Document ID: EPA-HQ-TRI-2004-0001-0006
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-02-08T05:00Z

ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
OF
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
TO
MODIFY
OR
REMOVE
CERTAIN
DATA
ELEMENTS
FROM
FORM
R
AND
FORM
A
(
TIER
III)

Analytical
Support
Branch
Environmental
Analysis
Division
Office
of
Information
Analysis
and
Access
Office
of
Environmental
Information
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
November
30,
2004
1
The
term
EPCRA
section
313
properly
refers
to
only
the
statutory
requirements,
while
the
term
TRI
properly
refers
to
the
database
where
the
information
collected
under
section
313
and
under
section
6607
of
the
PPA
is
stored.
However,
the
terms
have
often
been
used
interchangeably
by
the
public
to
refer
to
the
statute,
the
regulatory
requirements,
the
reporting
form,
the
database,
and
EPA's
program
to
manage
the
data.
In
deference
to
common
usage,
the
terms
EPCRA
section
313
and
TRI
are
sometimes
used
interchangeably
in
this
report
where
doing
so
will
make
the
report
simpler
and
easier
to
read.

S­
1
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
(
EPCRA),
also
known
as
Title
III
of
the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
of
1986
(
SARA),
created
a
broad
range
of
emergency
response
planning
and
reporting
requirements
for
manufacturers,
processors,
and
users
of
toxic
chemicals
in
the
United
States.
Under
section
313
of
EPCRA,
certain
facilities
are
required
to
submit
annual
reports
to
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
and
to
States
on
their
release(
s),
transfer(
s),
and
waste
management
activities
for
certain
toxic
chemicals
if
they
are
manufactured,
processed,
or
otherwise
used
above
thresholds
amounts.
In
addition,
the
Pollution
Prevention
Act
(
PPA)
of
1990
requires
these
same
facilities
to
report
prevention,
recycling,
and
other
waste
management
information
for
these
same
chemicals.
EPA
maintains
the
data
collected
under
EPCRA
section
313
and
the
PPA
in
a
database
known
as
the
Toxic
Release
Inventory
(
TRI).
1
Since
the
inception
of
the
TRI
Program,
EPA
has
implemented
measures
that
reduce
the
reporting
burden
to
the
regulated
universe
of
facilities.
These
measures
have
included
compliance
assistance
activities
such
as
industry
specific
guidance
documents
and
annual
TRI
training
workshops.
Efforts
to
reduce
the
time
spent
completing
the
form
include
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
­
Made
Easy
(
TRI­
ME)
software
and
the
Form
A
certification.
In
an
effort
to
further
expand
burden
reduction
opportunities,
EPA
is
currently
considering
eliminating
some
of
Form
R/
A's
unnecessary
and
redundant
data
elements
and
streamlining
others.
This
report
analyzes
the
economic
effects
of
making
certain
modifications
to
the
Form
R
and
Form
A
reporting
forms
to
reduce
reporting
burden.

S.
1
CHANGES
TO
THE
TRI
REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
As
described
above,
EPA
has
implemented
a
number
of
burden
reduction
measures.
To
build
upon
these
efforts,
EPA
conducted
a
TRI
Stakeholder
Dialogue
between
Fall
2002
and
early
2004.
During
this
dialogue,
improvements
to
the
TRI
reporting
process
were
identified
and
a
number
of
burden
reduction
options
associated
with
TRI
reporting
were
explored.
After
reviewing
these
improvements
and
reporting
options,
EPA
decided
to
initiate
two
burden
reduction
rulemakings:
1)
several
relatively
simple,
quick­
fix
solutions
for
reducing
the
time,
cost,
and
complexity
of
reporting
requirements
and
2)
a
broader
and
more
complex
set
of
regulatory
burden
reduction
alternatives.
This
economic
analysis
reflects
the
costs
and
impacts
of
the
first
burden
reduction
rulemaking.
The
specific
changes
proposed
in
this
rulemaking
are
as
follows:

$
Removal
of
Longitude/
Latitude
Reporting
Requirement
(
Part
I,
section
4.6)

$
Removal
of
Reporting
Requirements
for
EPA
Program
Identity
Numbers
(
Part
I,
Sections
4.8,
4.9
and
4.10)
S­
2
$
Removal
of
Reporting
Requirement
for
Determining
the
Percentage
of
the
Total
Quantity
of
Toxic
Chemicals
Contributed
by
Stormwater
(
Part
II,
Section
5.3
Column
C)

$
Modifications
to
the
Reporting
Requirement
for
On­
Site
Waste
Treatment
Methods
and
Efficiency
(
Part
II,
Section
7A,
7B,
and
7C)

$
Removal
of
Reporting
Data
Field
for
Optional
Submission
of
Additional
Information
(
Part
II,
Section
8.11)

S.
2
ESTIMATED
REPORTING
ACTIVITY
The
proposed
rule
will
affect
all
TRI
reports.
Therefore,
the
universe
of
affected
forms
under
the
proposed
rule
equals
the
number
of
forms
filed
in
RY2002,
the
most
current
year
for
which
TRI
data
are
available.
First
year
reporters
under
the
proposed
rule
are
approximated
by
the
number
of
first
year
reporters
in
RY2002.
Burden
and
cost
savings
are
estimated
separately
for
PBT
Form
Rs,
Non­
PBT
Form
Rs,
and
Non­
PBT
Form
As.
Table
S
­
1
summarizes
the
number
and
type
of
report
in
RY
2002.

TABLE
S­
1
UNIVERSE
OF
AFFECTED
FORMS
UNDER
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
Form
R
Form
A
First
Year
Non
­
PBT
Forms
880
324
PBT
Forms
458
NA*

Subsequent
Years
Non­
PBT
Forms
65,006
11,594
PBT
Forms
15,085
NA*

*
Facilities
may
not
use
Form
A
for
PBT
chemicals.

S.
3
COSTS
OF
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
As
shown
in
Table
S­
2,
first
year
reporters
are
estimated
to
experience
a
total
burden
savings
of
2,034
hours
and
total
cost
savings
of
$
87,423
for
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
rule.
Subsequent
year
reporters
are
estimated
to
experience
a
total
burden
savings
of
43,140
hours
and
total
cost
savings
of
$
1,772,217
as
shown
in
Table
S­
3.
S­
3
TABLE
S­
2
NATIONAL
BURDEN
AND
COST
SAVINGS
FOR
FIRST
YEAR
REPORTERS
Form
Type
Number
of
Forms
Burden
Savings
per
Form
(
hours)
Total
Burden
Savings
(
hours)
Cost
Saving
per
Form
Total
Cost
Savings
Form
R
Non­
PBT
Forms
880
0.96
842
$
40.89
$
35,979
PBT
Forms
458
2.23
1,023
$
97.05
$
44,449
Form
A
Non­
PBT
Forms
324
0.52
168
$
21.59
$
6,994
Total
1,662
2,034
$
87,423
TABLE
S­
3
NATIONAL
BURDEN
AND
COST
SAVINGS
FOR
SUBSEQUENT
YEAR
REPORTERS
Form
Type
Number
of
Forms
Burden
Savings
per
Form
(
hours)
Total
Burden
Savings
(
hours)
Cost
Saving
per
Form
Total
Cost
Savings
Form
R
Form
R
Non­
PBT
65,006
0.39
25,167
$
15.72
$
1,021,833
Form
R
PBT
15,085
1.11
16,681
$
46.99
$
708,841
Form
A
Form
A
Non­
PBT
11,594
0.11
1,292
$
3.58
$
41,543
Total
91,685
43,140
$
1,772,217
S.
4
IMPACTS
OF
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
Because
the
proposed
rule
creates
cost
savings
rather
than
imposing
costs
on
the
regulated
universe,
a
SBREFA
analysis
is
not
required.
However,
to
characterize
the
impacts
of
Tier
III
on
TRI
filers,
EPA
estimated
average
annual
revenues
for
the
three
industries
with
the
highest
reported
releases:
Metal
Mining
(
SIC
10),
Chemicals
and
Allied
Products
(
SIC
28),
and
Primary
Metal
Industries
(
SIC
33).
These
revenues
were
then
compared
with
the
estimated
cost
savings
per
form
to
evaluate
the
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule.
Tables
S­
4
and
S­
5
show
that
cost
savings
per
form
represent
less
than
0.001%
of
average
annual
revenues
for
all
three
industries.
S­
4
TABLE
S­
4
SAVINGS
IMPACTS
FOR
FIRST
YEAR
REPORTERS
Form
R
Form
A
Form
Type
Non­
PBT
Forms
PBT
Forms
Non­
PBT
Forms
SIC
10
(
Metal
Mining)

Average
Revenues
$
20,108,217
$
20,108,217
$
20,108,217
Cost
Saving
per
Form
$
40.89
$
97.05
$
21.59
Savings
to
Revenue
Ratio
0.0002%
0.0005%
0.0001%

SIC
28
(
Chemicals
and
Allied
Products)

Average
Revenues
$
37,111,370
$
37,111,370
$
37,111,370
Cost
Saving
per
Form
$
40.89
$
97.05
$
21.59
Savings
to
Revenue
Ratio
0.0001%
0.0003%
0.0001%

SIC
33
(
Primary
Metal
Industries)

Average
Revenues
$
31,917,118
$
31,917,118
$
31,917,118
Cost
Saving
per
Form
$
40.89
$
97.05
$
21.59
Savings
to
Revenue
Ratio
0.0001%
0.0003%
0.0001%
S­
5
TABLE
S­
5
SAVINGS
IMPACTS
FOR
SUBSEQUENT
YEAR
REPORTERS
Form
R
Form
A
Form
Type
Non­
PBT
Forms
PBT
Forms
Non­
PBT
Forms
SIC
10
(
Metal
Mining)

Average
Revenues
$
20,108,217
$
20,108,217
$
20,108,217
Cost
Saving
per
Form
$
15.72
$
46.99
$
3.58
Savings
to
Revenue
Ratio
0.0001%
0.0003%
0.00002%

SIC
28
(
Chemicals
and
Allied
Products)

Average
Revenues
$
37,111,370
$
37,111,370
$
37,111,370
Cost
Saving
per
Form
$
15.72
$
46.99
$
3.58
Savings
to
Revenue
Ratio
0.00004%
0.0001%
0.00001%

SIC
33
(
Primary
Metal
Industries)

Average
Revenues
$
31,917,118
$
31,917,118
$
31,917,118
Cost
Saving
per
Form
$
15.72
$
46.99
$
3.58
Savings
to
Revenue
Ratio
0.00005%
0.0001%
0.00001%

S.
5
BENEFITS
OF
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
EPA
believes
that
the
changes
proposed
in
this
rulemaking
will
enhance
the
efficiency
and
effectiveness
of
the
TRI
program
while
continuing
to
provide
communities
with
the
same
high
level
of
significant
chemical
release
and
other
waste
management
information.
Certain
data,
however,
will
be
lost
under
the
proposed
rule
and
thus
negative
benefits
will
accrue
to
society.
Alternately,
on
the
cost
side,
industry
will
realize
a
cost
savings
due
to
reduced
reporting
burden.
For
some
data
elements,
the
same
data
will
be
available
from
another
source
(
Part
I,
Sections
4.6,
4.8,
4.9,
and
4.10,
and
Section
8.11).
For
other
data
elements,
EPA
believes
that
the
data
are
not
routinely
used
or
not
used
at
all
and,
therefore,
believes
that
modification
to
simplify
the
data
element
or
elimination
of
the
data
element
is
appropriate
(
Part
II
Section
5.3
Column
C,
Part
II
Section
7).