another

Issue Initial" tdi the CMaug Of

mum a the dotormunizu" of "how clow is

should be renewed this Year . cloan.' The comMt1*@ save " mulls ow

Mr. President . it is my hoot that We sideraw attentioss. is ruslived that the

can Proceed rapidly with superfund ASOWY or 3MW dialrythif OU9 a rVWmdal

resuchoir=tion. I applaud ChanMAJO acuon shonalig be isrovildled with flexibility in

STAFrOAD for putting this legislation "

delLorsalibing Me MUCD SOWAW 111110 CWWWd

the too of our cominitteill's agenda. In up. & =2 requitive chat me agrow at

my State of Now Jersey . not I of this tiona-mv ILIVIL" " the cost of pristection

95 sites On the NPL has been c=- of booma health And the OaWUVDAWnLL It 111 1

my inew that removal Of hAmOdOw sulbpletely cleaned up. Thill is -

intaller- og- poilutaoss . or mousunants shcnaid

able situation. I intend to waft hard be the Preferred amulook at 4MAUD U&~

with my cout"rudo on tho znvum- misimolit" evidemis toosealiss snother soluMont and pUbW WOTM COMMIVA111. use getter serves Lbiff Pusift hinalth and Vaand with LIN FUL&WIN COMm'tt4M tO TwommeaL
p. 98

41 1

7h* Sucierjund program ,ftust to Mogan. the problem in car greater than

live W Clio clumns that live In 1?1# "Cuuty we exOf an abandoned auts site or site of I

M?_ pected. The sl.s bill fund authorized

ase ander the act. citizens should nave in 'M W'U probably clean UP only 17 0

,e

tilt 346 worst sites how on EPA's .me opportunity to petition EpA if a release of

or the threat of a release gas 101109flent Priority list. The average cost 0( clean.

and substantial endangerment to human X16 UP each Sit* has increased from an

neWth or the environment and also to peti- estimated $2 .3 Million In 1980 to 84,3

tion EPA to carry out nonaiscretionary nuUlOfl in 1983 to $8 .3 million In 1984 .

duties unaer the act. Citizen suit provisions We am Proposing IL Modest oill

.Indor ocher envtronmengw stacut" have which will POrtrut the continuation of

mado programs inare reationsive to in* thit CUMnt Program at a slightly inputilic and navt generally Improved Agency creased put.

reCUIACIOn and eftfOMeMent Of Such law%. EPA OffiC3&W have stated trial; the

current PrQgr--L30 sit* e,e&nup$ a

Year-WOuld cast 33 .2 billion over 5

years. This estimate IS Misleading. It

does not include the cost of payment

of natural resource ciairris authorized

p p L 3 3 - 134 under the current law Althougn

claims of $2.7 billion have been filed.

4r. KrTCHELL Xr. President. I am none have yet bnn Paid. Moreover.

plessied W consponsor the Superfund EPA's cost estimate assurnes no infla.

Improvement Act Of 1983 . The bill we tion between 1988 and 1990 . and no in.

_1211COCIMCIUMINIA JallytV1111,117 IdenUml crease in construction costs at sites. It

tO _411010- 12161411121011, -APProved by the was them factors in 04.rt that led the

MMD=At4* GZL _ZnVimment and members Of ths Environment and

Rulalle Works last year, Public Works Committet last year t o

It is critical that this legislation be reCommend a Superfund Program of

enacted into law this year because the $1 .5 billion over 3 years.

authorization for the program expires

in September L94A .

VICTTU AMISTAACR

There It no onvironmentsil problem The law now makes no provision for

of mom importame to the Amencan Compensation to the human victims of

PCOPle than the thousands of-alsen. exposure to hazardous chemicals.

cloned hazardous wait* sites - across Compensation in. however. available

this country . No am of the United for duft"e to natural ruouress owned

States is immune from ths thmt at by State mind Federal authorities. As I

cherrucal cont-min-tion of our jur. our have Said Since 1980, this represents a,

wwAr and land. No person is immune misguided set of Priorities which sit.

from the threat to his or her health vltft things over people.

and well-beinig from toxic chemicals in For 4 Years.

I have been advocating

the environment. the &"tlOn Of compensation for

It Is indeed trook thas thu is the InJury to Persons to the SUperfund

legs" at the modern chemical tech- law . through a coMbItnilition of judletal

nology which has so improved our and adisluntilitratIve rem*W@L

standard of Uvrim. The Environmental It is necessary and juaWled that

ProtwUon Agency estimates th" each Of MGM avenues Provide resource

there could be as many " 22.000 Pa. to People Wured from exposure to

tentlay haitardous waste situ in this hazardous substances . Together. then

country . kLn& of remedies Place injury to

The Congress acted in IM to a& People On the same tooting as damage

dress this problem by enacting the Su. to Property.

I am convinced. by the

perfund law. We enacted a law which fee rd of the Environment Committee

was band on in* principle that those and the general debate over the put

who arems asiblo for chemlml harm years. that a genuine need for this

should bear the costs of that ham kind of compensation exist& And I am

This was the bads for boM the strict convinctc! in" we . as a society. wW

llabililty suindsird of the Law. and LM provicit such compensation in a comtaxation of cbmmLJW foeatacks to prelTIMaive fashion. We wtu gravid* it

fund the cleanup of sites. bemuse ultimately. the equity of shift.

Today we am introduci= lesialWon ing the burden of harm from the

to @stand the life of the Supeclund Yle" to the res visible party wtU be

law for another 3 1441M In the 4 years sell-evkient and Irrefutable.

SLOW we anactsid the original statute. The bill we introduce today don na

we he" Immed th" the magnitude of contain a dot&U*d recommendation an
P. 99

413

if

99TH CONGRESS

IST SESSION S.51

To extend and amend zhe Comprehensive Environmental Rest>onse,

Compensation, and Liabilitv Act of 1980 . and for otrier purp oies .

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JA.wABY 3, 1985

Mr. SrArvozD ifor himself, Mr. CHAY22 . Mr. DvitaNazzozz, Mr. HVWPH199Y.

Mr, H"?, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. MITCHICI.L . Mr. BACCUS . Mr. LACT1114-

azzo. and Mr. CRANSTON) introduced the following bill ; which was read

twice and referred to the Cominittee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To extend and &mend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and LiabUitY Act of 1980, and for

other purposes.

I Be it enacted by the Senwe and Howe of Representa2 tives of Me United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That this Act may be referred to as the "Superfund Improve4 ment Act of 1985".

5 TrrLE 1

6 nfDLAN TZLOBS

7 Slec. 101 . (a) Section 101 of.the Comprehensive Envi8 ronmental Respon", Compensation, and Liability Act of

9 1980 is munded-
P. 100

41 4

1 (1) by striking '*and" at the end of p&rW&ph

2 (31), striking the period at the end of paragraph (32),

3 and adding a new paragraph as follows :

4 "(33) 'Indian tribe' means any Indian tribe, band,

3 nation, or other organized group or community, includ6 ing any Alaska Native village but not including any

Alaska Native regional or village corporation, which is

8 recognized as eligible for the special programs and

9 services provided by the United States to Indians be10 cause of their status as Indians ; and";

11 (2) in paragraph (16) by striking "or" the last

12 time it appears and by inserting before the semicolon

13 at the end thereof the Wowing: ", any Indian tribe,

14 or, if such resources are subject to a trust restriction

15 on alienation, any member of an Indian tribe" .

16 M Section 10003) of the Comprehensive Environmen17 tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 is

18 amended by adding at the end thereof the Wowing: "In the

19 case of remedial action to be taken on land or water held by

20 an Indian tribe, held by the United States in trust for Indi21 ans, held by a member of an Indian tribe (if such land or

22 water is subject to a trust restriction on alienation), or other23 wise within the borders of an Indian reservation, the require24 ments of this paragraph for assurances regarding future

25 maintenance and cost-sharing shall not apply, and the Presi-