# 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 012 PwQw 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"m ii(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" frAwrww a6w ad" to
4 Mrs



## L&Ab" 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 of a few envi :-wmerdal grvjps . An m% official told us that am intended to offer inin dMa base trxb&Lcg bemm of Smwing 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"=-in an effort to reach as 

## Data Fonnats many different types of msers as pwdble . Although the agency selecte d 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 forthis 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 Forso M 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 aInventory 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 2vaila

## EPA 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 theagency 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 toreport 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 (nonre

## Data 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 Ptp . 6

Cbsplar 4 Inventory Data Need to Be Verified

chennica! mixture so that they can determine how much of the chemicalthey use and consequently properly determine their reporting obligation- EPA is m FciW

-rently evaluai :ing how well E s supplier notification provisions are worldng, accorcrmg to an agency officiaL Table 4.1 : Results & Regiens'Ort s 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 3 V1 0 a V11 0 a a W 3 0 M 9 1 X a 4 TaM 27 6 3 7 Now- Data are for revmws completed as ofMuch 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

. If the quality of laws effons 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 tovL-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~

# I

®R: -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, th eagency'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 wesurveyed-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 PiAChapter 4 inventory Mta Need to Be Verifie d



## 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 Trieriscriptlo n Accunicy Test 25-Percent confidence level E"Mated Loweir bound Mf UPPOrbillitindal Percentage in percent"a in perewfampi m 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 Klentificatio n number 0 CD7 SIC code 0 .5 0 .1 115 Release/transfer type 0 0 .5 Release/transfe r 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 data bate 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 VP . 10

Chapter 4 inventory Data Need to Be Verifie d

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 prudentduring 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, particia

## EPA 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 takenaction 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 nwhether 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 shouldSubstantial 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 omit W_j from the inventory because of noncompliance is unknown . ,See table 5 . 1 . )

1 Analysm of Now toSection313 f the nL,~, ;~~nmg and Cammnity Right-toKnow Act, LrA (W

mash = ;LM D.C. : Nw. IVWT

O
PaXe49 GAO/RCED-91-121 Toidc Releame Isventary Prep~Chapter 5 Imprw4ed Enforcement Would Help FAwnre a Mom Complete InvenUm 7

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 ProilramChapter 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 2 5 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 themto 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 Pnqpum14 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 tradeassociations, which disseminate information on regulatory requirements. State officials in Illinois and Texas, aloig with several industry representatives we contacted, concurred with EFA.'s assessmei
. To improve compliance, EPA has worked to increase facilities' awareness 

## M"A's Compliance and 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 deter

## 3trategies 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 thestates 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 progra m 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 fo r

Fate52 GAQ/2CED*I-I' ; 7--ide Release Inventory ProgramTAWWW 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 f t .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~OFOMWNW fto" SNOW WjW Dow as of usocob I M 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 Kv m WHOM WKI gave them oftunce notim of bt%pectiom . Thus. Regkmu IV . Vt . VII . and Vill . whk1h do

rawb,v,mvd weerm-Ad Weaw HAP rj~ Now Camodr- th-at-7

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

### lApection 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 ofEnforcement, 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=lstatutes, 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 Ma y stated that it fully supported amending a"m to provide it Lte 1991 EPA 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 reqake d 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~m

r

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 SALal of Tfto Talton to loom COMPN&ft A of Nuniber of imam lb Ow "Ift imm Reigion cognpilaints issual 180-day 900 conwini 22 12 V2 V 34 1 V1 17 7 234 Total 73 20 Source : GAO*s an*l of EFA data
. Page 56 GAO/RCZDOI-121 Toxic Release Inventery PgP . 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 M muwy 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 Emwants 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&uPandm e
~-7 page 67 CAO/RCEMI .121 Tolde Relefte in"tatory M

### A

Chapter 6 trApraved Eaforeemment WouU Help FAsure a Udwe Complete invent m

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 repor t 

## 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

JLjp . 21 ON ,
Citapter 5 improved Enforcement Would Help Eanare a 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 o r Wore NVnIbW of Vap La b 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 whatactions, if any, to take against the thousands of facilities that bad submitted late reports
. It is 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 IP22 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 Underway 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 Pip . 2 3 

# MR . d L`Z-~~ I r~ Offing .- W- WChapter6 Improved Eatorremeni Would Help Enswe a More Complete Inventor y

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 oncase 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 thesurveys, with aggregated responses, are available upon request

## Mail-In Questiormaire s 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 5 12 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 opAppendix I Teclutic-Al Medmxiolo a

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

'dence interval at the 95-percent level .2 cated with a confiTo 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 . Callsyielding 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 andgender 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 errur Indleftes how closely we can reproduce from a sample the results that we would obtain if we were to tam a complete cam of the univem using the sanat mensurecaus mediods By adding the . .' Smor to andsubtracting 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, the sampW* 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" a random , of households with teleplimes and in desigried to mimmime problem of aomse to urdisted teleThimes and telephonen not yet Date &

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

## 97--Appendix I Teckwical blethadoloo

Table 1 .3: Final Status of Random Mot Dialing Sampl e AJ!qjLhany County Cook Coint Harris County

Response Respomw Rospinse rate (sic ra w 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 th e 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 state

## Estimates 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 PtogramAppendix I Technical MethOC10109 Y

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 E PEA'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 prPO L 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 typedescribes 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 furnitur e 25 Furniture and fixtures 26 Paper and affied product s 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 equipmen t 38 Measuring . anaJyzing .and controlling instruments : photographic, medical, and optical goods : watches and clocks 39 Miscellaneous manufacturing industrie s

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

# AAR 

# -ar 1911 iiiventory Chemicals for Reporting Yc coo

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 Butyl Alaywe Acrylic acid n-wyl AMW Acrylonitrde sec-Butyl ak=W Aldrin [1 .4 tert-Butyl at" 1 .2 .3.4
. 10, IO-h-_xarNoro-I .4.4a .5ZSw But)i benpi O*Ua* hexahydro (I akpfe
. .4 &Vft .4a beta .- ButYraldwol l 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 leirsoMond e Carbono WiNift Senzoic Irchionde (beirimnaftnde) Ca jimolA 04onde Chloraimbert lbwk= 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 (DEH M 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" d C4#nww 2 .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 2A Drotrokokxm 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 

# VOAppendLx M '988 lavmtory ChemScals for Serwrtins Year I

Diazomelham 2-Etho :,yethanol Dbenzofuran Ethyl acrylate 1 .2 Dibromo-3-chlor.opropane (DBCP) Ethylbenzen e 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 iodid e 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 trioxid e 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 aci d Hydrazine Nitholtriacefic acid Hydrazine sulfate S~Mtro-o-anisidine Hydrochloric acAd Nitrobenzene Hydrogen cyanide 4-Wrobipheny l 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-arnevvyiendin e 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-Awy Cbe-Ims- fOr RePOrTing Ter HIC

Mercury N-Nitrosomettr/lvirr/famine N-Nitrosomo(ptxlin e 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 Methyl ethyl ketone 2-Phenylpherxg Methyl hydrazine Phosgen e 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*mmthyk m 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 Ouinolin e 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 o-Xylene dimethyl ester) 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- Thioacetamid e 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 GO 3/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 $5 M 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. The GM0 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 Carney, Jon, C.J. Ludington, and U .S . EPA, Region VI . Use of Govemment 

## Federal Goverrument 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 of Selected 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 insti

## Publdc 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 Fmonsesp . 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 Ai r 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 jNren ~nty 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 Inventory P g8~

Appenedix V List of Selected Pubtleadons by the Federal Government, State Governments, and EnAronmental and Pubijc Interest Group s

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. by Industry Analysis To3dc Pollution in Massachusetts : An !jd~i 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 Environrnenta l 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 manag ement 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 PrersastAppendix V I 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 Toxic Relesee Inventory Programi41

Anwadix V I 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 199 1 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 th e 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

"rAppesmft 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 presen t exemption from reporting for small businesses should be changed . f Several issues no" to be considered here . First, &liminarin q 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 PnnpanAppendix 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 unde r 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 las t 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 re l 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 pallutin s

page 81 GAO/NCMOI-Ul Toxic Refiesse lawasowP aAgg V I 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 f ort . - ZPA agrees that the program would besof it f rom 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 exp llicit 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 Zm a

Page= CAO/RCED412-M Tax6e Release lavemenry PompAppendix V I 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 fo r

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 PbsommaArpendix 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 statisticall y 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 V I 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 th e 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'senforcement 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 V I ComuNnts prom the Environmental Prowtion Men a

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 POdom 

# Samb

Appendix V I 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 gW 

# A
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 proble m 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 ap . 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 Manage r 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 ng2%11 Ottlering Inforniation A, ve copies f e The first fi o ach GAO re trf~e . fial copport are Additio Wes are 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 2087 7

also be. placed by calling (202) 27 Orders . maj 5-6241
.tates First-Class Mai

~Gene lAccountingOff l ra cei -&FeesPaid*-'~ 'Postlige '2054 & --,,,-,WAshin9t4n`,', D .C . GAO Permit No.G100 --OMcialBusine s Penalty for Privite-Use,'$30.0

J .p . 54

APPENDIX N 

### EPA PUBLIC RELEASE ON 1994 TRI DATA, APPENDIX DUnited 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

. . . ..

7p . 56



# 1994 Toxics Release Inventory
Public Data Release

U .S . Envirorumental Protection Agency Off~qe of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7408)

Washington, DC 20460p . 57



# CONTENT S

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 1994 TRI Data by Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Multiple SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Top 50 Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Top 10 Parent Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 Releases and Transfers of All TRI Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76p . 58

ntents 

### CHAPTER 2 : PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT O F

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7 Understanding the Production Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Comparing Waste Generation to Value of Shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Assessment of Progress in Source Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8 National Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Total Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Total Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Facilities and Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Releases by Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Transfers by Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6 Changes in Releases and Transfers by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 1993-1994 Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 1988-1994 Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7 Change in Releases and Transfers by Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 1993-1994 Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 1988-1994 Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Facilities with Greatest Changes in Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 0 Relationship of TRI Releases to Changes in Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Changes in Releases and Transfers by Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 1993-1994 Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 1988-1994 Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220p . 59
Content s 

### CHAPTER 4 : TRI REPORTING PROFILES FOR 33/50 PROGRAM CHEMICALS . 271 introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4 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 . . . 27 7 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 Typ e 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325p . 60
Co fmccntents CHAPTER 5 : TRI REPORTING BY FEDERAL FACILITIES, CONTINUE D 

### 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 8 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-3 3 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

1Vp . 61 Cont e
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 FEDERA L



### 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 TRANSFER S 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

vp . 62


# APPENDIX D USES OF TRI DAT

A

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 expandedrapidly, 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 chemical s 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 surfac e 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-1p . 63

on EAppendix 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 hav e 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 i n 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 toxi c 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 o r 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-2p . 64
TM DO&*% Appendix D - Data Use

L_

• Louisiana's Environmental Leadership assistance grants . The report will also bePollution Prevention Program is a statewide used to target large companies for particlemissions prevention and reduction program pation in a Governor's Pollution Preventionthat 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 activitie s 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-3p . 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 an d 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 politica l 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 relevan t 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-4p . 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 greates t concern for sediment contamination
. Other approaches weight the TRI data by th e toxicity of the released chemical . Weights may Three EPA Regional offices are developingbe 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-5p . 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 . GI S 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 Healt hResearch 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 gri d 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 ofa 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-6p . 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 fo r effectiveness of environmental laws in environmental performance information by reducing risks from sites . The system ranks investors, insurance companies, and the publicsites 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 . Th e :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, comparesFactor 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 Corporate • 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" whic h 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-7p . 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 FEESpercent 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 base d on their comparative potential for environmental The "environment-to-jobs" ratio calculatedharm or to rank states based on indicators of in Louisiana was included in an environtheir environmental quality . mental scorecard that was developed an d 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-8p . 70

APPENDIX 0 

### COMPARISON OF MEK EMISSIONS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS TO MEK EMISSIONS IN ALL AREAS

01p . 71

COMPARISON OF MEK EMISSIONS IN OZON E 

### 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 i n nonattainment areas
.p . 72

TABLE I



### .............................. . ......... ......................

..................... . ............ ....... ....

... ....... .................. ... ................ .. ... ............. ...... . *,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.:'.'-....:.::.:

..................... ........... ..................... .. ..

..

...

....

..

............ .. .. . ... ........ . .... ...... ..... . ..... ........... ............. ..................... ............ .... .. . X : ......................... r, U ................ .. ........................... .. ... ............ ..... ........... ................ .. .............. . .... ........ .. ... .......... ... ........ ........................

...... ................... .......... ........ ........

... ................................ . ............... ........... ...... ......... .... ............. ........... ......... .................... .. .... ............. .................... ... ............ ........... ...... . . ...... ..... W.: -:-X,X~X.............. -X,X,X~X~X: .. . .............. ...........

... ... .... ............................ .... ............

Number o

f 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 2,000,00 0 0

2p . 73

TABLE2



### ..... ...... .......... ........... . ........ . ........... ...... . ...

...... ..... .... .. ...
.... ...... ..... th..... . 1 0 . ........ ..... ...... ............. .. . ... ............... . ............ .. . . .. .... .......... . .... .. ...... . . . . . ......

. .......... .....

...... ... .. . ................. . ....... .. .................. :x*i .... ....... . ........... ....... .......... ................... ... . ... .... ........ ....... . ....... ....... ..... xx~~ ................. ...... ...... ........... ..... ..... . . .. .. .... ............ .....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

### Percentage o

f 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

3p . 74 

# 3 BEFORE TH E UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

APPENDICES TO PETITION O F THE CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION KETONES PANEL TO DELIST METHYL ETHYL KETONE UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE EMERGENCY PLANNING AN D 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 27,1996p . 75p . 76

LIST OF "PENDICE S 

### 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 of MEK (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 ME K 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. Referencesp . 77

APPENDIX P 

### LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF EPCRA SECTION 313p . 78

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF EPCRA SECTION 31 3


### 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.5 1 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 th e
Page numbers refer to the pagination of the entire legislative history as compiled by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress

. 2p . 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 o n 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
. 3p . 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 . 64 8 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 4p . 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 .)
5p . 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
. Se e 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 tw o 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
. 9p . 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
. 10p . 88

. . . The question becomes, if you believe your constituent sin the communities in your area have a right to know of cancercausing chemical releases, vote "yes
. " If you 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
. 200 5 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 Senat e 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 . Th e
12P . 90

substitution of the list in Committee Print No
. 99-169 for the much longer CERCLA list wa s 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 :

13P . 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 14p . 92
comprehensive picture of the community's and Nation's exposure t o 

### 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
.
15p . 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 RESOURCE S

POLICY DIVISIO N

OF TH E CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

OF TH E 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 -'11411-2p . 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 e v 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- o r 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 tn e

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 Infrastructur e 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 readyp . 95 40 8
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 of exposure to nearby abandoned Mr
. 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 'ers ' n Addit : 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 ' he RECORD at the conclusion Of my r e I 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 th e 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 Supe r 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 thesep . 97 41 0 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 memaer Of "he committee tave tx,r"" tions at many abandoned waste sites . 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 Every effort 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' added to 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 TwommeaLp . 98 41 1

7h* Sucierjund program ,ftust to Mogan. the problem in car greater tha n 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 o f 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 . I t 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 expire s 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 SUperfun d 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 anP . 99
413 if
99TH CONGRESS IST SESSION 

# S .5 1 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 BIL LTo 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 TZLOB S 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 an y 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-