Document ID: EPA-HQ-TRI-2003-0001-0771
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-03-18T05:00Z

Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program:
Streamlining
Reporting
and
Preserving
Data
Integrity
FINAL
REPORT
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
Office
of
Advocacy
March
2004
Jack
Faucett
Associates
4550
Montgomery
Avenue,
Suite
300N
Bethesda,
MD
20814
301­
961­
8800
Table
of
Contents
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.....................................................................................
1
1
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................
3
1.1
An
Overview
of
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program..........................................................
3
1.2
An
Overview
of
TRI's
Benefits
and
Cost
.................................................................................
5
1.2.1
TRI's
Benefits........................................................................................................................
5
2
THE
CURRENT
SITUATION
OF
TRI
REPORTING...................................
11
2.1
A
Statistical
Summary
of
Reporting.......................................................................................
11
2.2
Contents
of
the
TRI
Reporting
Forms....................................................................................
12
2.2.1
A
Comparison
of
Form
R
and
Form
A..................................................................................
12
2.2.2
Range­
Reporting..................................................................................................................
15
2.2.3
The
Exception
for
De
Minimis
Concentrations......................................................................
16
2.3
Eligibility
Criteria
for
Reporting
with
Form
R
and
Form
A.................................................
17
2.4
The
Burden
of
Reporting........................................................................................................
23
3
REPORTING
CHALLENGES
.....................................................................
27
3.1
Concerns
of
Non­
PBT
Reporting
Facilities
............................................................................
27
3.2
Concerns
of
PBT
Reporting
Facilities
....................................................................................
32
3.3
Frequency
of
Reporting..........................................................................................................
38
4
PROPOSED
REFORMS.............................................................................
39
4.1
Proposal
I:
Enhance
Form
A
and
Expand
Eligibility
............................................................
39
4.1.1
Increase
the
Minimum
Threshold
of
the
Annual
Reportable
Amount.....................................
40
4.1.2
Varying
the
Composition
of
the
Annual
Reportable
Amount.................................................
44
4.1.3
Increase
the
Alternate
Threshold
to
10
Million
Pounds..........................................................
53
4.1.4
Create
Enhanced
Form
A
.....................................................................................................
54
4.1.5
Allow
Enhanced
Form
A
For
PBT
Chemicals
.......................................................................
58
4.2
Proposal
II:
Create
and
Implement
Form
NS........................................................................
58
4.2.1
Criterion
1:
Year­
to­
Year
Variance
in
Production
Process
or
Output
Level............................
60
4.2.2
Criterion
2:
De
Minimis
Threshold
Should
Be
Established
....................................................
63
4.2.3
Criterion
3:
Total
Releases
Cannot
Exceed
10,000
Pounds....................................................
66
4.2.4
Criterion
4:
Form
R
or
A
To
Be
Filed
At
Least
Every
Five
Years..........................................
66
4.3
Proposal
III:
Range­
Reporting...............................................................................................
67
4.4
Proposal
IV:
Reporting
Threshold
for
Small
Chemical
and
Petroleum
Wholesalers
...........
68
5
CONCLUSION............................................................................................
72
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
1
Executive
Summary
The
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Inventory
program
(
TRI)
administered
by
the
U.
S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
offers
citizens,
regulators,
and
the
business
community
access
to
a
wealth
of
information
about
potential
environmental
hazards
in
communities
across
the
United
States.
Businesses
expend
more
than
$
300
million
annually
to
fulfill
the
legal
and
civic
responsibility
of
reporting
to
the
TRI
program.

The
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration's
Office
of
Advocacy
has
a
congressional
mandate
to
seek
improvement
of
federal
programs
that
adversely
affect
small
business
entities.
The
SBA
Office
of
Advocacy
has
worked
to
ameliorate
TRI
program's
impact
on
small
businesses
since
its
inception
in
the
late
1980s.
Several
of
the
Office
of
Advocacy's
suggestions
have
been
implemented,
including
the
creation
in
1994
of
the
Form
A
certification
statement.
Form
A
allows
facilities
that
generate
small
quantities
of
chemical
waste
to
file
abbreviated
annual
reports,
saving
businesses
millions
of
dollars
every
year.
Nevertheless,
the
TRI
database
still
contains
many
thousands
of
reports
that
show
no
release
or
small
releases
of
toxics,
for
which
the
time
consuming
and
costly
standard
reporting
format
is
still
required.
Despite
EPA's
public
commitment
since
1997
to
provide
paperwork
relief,
it
has
added
new
chemicals
and
additional
facilities
to
the
TRI
reporting
requirements
without
providing
promised
relief.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
2
The
EPA
has
initiated
a
Stakeholder
Dialogue
to
investigate
ways
of
reforming
the
TRI
program's
reporting
burden
on
business
while
preserving
data
quality.
1
The
Office
of
Advocacy
suggests
that
these
goals
can
be
met
through
the
implementation
of
four
steps:

°
Expanding
eligibility
for
Form
A
and
enhancing
it
to
include
range­
reporting
of
waste
data,

°
Allowing
facilities
with
no
significant
year­
to­
year
changes
in
TRI
activities
to
file
a
newly
proposed
form,
tentatively
titled
Form
NS,

°
Allowing
range­
reporting
on
all
sections
of
Form
R,
and
°
Reducing
the
reporting
burden
on
petroleum
and
chemical
wholesalers.

These
proposals
are
based
on
Options
1,
3,
4,
and
5
of
Phase
II
of
EPA's
Stakeholder
Dialogue.
They
have
the
potential
to
save
facilities
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
every
year
in
reporting
and
other
regulatory
costs
while
having
minimal
effect
on
the
quality
of
TRI
data.

1
EPA,
Stakeholder
Dialogue
Phase
II.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
3
1
Introduction
1.1
An
Overview
of
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
The
Toxic
Chemical
(
or
"
Toxics")
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
is
a
federal
government
program
that
collects
and
disseminates
information
about
toxic
chemicals
that
are
either
introduced
into
the
environment
or
otherwise
managed
(
e.
g.,
treated
or
stored)
in
the
United
States.
Nearly
650
toxic
chemicals
and
toxic
chemical
categories
are
currently
subject
to
TRI
reporting.
Nearly
25,000
manufacturing,
mining,
electric
power
generation,
and
chemical
and
petroleum
wholesaler
facilities,
among
other
entities,
are
required
to
submit
annual
reports
about
their
releases
and
waste
management
of
these
chemicals
to
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
and
to
state
agencies.

Reporting
to
the
TRI
is
required
by
section
313
of
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
(
EPCRA
or
Title
III
of
the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
of
1986,
Public
Law
99­
499).
Section
6607
of
the
Pollution
Prevention
Act
of
1990
expanded
reporting
requirements
to
include
toxic
chemical
source
reduction,
energy
recovery,
recycling,
and
treatment
data.
In
1993,
EPA
expanded
the
list
of
covered
chemicals
for
the
first
time.
In
1994
it
added
286
more
chemicals
and
chemical
categories.
Also
in
1994,
EPA
amended
TRI
regulations
to
permit
facilities
with
low
levels
of
waste
to
report
via
a
shorter
Form
A
Certification
Statement,
beginning
in
1995.
All
other
facilities
continued
to
use
the
standard
Form
R.

Pursuant
to
a
1993
executive
order,
federal
facilities
began
reporting
in
1994.
In
1997,
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
4
EPA
amended
the
TRI
regulations
to
require
annual
reports
from
certain
mining,
electric
power
generation,
hazardous
waste
management,
and
petroleum
and
chemical
wholesaler
facilities.
(
Covered
industries
are
based
on
the
Census
Bureau's
Standard
Industrial
Classification
or
SIC
codes).
Previously,
only
facilities
in
the
manufacturing
sectors
had
been
required
to
report.
In
1999,
EPA
expanded
the
chemical
list
yet
again
and
divided
it
into
two
categories:
persistent
bioaccumulative
toxic
(
PBT)
chemicals
and
non­
PBT
chemicals.
PBT
chemicals
are
subjected
to
stricter
reporting
thresholds
and
ineligible
for
Form
A.
In
2001,
EPA
added
lead
and
lead
compounds
to
the
PBT
chemical
list,

resulting
in
a
fourfold
increase
in
Form
R
filings
for
that
chemical
category.
(
Filings
grew
from
2,025
in
2000
to
8,734
in
2001.)
Many
of
the
new
reports
describe
zero
onsite
releases
whose
right­
to­
know
value
to
the
public
is
questionable.

EPA
committed
to
reduce
the
burden
of
paperwork
associated
with
reporting
as
far
back
as
1997
when
it
expanded
the
number
of
covered
chemicals
and
industries.
In
its
October
1,
1996,
Terms
of
Clearance
document
for
TRI
data
collection,
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
asked
EPA
to
investigate
changes,
including
specifically
the
adoption
of
a
higher
reportable
amount
for
Form
A
eligibility.
In
1998,

the
Toxics
Data
Reporting
Subcommitee
to
the
National
Advisory
Council
for
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology
(
NACEPT)
offered
opinions
on
raising
the
alternate
threshold,
but
the
council
never
filed
formal
recommendations
and
no
action
was
considered
by
EPA.
OMB
has
continued
issuing
requests
for
burden
reduction
since
1996
as
part
of
the
Information
Collection
Request
process.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
5
EPA
is
now
engaged
in
a
Stakeholder
Dialogue
process
to
identify
improvements
to
the
TRI
and
to
reduce
the
reporting
burden
on
facilities.
2
This
report
evaluates
burden
reduction
proposals
that
offer
substantial
relief
to
small
businesses
and
other
entities
with
minimal
effect
on
TRI
data
quality.
The
key
issue
is
to
identify
methods
that
retain
the
information
that
is
valuable
to
the
public,
either
by
retaining
the
current
Form
R
(
for
the
most
significant
chemical
reports),
or
by
establishing
an
alternative
form
of
reporting
for
the
reports
with
minimal
or
no
public
interest
(
such
as
a
modified
Form
A).

1.2
An
Overview
of
TRI's
Benefits
and
Cost
1.2.1
TRI's
Benefits
The
primary
benefit
of
the
TRI
program
is
that
it
provides
the
public
with
information
about
specific
toxic
chemicals
manufactured,
processed,
and
otherwise
used
in
their
communities.
3
Before
enactment
of
EPCRA,
this
information
was
not
available
from
one
source,
and
was
often
not
available
from
any
source.
TRI
allows
the
local
community
to
gain
information
about
overall
risks
of
air,
water,
and
land
releases
of
hundreds
of
chemicals
from
a
given
facility
and
to
compare
these
data
to
other
facilities
throughout
the
country.
Environmental
advocates
heavily
rely
upon
TRI
data
to
identify
affected
communities
and
to
evaluate
environmental
impacts.
Insurance
companies
and
creditors
utilize
TRI
data
to
evaluate
potential
environmental
liabilities.

2
EPA
initiated
a
Stakeholder
Dialogue
process
in
September
2002,
to
identify
improvements
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
to
develop
opportunities
to
reduce
the
burden
on
reporting
facilities.
This
is
maintained
as
online
dialogue
on
the
EPA
E­
docket
website.
Phase
II
of
the
Dialogue
is
focused
on
burden
reduction
options.
3
For
more
information
about
how
TRI
data
are
used,
see
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
How
Are
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Data
Used?,
EPA­
260­
R­
002­
004
(
May
2003).
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
6
Government
entities
benefit
from
regularly­
updated
data
about
toxic
chemical
release
and
waste
management
practices.
Regulators
are
apprised
of
chemical
location
and
disposal
and
are
able
to
evaluate
the
need
to
revise
or
add
regulatory
controls,
to
establish
regulatory
priorities,
and
to
augment
and
evaluate
other
environmental
programs.
The
TRI
database
allows
environmental
agencies
to
assess
industry
pollution
prevention
initiatives
and
to
identify
environmental
solutions
that
could
be
applied
elsewhere.

Facility
operators
utilize
TRI
data
for
self­
evaluation.
Environmental
managers
benefit
by
investigating
their
own
usage
of
toxic
chemicals
and
by
analyzing
standardized
data
about
the
chemical
management
practices
of
competitors.
Facilities
can
reduce
operating
costs
by
identifying
inefficient
usage
of
chemicals.
Industry
also
uses
TRI
data
as
a
public
relations
tool,
to
demonstrate
progress
in
pollution
prevention
to
communities
and
to
other
stakeholders.

The
focus
of
the
TRI
program
is
releases,
hence
the
name,
Toxics
Release
Inventory.

This
is
the
natural
result
of
the
fact
that
risks
to
the
community
from
toxic
chemicals
is
based
on
exposure,
which
in
turn
is
related
to
the
release
of
the
chemical
from
the
covered
facility.
Since
the
largest
releasing
facilities
pose
the
largest
risks,
the
TRI
program
has
focused
on
the
largest
releasers.
In
the
early
years,
EPA
initiated
its
voluntary
33/
50
program.
The
program's
goal
was
to
reduce
the
release
of
17
chemicals
to
33
percent,
then
50
percent
of
their
initial
levels.
Hundreds
of
the
top
600
plants
achieved
considerable
reductions,
often
in
excess
of
the
EPA
50
percent
final
goal.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
7
Facilities
have
taken
steps
to
reduce
releases
into
the
environment
since
the
inception
of
the
TRI
program,
and
many
attribute
this
in
part
to
the
information
that
the
TRI
program
has
made
available
to
the
facilities
and
the
public.
Total
on­
site
and
off­
site
releases
(
of
the
same
chemicals
reported
in
1988)
decreased
54.5
percent
between
1988
and
2001.4
Ninety
percent
of
the
total
emissions
are
contributed
by
a
small
portion
of
the
total
sources.
Naturally,
the
vast
majority
of
these
release
reductions
came
from
the
very
largest
emitters.
TRI
data
users
are
primarily
interested
in
such
large
emitters.

On
the
other
hand,
few
small
release
plants
participated
in
the
33/
50
program.
These
sources
were
of
less
concern
to
the
community,
and
many
had
already
performed
pollution
prevention
and
pollution
control
activities,
such
that
their
releases
were
already
insignificant.
A
50
percent
decrease
was
no
longer
feasible
or
worth
the
expense.

Government
regulations,
for
example,
require
decreases
of
air
toxics
emissions
from
"
major
sources"
of
air
toxics,
those
emitting
over
10
tons
per
year
of
a
given
chemical,

many
of
which
are
covered
by
TRI
reporting.
However,
since
the
TRI
reporting
requirement
is
based
on
the
chemical
throughput
(
manufacturing,
processing
or
otherwise
using),
and
not
the
releases,
many
thousand
TRI
reports
are
currently
required
from
facilities
with
zero
or
minimal
releases
to
the
environment.

More
recently,
the
TRI
program's
focus
on
the
most
significant
releases
has
declined.

The
addition
of
several
hundred
chemicals
in
1994,
additional
reporting
industries
in
1997,
and
the
reduction
of
reporting
thresholds
for
a
new
class
of
chemicals
in
1999
and
4
EPA,
2001
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Public
Data
Release,
p.
ES­
24.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
8
2001
has
required
reporting
of
an
additional
tens
of
thousands
of
very
small
releases.

Thus,
the
need
for
relief
from
TRI
reporting
has
grown
substantially
since
1994.

1.2.2
TRI's
Costs
Facilities
collectively
expend
over
$
300
million
dollars
every
year
to
prepare,
submit,
and
analyze
TRI
reports.
5
Managerial,
technical,
and
clerical
staff
expend
many
hours
on
familiarizing
themselves
with
the
rule;
calculations
and
certification;
completing
the
forms;
recordkeeping;
and
submitting
the
forms.
Since
the
debut
of
Form
A
in
1995,

EPA
had
maintained
that
the
average
facility
saves
17.5
hours
by
filing
Form
A
in
lieu
of
Form
R
for
single­
chemical
reports
after
the
first
year.
However,
EPA
recently
reduced
its
estimates
of
the
average
hours
expended
on
calculations
and
certification
by
twothirds
As
a
result,
EPA
now
estimates
that
the
burden
reduction
associated
with
Form
A
is
5.8
hours
for
the
years
following
the
initial
report.

Industry
groups
dispute
EPA's
revised
estimate
of
reporting
burdens
and
support
its
original
figure.
For
simplicity,
this
report
will
use
EPA's
estimated
costs
for
various
Form
A
regulatory
options
derived
in
1994
to
determine
cost
savings
for
various
Form
A
scenarios.

In
addition
to
direct
compliance
costs
associated
with
a
TRI
filing,
facilities
bear
substantial
indirect
costs
from
"
piggyback"
requirements
associated
with
a
TRI
listing.

The
federal
storm
water
permit
program
and
some
state
pollution
prevention
programs
5
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
now
American
Chemistry
Council),
September
27,
1999,
Comments
to
EPA.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
9
regulate
facilities
based
upon
their
TRI
reporting
status.
Some
states
impose
taxes
and
fees
based
upon
TRI
filings.
6
A
1994
report
by
Price
Associates
estimated
the
scope
of
the
indirect,
added
costs
associated
with
the
addition
of
chemicals
to
the
TRI
list
in
1994.7
Their
analysis
concluded
that
the
overall
total
costs
of
direct
compliance
with
the
TRI
expansion
would
be
as
much
as
six
times
the
EPA
estimate
of
the
reporting
costs
(
which
did
not
take
into
account
the
"
piggyback"
costs).
While
EPA
estimated
$
89
million
in
subsequent­
year
annual
compliance
costs
for
the
new
chemicals,
Price
Associates
estimated
a
range
of
$
233
million
to
$
340
million
annually.

Government
entities
at
all
levels
also
expend
large
sums
to
process,
analyze,
and
disseminate
TRI
reports.
EPA
estimates
$
26
in
variable
costs
for
each
form
processed,

which
amounted
to
nearly
$
2.5
million
in
2001.8
This
report
estimates
the
total
costs
savings
as
facilities
switch
from
Form
R
to
Form
A,
using
EPA­
derived
costs.
We
do
not
present
costs
for
other
alternatives,
such
as
the
Form
NS.
9
Beyond
the
costs
of
reporting
and
other
indirect
costs,
a
facility's
inclusion
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
potentially
erodes
community
goodwill
and
imposes
a
stigma
on
the
site.
Citizens
may
misunderstand
basic
features
of
the
TRI
program
and
assume
that
a
facility
that
reports
to
the
TRI
is
synonymous
with
a
Superfund
site.
Confused
by
the
6
In
1998,
at
least
17
states
had
"
piggyback"
requirements
for
Form
R
filers.
See
Policy
Planning
and
Evaluation,
Inc.,
Analysis
of
Alternative
Reporting
Thresholds
for
Toxic
Release
Inventory
Form
A,
February
18,
1998,
p.
8.
7
Price
Associates,
Critique
of
USEPA's
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
of
the
Proposed
Rule
to
Add
Certain
Chemicals
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
(
Final
Report),
May
2,
1994.
8
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Inventory,
Alternate
Threshold
for
Low
annual
reportable
amounts;
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Reporting,
Information
Collection
Request
Supporting
Statement
(
Oct.
2003),
p.
17.
9
The
Form
NS
has
been
suggested
by
EPA
to
substitute
for
a
report
which
shows
no
significant
change
from
a
previous
year
baseline
Form
R
report.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
10
misleading
"
Release
Inventory"
designation,
data
users
could
mistakenly
conclude
that
"
total
production­
related
wastes"
are
entirely
transmitted
into
environmental
media
and
overlook
the
fact
that
this
figure
includes
quantities
treated,
recycled,
and
consumed
in
energy
recovery.
Community
members
may
also
focus
disproportionately
on
relative
quantities
of
the
wastes,
not
on
the
chemicals'
varying
risks.
Therefore,
more
is
at
stake
to
TRI
facilities
than
the
dollars
and
cents
of
filing
forms
and
other
regulatory
costs.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
11
2
The
Current
Situation
of
TRI
Reporting
2.1
A
Statistical
Summary
of
Reporting
TRI
facilities
with
chemicals
exceeding
the
reporting
thresholds
currently
must
file
one
of
two
forms
every
calendar
year:
Form
A
or
Form
R.
Figure
1
compares
Form
R
and
Form
A
filings
for
2001.
Of
the
95,000
TRI
forms
filed,
more
than
87
percent
were
Form
R's.
Form
A's
comprised
the
remaining
13
percent.

Figure
1:
Form
R
and
Form
A
Filings
in
2001
Type
of
TRI
Form
#
of
Forms
%
Form
R
83,218
87.1%
Form
A
12,295
12.9%
Total
95,513
100.0%

Source:
2001
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Public
Data
Release,
Table
ES­
1.

Nearly
25,000
facilities
submitted
forms
in
2001.
Facilities
must
file
a
separate
Form
R
for
each
chemical
that
meets
the
reporting
threshold.
Multiple
chemicals
can
be
reported
on
each
Form
A.

Persistent
bioaccumulative
toxic
(
PBT)
chemicals
are
a
class
of
TRI
chemicals
that
cannot
be
reported
on
Form
A.
Figure
2
shows
that
19.1
percent
of
all
Form
R
filings
in
2001
were
for
PBT
chemicals.
The
Form
A
reform
proposals
in
this
report
would
potentially
affect
the
68,025
non­
PBT
chemical
forms
filed.
In
addition,
under
certain
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
12
conditions,
EPA
could
also
consider
making
PBT
chemicals
eligible
to
be
reported
on
Form
A.

Figure
2:
TRI
Filings
of
PBT
and
Non­
PBT
Chemicals
in
200110
Chemical
Type
#
of
Forms
%
PBT
16,064
19.1%
non­
PBT
68,025
80.9%
Total
84,089
100.0%

Source:
EPA
TRI
database
(
December
2003)

2.2
Contents
of
the
TRI
Reporting
Forms
2.2.1
A
Comparison
of
Form
R
and
Form
A
Form
A
is
much
shorter
than
Form
R
(
two
pages
versus
five
pages).
Form
A
only
includes
information
identifying
the
facility
and
a
certification
that
total
chemical
wastes
(
the
annual
reportable
amount
or
ARA)
do
not
exceed
500
pounds.
Just
one
chemical
can
be
filed
on
each
Form
R,
but
multiple
chemicals
can
be
reported
on
Form
A.

Both
Form
R
and
Form
A
request
similar
facility
identification
information
in
part
1,

including
data
about
the
parent
company.
In
part
2,
Forms
R
and
A
ask
for
toxic
chemical
identity
(
section
1)
and
mixture
component
identity
(
section
2).
Form
A's
part
2
ends
here,
while
Form
R's
part
2
contains
five
additional
sections.
Form
R
provides
information
about
how
the
toxic
chemical
is
used
(
section
3)
and
the
maximum
amount
of
the
chemical
on­
site
at
any
time
during
the
year
(
section
4).
It
also
asks
for
data
on
the
10
The
total
Form
R's
in
Figure
1
differs
from
the
total
in
Figure
2
because
the
updated
TRI
database
for
RY
2001
has
approximately
900
additional
Form
R's
than
were
reported
in
the
Public
Data
Release.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
13
quantity
of
toxic
chemical
entering
each
environmental
medium
on­
site
(
section
5).

Facilities
report
the
total
releases
of
the
chemical
into
air,
water,
underground
wells,

landfills,
and
other
media
and
provide
the
name
of
the
affected
stream
or
water
body
for
releases
to
water.
In
section
6,
Form
R
reporters
disclose
transfers
of
toxic
chemicals
in
wastes
to
off­
site
locations;
in
section
7
they
provide
data
about
on­
site
waste
treatment,

energy
recovery,
and
recycling.

Section
8
is
unique
to
Form
R
and
is
the
centerpiece.
Its
first
eight
components,
elements
8.1
through
8.8,
ask
for
summary
data
about
quantity
of
toxic
chemicals:

 
Released
through
normal
processes
on­
site
and
off­
site
(
8.1),

 
Used
for
energy
recovery
on­
site
and
off­
site
(
8.2
and
8.3),

 
Recycled
on­
site
and
off­
site
(
8.4
and
8.5),

 
Treated
on­
site
and
off­
site
(
8.6
and
8.7),
and
 
Released
directly
into
the
environment
or
sent
off­
site
for
energy
recovery,

recycling,
treatment,
or
disposal
due
to
remedial
actions,
catastrophic
events,
or
one­
time
events
(
8.8).
11
Many
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7
are
based
on
data
reported
in
other
sections
of
Form
R.

Element
8.1
combines
data
from
sections
5
and
6
and
subtracts
figures
reported
in
element
8.8;
it
includes
both
on­
site
and
off­
site
releases.
Elements
8.3,
8.5,
and
8.7
utilize
data
reported
in
section
6
and
subtract
a
portion
of
element
8.8.
Elements
8.2,
8.4,

and
8.6
concern
on­
site
data
and
are
reported
only
in
section
8.

11
For
precise
definitions
of
elements
8.1­
8.8,
see
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Reporting
Forms
and
Instructions,
pp.
59­
62.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
14
Element
8.9
of
section
8
requires
calculation
of
a
production
ratio
(
ratio
of
reporting­
year
production
to
prior­
year
production)
or
an
activity
index
(
based
on
a
variable
other
than
production
that
is
the
primary
influence
on
the
quantity
of
the
TRI
chemical
released,

treated,
recycled,
or
used
for
energy
recovery).
This
element
allows
data
users
to
examine
the
relationship
between
facility
output
or
input
and
waste
levels.
The
remaining
portion
of
section
8
includes
queries
about
source
reduction
activities.

The
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7
is
used
to
determine
eligibility
for
the
Form
A
Certification
Statement.
If
the
sum
of
elements
8.1
to
8.7
for
a
non­
PBT
chemical
is
less
than
or
equal
to
500
pounds,
then
the
facility
falls
below
the
"
annual
reportable
amount"

threshold
and
is
eligible
to
file
Form
A.

Facilities
must
supply
figures
for
elements
8.1
through
8.7
for
four
years:
the
prior
year,

the
current
reporting
year,
and
two
years
following.
Prior
year
data
is
culled
from
the
prior
year's
Form
R
or
from
the
facility's
operating
logs
or
invoices.
Estimates
for
future
years
are
based
on
planned
current
source
reduction
activities,
market
projections,

expected
contracts,
anticipated
new
product
lines,
company
growth
projections,
and
production
capacity
figures.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
15
2.2.2
Range­
Reporting
In
sections
5
and
6
of
Form
R,
facilities
can
report
data
for
non­
PBT
chemicals
in
range
codes
if
annual
amounts
are
less
than
1,000
pounds.
12
Range­
reporting
is
not
allowed
in
section
8,
even
though
elements
8.1
through
8.7
largely
restate
data
that
may
be
disclosed
as
ranges
in
sections
5
and
6.
Range­
reporting
is
not
permissible
for
PBT
chemicals.

Proposal
I
in
this
report
suggests
that
Form
A
could
be
"
enhanced"
to
allow
rangereporting
for
some
data
that
would
no
longer
be
reported
on
Form
R.

Some
TRI
stakeholders
contend
that
range
estimates
deprive
data
users
of
precise
information.
However,
precise
data
about
small
releases
or
chemical
wastes
is
generally
not
of
public
interest
and
is
often
unavailable.
Imprecision
has
been
a
part
of
TRI's
architecture
from
the
beginning.
Accurate,
but
imprecise,
data
does
fulfill
community
right­
to­
know
obligations.
Generally,
a
small
degree
of
imprecision
does
not
adversely
affect
the
analysis
of
environmental
effects,
and
it
reflects
the
practical
limits
of
data
estimates.
The
EPCRA
statute
says
that
facilities
may
use
readily
available
data
or
reasonable
estimates
and
no
special
monitoring
or
measurement
is
required.
13
In
general,

data
need
only
be
reported
with
two
significant
digits,
recognizing
the
imprecision
of
available
data
and
estimation
techniques.
For
example,
some
estimation
methods
for
fugitive
air
emissions
are
uncertain
by
an
entire
order
of
magnitude.
As
discussed
above,

facilities
are
permitted
to
report
small
quantities
of
some
TRI
data
via
range
estimates,

recognizing
that
precise
data
for
minimal
chemical
amounts
is
unduly
burdensome
to
facilities
and
of
insignificant
public
interest.

12
The
three
range
codes
are
as
follows:
A
=
1­
10
pounds,
B
=
11­
499
pounds,
and
C
=
500­
999
pounds.
13
See
42
U.
S.
C.
§
11023(
g)(
2).
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
16
2.2.3
The
Exception
for
De
Minimis
Concentrations
The
de
minimis
concentration
exemption
allows
TRI
reports
on
non­
PBT
chemicals
to
disregard
certain
minute
concentrations
of
chemicals
in
mixtures
or
other
trade
name
products
that
they
process,
otherwise
use,
or
manufacture
as
impurities.
If
the
amount
of
reportable
toxics
in
a
mixture
or
trade
name
product
is
at
a
concentration
of
less
than
0.1
percent
for
a
carcinogen
or
less
than
1
percent
for
all
other
non­
PBT
chemicals,
then
a
facility
is
exempt
from
counting
that
chemical
as
part
of
its
TRI
reporting
responsibility.

These
requirements
mirror
the
OSHA
requirements
that
exempt
reporting
of
these
same
concentrations
on
Material
Safety
Data
Sheets
(
MSDSs).
The
de
minimis
concentration
exemption
does
not
apply
to
PBT
chemicals,
although
the
MSDSs
are
not
required
to
report
such
small
concentrations.

Many
TRI
facilities
use
the
MSDSs
that
accompany
mixtures
and
trade
name
products
to
determine
chemical
concentrations
for
TRI
reporting.
Therefore,
MSDSs
may
not
provide
accurate
concentration
listings
or
any
listing
below
the
de
minimis
concentration
levels,
especially
if
the
chemicals
listed
include
an
ingredient
that
is
a
trade
secret.
If
TRI
facilities
are
to
comply
strictly
with
reporting
requirements
for
PBT
chemicals,
then
they
may
need
to
make
costly
assessments
of
the
missing
data.
One
consultant
to
small
business
on
TRI
reporting
contends
that
many
facilities
that
deal
with
lead
and
lead
compounds
are
currently
not
reporting
and
that
revision
of
these
reporting
requirements
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
17
would
result
in
the
largest
burden
reduction
in
the
TRI
program.
14
The
consultant
suggests
that
the
de
minimis
exemption
be
reinstated
for
lead
and
lead
compounds,
except
when
a
product
containing
lead
is
combusted.
He
asserts:

Do
we
care
that
there
is
lead
in
the
lumber
to
make
wooden
products,
the
anthracite
coal
for
filtering
our
water,
a
trace
in
aluminum
or
plastics,
or
in
leaded
solder?
If
this
were
adequately
reported
by
industry,
there
would
be
far
more
R
forms
filed
than
there
are 
We
might
care
about
lead
in
wood
waste
combusted
in
boilers
and
vented
to
the
atmosphere.
This
rule
needs
to
be
changed.

2.3
Eligibility
Criteria
for
Reporting
with
Form
R
and
Form
A
When
TRI
reporting
commenced
in
1987,
only
Form
R
existed.
Form
R
was
expanded
after
the
Pollution
Prevention
Act
of
1990
mandated
additional
reporting
requirements.

In
November
1994,
EPA
promulgated
an
alternate
TRI
reporting
threshold
and
created
Form
A
to
relieve
some
facilities'
reporting
burden.
Using
1992
TRI
data,
EPA
estimated
that
about
20,100
of
the
82,000
Form
R's
(
nearly
25
percent)
would
qualify
for
Form
A
at
the
500­
pound
threshold.
The
Form
A
Certification
Statement
was
first
used
in
reporting
year
1995.

EPA's
1994
Response
to
Comments
for
the
rule
instituting
Form
A
emphasized
that
Form
A
satisfied
the
legal
requirement
that
TRI
reports
capture
a
substantial
majority
of
releases.
Most
importantly,
EPA
found
that
the
certification
statement
itself
conveyed
an
adequate
level
of
information
to
the
public
about
the
particular
chemical.
That
document
explained:

14
Stakeholder
Dialogue,
Ed
Zarger
representing
AGI­
Aegis
Co.,
December
10,
2003,
TRI­
2003­
0001­
0052.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
18
[
The]
certification
statement...
serves
to
satisfy
the
statutory
requirement
of
section
313(
f)(
2)
for
reporting
to
be
obtained
on
a
substantial
majority
of
releases
of
a
chemical [
A]
certification
statement
is
necessary
in
order
to
maintain
public
right­
to­
know
and
to
meet
the
statutory
`
substantial
majority'
of
releases
requirement.
The
certification
statement
relates
to
a
range
volume
for
a
given
chemical
contained
in
total
waste
that
can
have
multiple
connections
to
quantitative
line
items
as
reported
on
Form
R...
EPA
believes
that
the
category
and
level
established
in
this
final
rule
are
such
that
replacement
of
full
Form
Rs,
for
these
eligible
reports,
with
certification
statements
provides
the
public
with
an
adequate
level
of
information.
15
In
justifying
the
creation
of
Form
A,
EPA
declared
that
it
was
balancing
the
reduced
reporting
burden
against
the
potential
loss
of
data.
EPA
noted
that
capture
of
99.95
percent
of
the
releases
and
transfers
data
in
the
full
Form
R
was
an
appropriate
level
of
information
for
the
public.
The
analysis
accompanying
the
final
rule
instituting
Form
A
stated:

EPA
has
established
the
alternate
threshold
for
manufacture,
process,
or
otherwise
use
of
1
million
pounds
in
order
to
provide
those
facilities
with
annual
reportable
amounts
not
exceeding
500
pounds
per
chemical
with
a
lower
burden
reporting
option,
while
preserving
more
detailed
data
for
facilities
that
manufacture,
process,
or
otherwise
use
larger
volumes
of
chemicals.
A
1
million
pound
alternate
threshold
for
amounts
manufactured
or
processed,
with
annual
reportable
amounts
not
exceeding
500
pounds,
represents
an
efficiency
of
99.95
percent
and
EPA
believes
this
level
is
likely
to
include
the
vast
majority
of
facilities
meeting
the
category.
16
EPA
also
believes
that
establishing
the
alternate
threshold
at
1
million
pounds
is
an
effective
means
to
retain
more
detailed
information
where
exceedingly
large
volumes
of
toxic
chemicals
are
managed.
17
15
EPA
Response
to
Comments,
Form
A
Rule,
1994,
pp.
52,
54.
16
EPA
cites
99.95
percent
of
"
releases
and
transfers"
in
this
text,
while
the
same
threshold
also
captures
99.99
percent
of
the
total
production­
related
wastes
which
became
the
"
annual
reportable
amount"
in
the
final
rule.
Both
figures
can
be
found
in
Table
1
of
the
1994
Federal
Register
announcement
of
the
final
rule
implementing
Form
A.
17
"
Alternate
Threshold
for
Facilities
With
Low
annual
reportable
amounts;
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Reporting;
Community
Right­
To­
Know;
Final
Rule,"
Federal
Register,
November
30,
1994
(
59Fed.
Reg.
61488).
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
fedrgstr/
EPA­
TRI/
1994/
November/
Day­
30/
pr­
3.
html.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
19
In
1998,
representatives
from
EPA,
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
and
the
U.
S.

Small
Business
Administration's
Office
of
Advocacy
studied
Form
A
usage
based
on
RY
1996,
the
second
year
for
which
Form
A
was
available.
The
report
found
that
although
10.1
percent
of
all
reports
submitted
in
1996
were
Form
A,
26.2
percent
of
all
reports
met
the
Form
A
eligibility
criteria.
18
In
other
words,
facilities
chose
the
Form
A
option
for
fewer
than
one­
half
of
the
reports
eligible
for
it.
The
analysis
also
concluded
that
41.5
percent
of
all
facilities
required
to
report
were
eligible
to
use
Form
A
in
1996,
but
only
15.5
percent
of
them
did
so.

For
many
facilities,
reporting
relief
through
Form
A
was
short­
lived.
In
1999,
EPA
established
the
PBT
chemical
list
and
deemed
PBT
chemicals
to
be
ineligible
for
Form
A,
although
this
decision
was
widely
criticized.
Many
reporters
disputed
the
wisdom
of
denying
this
option
for
all
PBT
reports,
particularly
for
reports
showing
minimal
or
zero
releases
to
the
local
community.
Beginning
in
RY
2001,
lead
and
lead
compounds
joined
the
PBT
chemical
list
and
Form
R
filings
for
these
chemicals
increased
fourfold
(
from
2,025
reports
in
RY
2000
to
8,734
in
RY
2001).

Under
current
regulations,
facilities
are
required
to
file
annual
Form
R's
if
they
(
1)
operate
in
certain
manufacturing,
mining,
and
other
industries
(
2)
manufacture,
process,
or
otherwise
use
certain
quantities
of
listed
toxic
chemicals
or
chemical
categories
above
the
applicable
threshold
(
3)
are
a
facility
with
ten
or
more
employees
and
18
Analysis
of
Changes
to
the
Alternate
Threshold
Provisions,
May
18,
1998.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
20
(
4)
are
not
filing
Form
A.
19
If
a
facility
does
not
meet
all
of
these
criteria
in
a
given
year,
it
is
exempt
from
TRI
filing
for
a
particular
chemical.

For
non­
PBT
chemicals,
the
current
thresholds
are
25,000
pounds
for
chemicals
manufactured
(
including
imported)
or
processed,
and
10,000
pounds
for
chemicals
otherwise
used.
For
most
PBT
chemicals,
the
thresholds
are
lower;
a
facility
must
file
Form
R
if
it
manufactures,
processes,
or
otherwise
uses
more
than
100
pounds
of
a
single
PBT
chemical.
Highly
bioaccumulative
chemicals
have
even
lower
thresholds
(
10
pounds).
PBT
chemicals
must
be
reported
to
the
nearest
tenth
of
a
pound,
whereas
non­

PBT
chemicals
must
only
be
reported
to
the
nearest
pound.
Dioxins
have
the
most
stringent
threshold,
a
mere
tenth
of
a
gram
manufactured,
processed,
or
otherwise
used
triggers
the
reporting
requirement,
provided
that
the
facility
has
ten
or
more
employees
and
is
in
a
covered
industry.

To
qualify
for
filing
Form
A
in
lieu
of
Form
R
under
existing
regulations
for
non­
PBT
chemicals,
facilities
must:

Generate
500
or
fewer
pounds
of
total
production­
related
waste
(
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7
on
Form
R)
of
a
particular
TRI
chemical
(
the
annual
reportable
amount)
and

Manufacture,
process,
or
otherwise
handle
1
million
or
fewer
pounds
of
the
particular
chemical
(
the
alternate
threshold).

19
40
CFR
372.22
(
2004).
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
21
This
report
proposes
that
more
facilities
be
granted
reporting
relief
by
making
more
Form
R
filers
eligible
to
file
Form
A
by
making
the
following
changes:

 
Increasing
the
ARA
threshold
to
1,000,
2,000,
or
5,000
pounds,
or
 
Redefining
the
ARA
as
routine
releases
(
element
8.1
of
Form
R)
or
as
releases
and
transfers
(
elements
8.1,
8.6,
and
8.7)
and
setting
the
threshold
at
500,
1,000,

2,000,
or
5,000
pounds,
or
 
Increasing
the
threshold
to
10
million
pounds,
and
 
Allowing
PBT
reporters
to
use
Form
A.

The
report
also
proposes
modification
of
Form
A
to
include
range
estimate
information
for
quantities
of
releases
and
wastes
and
creation
of
a
new
Form
NS
that
would
permit
facilities
with
non­
significant
changes
in
production
or
release/
waste
quantities
from
one
reporting
year
to
the
next
to
file
very
brief
reports
in
subsequent
years.

Figure
3
presents
the
Form
R
filings
that
may
have
been
eligible
for
Form
A
in
2001,
in
addition
to
the
12,300
Form
A's
that
were
filed.
Nearly
10,700
non­
PBT
Form
R's
reported
500
or
fewer
pounds
of
production­
related
waste,
satisfying
the
annual
reportable
amount
criterion
for
Form
A.
If
these
facilities
were
under
the
alternate
threshold
of
1
million
pounds
manufactured,
processed,
or
otherwise
used,
then
they
could
have
filed
Form
A
in
lieu
of
Form
R
for
that
chemical
in
2001.
(
Since
facilities
are
not
required
to
disclose
the
quantity
of
toxic
chemical
manufactured,
processed,
or
otherwise
used,
the
TRI
database
cannot
be
used
to
identify
facilities
that
exceeded
the
alternate
threshold.)
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
22
Figure
3:
Form
R
Filings
That
May
Have
Been
Eligible
for
Form
A
in
2001
Total
Production­
Related
Waste
#
of
Forms
%
(
sum
of
8.1
through
8.7)
<=
500
lbs.
(
may
have
been
Form
A­
eligible)
10,696
15.7%
>
500
lbs.
(
not
eligible
for
Form
A)
57,329
84.3%
Total
Non­
PBT
Form
Rs
68,025
100.0%

Source:
EPA
TRI
database
(
December
2003)

Many
facilities
that
are
currently
eligible
to
file
Form
A
for
their
reports
continue
to
file
Form
R.
Some
facilities
choose
not
to
file
Form
A
because
Form
R
provides
more
information
to
TRI
data
users;
information
found
on
Form
R
can
demonstrate
that
releases
are
minimal
or
that
total
wastes
have
decreased.
Others
file
Form
R
because
they
use
multiple
chemicals,
most
of
which
do
not
qualify
for
Form
A.
For
administrative
simplicity,
they
continue
to
file
Form
R
for
all
chemicals,
even
those
that
are
eligible
for
Form
A.
Some
facilities
may
satisfy
the
500
pound
annual
reportable
amount,
yet
exceed
the
1
million
pound
alternate
threshold.
Many
are
concerned
with
EPA's
enforcement
policy
that
treats
an
erroneous
Form
A
report
as
a
TRI
nonreporter,
and
would
not
want
to
risk
making
an
error
in
its
Form
A
eligibility
status.

The
American
Petroleum
Institute,
in
its
January
2004
comments,
indicates
that
it
believes
that
this
enforcement
policy
is
the
primary
reason
for
the
reluctance
of
facilities
use
Form
A.
Instead
of
considering
erroneous
Form
A
reports
as
nonreporters,
EPA
should
treat
errors
in
completing
Form
R
and
Form
A
equally.
20
After
all,
the
primary
enforcement
priority
is
on
nonreporters,
not
those
facilities
who
willingly
identifying
20
Raising
the
annual
reportable
amount
or
the
threshold
would
also
increase
facility
confidence
in
the
Form
A
certifications,
and
allow
more
facilities
to
employ
the
form.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
23
themselves
for
scrutiny
by
EPA
enforcement
personnel.
Those
who
complete
forms
in
good
faith
should
be
treated
equally.

2.4
The
Burden
of
Reporting
When
EPA
created
the
Form
A
Certification
Statement
in
1994,
it
estimated
that
the
total
cost
to
industry
for
TRI
reporting
was
$
345
million
per
year.
21
This
figure
has
increased
over
the
past
decade
due
to
expansion
of
the
covered
chemical
list,
creation
of
the
PBT
chemical
class,
the
increased
number
of
industries
subject
to
the
reporting,
and
inflation.

According
to
the
American
Chemistry
Council,
the
total
estimated
national
reporting
cost
of
the
TRI
program
was
$
661
million
in
2001.22
In
1994,
EPA
also
estimated
the
direct
cost
savings
associated
with
completion
of
various
versions
of
Form
A
in
comparison
with
Form
R.
Under
the
current
rule,
a
facility
may
use
Form
A
if
the
annual
reportable
amount,
defined
as
total
production­
related
waste
(
the
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7
of
Form
R)
is
less
than
500
pounds.
Using
the
definition
of
ARA
in
the
current
rule,
the
cost
savings
of
Form
A
over
Form
R
is
$
916
in
the
first
year
and
$
979
per
year
for
each
subsequent
year.
23
If
the
ARA
is
based
simply
on
the
total
of
releases
and
transfers
(
the
sum
of
elements
8.1,
8.6,
and
8.7),
then
savings
with
each
Form
A
filing
are
$
1,264
in
the
first
year
and
$
1,330
in
subsequent
years.
Cost
savings
are
greater
for
the
ARA
based
on
releases
and
transfers
because
fewer
elements
21
EPA/
OPPT,
Toxic
Release
Inventory­
Small
Source
Exemption
Issues
Paper,
Appendix
B­
2,
January
27,
1994,
p.
12.
22
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
now
American
Chemistry
Council),
September
27,
1999,
Comments
to
EPA,
Table
5.
23
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
of
the
EPCRA
Section
313
Alternate
Threshold
Final
Rule,
November
18,
1994,
pp.
4­
10.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
24
are
required
in
threshold
calculations.
(
Elements
8.2
through
8.5,
energy
recovery
and
recycling,
are
excluded.)

When
the
ARA
is
defined
as
"
releases"
(
exclusively
element
8.1),
one
can
assume
that
filers
would
incur
additional
savings
over
the
releases
and
transfers
criterion
because
elements
8.6
and
8.7
would
no
longer
be
part
of
the
calculations.
This
report
assumes
an
additional
$
300
in
savings,
or
$
1630
per
Form
A.

Figure
4
displays
EPA's
existing
and
revised
burden
hour
estimates
for
Form
R
and
Form
A
in
the
first
year
of
reporting
and
in
subsequent
years
for
the
average
facility
with
one
chemical.
According
to
EPA,
facilities
save
24.4
hours
by
filing
Form
A
in
the
first
year
and
save
from
5.8
(
existing
estimate)
to
17.5
hours
(
revised
estimate)
in
subsequent
years.

Figure
4:
TRI
Burden
Hour
Estimates:
Form
R
vs.
Form
A
(
For
One
Chemical)

Activity
Existing
Revised
Estimate
Estimate
First
Year
of
Reporting
Rule
Familiarization
34.5
34.5
Compliance
Determination
16
16
Form
R
74
74
Form
A
49.6
49.6
SAVINGS
with
Form
A
24.4
24.4
Subsequent
Years
of
Reporting
Compliance
Determination
4
4
Form
R
52.1
19.5
Form
A
34.6
13.7
SAVINGS
with
Form
A
17.5
5.8
Hours
per
year
Source:
9/
24/
03
Terms
of
Clearance
Memo,
p.
4.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
25
Reporting
burden
is
higher
at
facilities
that
use
PBT
chemicals
than
at
those
that
do
not
because
the
reported
data
must
be
more
precise
and
there
is
no
de
minimis
concentration
exclusion.

These
estimates
are
for
the
direct
burden
of
federal
TRI
reporting
only.
State­
imposed
piggyback
requirements
and
other
indirect
burdens
associated
with
Form
R
filings
are
not
included.
Facilities
that
are
subject
to
piggyback
fees
and
reporting
mandates
linked
to
Form
R
filings
would
enjoy
additional
benefits
by
substituting
Form
R
with
Form
A
that
are
not
taken
into
account
in
this
table.
For
example,
Nevada
requires
facilities
to
pay
a
fee
of
$
500
per
Form
R
submitted
(
up
to
a
maximum
of
$
5,000
per
facility
operator),
but
no
fee
is
associated
with
Form
A
submittals.
24
On
its
Release
and
Pollution
Prevention
Report
(
RPPR,
also
known
as
DEQ­
114),
New
Jersey
compels
facilities
to
submit
throughput
data
not
required
on
Form
R:
amounts
of
chemical
brought
on­
site,
produced
on­
site,
consumed
in
the
manufacturing
process,
and
shipped
off­
site
in
or
as
a
product.

New
Jersey
also
has
a
lower
throughput
threshold
of
10,000
pounds
for
manufacturing
and/
or
processing
for
facilities
that
submitted
at
least
one
Form
R
(
compared
to
EPA's
25,000­
pound
threshold).

EPA
has
committed
to
reduce
paperwork
for
TRI
reporters
as
far
back
as
1997
when
it
expanded
the
TRI
list
to
new
industries
and
chemicals,
including
hundreds
of
new
small
business
reporters,
particularly
the
chemical
and
petroleum
wholesalers.
OMB
has
asked
EPA
to
consider
paperwork
reduction
in
the
review
of
a
series
of
Information
Collection
24
Nevada
Revised
Statutes
(
NRS)
459.744(
1)(
d).
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
26
Requests
since
1996,
including
examination
of
several
of
the
options
discussed
in
this
report.
EPA
formulated
options
for
the
National
Advisory
Council
for
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology
(
NACEPT)
in
1998,
but
the
committee
never
delivered
any
formal
recommendations
to
the
agency,
and
no
action
was
taken.
The
current
Stakeholder
Dialogue
is
EPA's
most
recent
effort
to
address
this
issue.

In
OMB's
October
1,
1996,
Terms
of
Clearance
for
TRI
data
collection,
OMB
stated,

"
EPA
should
seek
to
make
changes,
where
appropriate,
to
the
program
such
that
they
are
effective
for
the
1997
report
filed
in
July
of
1998."
OMB
specifically
requested
that
EPA
"
check
its
projections
of
reductions
in
paperwork
burden
against
the
actual
number
of
the
Forms
A
submitted"
and
that
EPA
"
should
examine
the
effects
of
adopting
a
higher
reportable
amount
such
as
1,000
or
5,000
pounds
and
of
raising
the
alternate
threshold
from
1
million
pounds
to
5
or
10
million
pounds."
Furthermore,
OMB
asked
EPA
to
evaluate
exclusion
of
recycling
and
energy
recovery
from
the
ARA
and
to
explore
the
possibility
of
using
releases
rather
than
wastes
as
the
basis
for
reporting.
Instead
of
burden
relief,
EPA
has
increased
TRI
requirements
since
OMB's
1996
request
by
adding
several
industry
sectors
to
the
program
in
1997
and
by
creating
the
PBT
chemical
category
in
1999.
Facilities
required
to
participate
in
the
TRI
still
await
relief.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
27
3
Reporting
Challenges
With
over
95,000
forms
filed
annually
by
nearly
25,000
facilities
in
myriad
industries,

TRI
reporters
have
substantial
experience
with
the
program.
Many
have
critiqued
the
reporting
process
in
the
current
Stakeholder
Dialogue
Phase
II
and
in
other
forums
over
the
years.
Facilities
with
zero
or
small
releases
question
whether
the
value
of
their
data
justifies
their
reporting
effort.
The
current
definition
of
the
annual
reportable
amount
(
total
production­
related
waste,
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7
of
Form
R),
excludes
thousands
of
facilities
from
using
the
Form
A
option
because
their
non­
release
activities
(
energy
recovery,
recycling,
or
treatment)
cause
them
to
exceed
the
500
pound
total
waste
threshold.
Persistent
bioacculumative
toxic
(
PBT)
chemicals,
especially
lead
and
lead
compounds,
have
introduced
additional
reporting
issues
unique
to
their
classification
(
ineligibility
for
Form
A,
inability
to
use
range­
reporting
on
sections
5
and
6
of
Form
R,

and
loss
of
the
de
minimis
concentration
exemption).

This
section
presents
TRI
reporting
concerns
from
the
perspectives
of
facilities
that
do
not
deal
with
PBTs
and
those
that
do.
It
also
discusses
a
proposal
to
change
the
frequency
of
reporting
to
every
other
year.

3.1
Concerns
of
Non­
PBT
Reporting
Facilities
Some
stakeholders
say
that
the
current
ARA
(
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7)
is
an
overly
broad
threshold
for
Form
A
eligibility.
One
consultant
who
advises
small
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
28
businesses
on
the
TRI
has
advocated
that
the
ARA
be
limited
to
releases
(
element
8.1)

because
"[
t]
his
is
the
area
most
likely
to
be
of
concern
to
the
public."
25
In
comments
on
the
creation
of
Form
A
in
1994,
commenters
almost
universally
opposed
the
establishment
of
a
waste­
based
threshold
because
(
1)
the
threshold
was
not
risk­
based,

(
2)
there
would
be
considerably
less
paperwork
savings,
and
(
3)
it
was
a
disincentive
to
pollution
prevention.

Many
facilities
assert
that
their
reports
containing
zero
or
small
releases
do
not
contribute
meaningfully
to
the
TRI
database.
An
Iowa
tire
retreading
firm
reported
a
release
of
four
pounds
of
zinc
to
a
sewer
and
100
pounds
of
zinc
in
air
emissions
because
the
rubber
that
it
processes
has
a
2
percent
zinc
content.
A
facility
representative
commented,
"
I
know
I
speak
for
other
environmental
managers
when
I
remind
you
that
our
real
job
is
on
the
production
floor,
assisting
in
waste
reduction.
Generating
a
report
showing
that
4
pounds
per
year
of
zinc
was
discharged
to
the
sewer
is
not
time
well
spent."
26
A
Massachusetts
paper
manufacturer
reported
zero
release
of
two
chemicals,
sulfuric
acid
and
phosphoric
acid,
which
are
neutralized
in
the
facility's
wastewater.
Source
reduction
is
not
a
viable
option
for
this
facility.
Sulfuric
acid
is
used
to
adjust
the
pH
of
recycled
pulp;
the
company
and
Massachusetts
cannot
identify
any
alternative.
Phosphoric
acid
is
used
only
as
a
nutrient
to
aid
in
wastewater
treatment.
A
facility
manager
writes:

25
Stakeholder
Dialogue,
Ed
Zarger
representing
AGI­
Aegis
Co.,
December
10,
2003,
TRI­
2003­
0001­
0052.
26
Small
Business
Coalition
(
Coalition)
for
a
Responsible
Toxic
Release
Inventory
Policy,
Comments
in
Support
of
the
Small
Business
Administration's
August
1991
Petition
to
Exempt
"
Small
Sources"
of
TRI
Emissions
from
the
TRI
Database,
Jan.
8,
1993,
p.
6.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
29
Thus,
we
are
forced
to
report
chemicals
for
which
we
have
no
releases
due
to
on
site
treatment.
In
the
case
of
one
chemical,
there
is
no
substitute.
In
the
other
case,
it
is
used
exclusively
in
the
pollution
control
process.
What
purpose
does
the
reporting
serve?
Does
the
information
help
us
do
anything
differently?
No.
27
The
animal
feed
industry
also
copes
with
TRI
reporting
requirements
that
seem
to
add
little
value
to
community
right­
to­
know.
Nickel
is
a
catalyst
in
some
feed
products,
but
only
163
pounds
were
reported
released
in
1989
for
the
whole
industry.
Of
the
facilities
that
reported
zinc
releases,
nearly
half
had
releases
of
ten
pounds
or
less.
Manufacturers
of
poultry
and
livestock
feed
indicate
that
in
over
90
percent
of
their
reports,
less
than
500
pounds
of
copper,
zinc,
and
manganese
compounds
are
reported
to
be
released.

Many
facilities
in
the
food
processing
industry
would
qualify
for
Form
A
if
energy
recovery,
recycling,
and
treatment
were
excluded
from
the
ARA
definition.
Many
acid
users
in
the
food
industry
are
ineligible
for
Form
A
because
their
neutralization
of
acids
is
counted
as
on­
site
treatment
of
toxic
chemicals
(
element
8.6
of
Form
R),
causing
them
to
exceed
Form
A's
threshold
of
500
pounds
of
total
production­
related
waste
(
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7).
They
argue
that
it
is
inappropriate
to
include
treatment
in
the
ARA
because
it
penalizes
facilities
that
have
no
releases
of
the
chemical.

A
release­
based
threshold
is
closer
to
congressional
intent
in
establishing
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory.
Since
release
into
the
environment
is
most
directly
related
to
risk,
the
27
Small
Business
Coalition
(
Coalition)
for
a
Responsible
Toxic
Release
Inventory
Policy,
Comments
in
Support
of
the
Small
Business
Administration's
August
1991
Petition
to
Exempt
"
Small
Sources"
of
TRI
Emissions
from
the
TRI
Database,
Jan.
8,
1993,
p.
7.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
30
interest
in
the
detailed
information
about
a
facility
generally
correlates
with
the
amount
of
release.
In
addition,
the
statutory
requirement
to
capture
a
"
substantial
majority"
of
releases
argues
for
a
release­
based
concept.

Since
there
is
little
risk
associated
even
with
facilities
that
perform
on­
site
recycling
or
energy
recovery,
information
about
these
activities
generally
is
of
less
concern
to
the
local
community.
Some
argue
that
such
reports
are
relevant
under
the
Pollution
Prevention
Act
because
they
provide
information
to
the
public
about
other
waste
management
activities,
such
as
treatment,
energy
recovery,
and
recycling.
Others
have
stated
that
the
pollution
prevention
reporting
requirements
are
only
applicable
to
Form
R
reporters,
and
that
the
Pollution
Prevention
Act
did
not
modify
the
original
requirements
of
the
TRI
statute
as
to
who
should
be
required
to
report.
Specifically,
the
PPA
specifies
that
EPA
include
"
with
each
annual
filing
a
toxic
chemical
source
reduction
and
recycling
report."
28
This
language
shows
that
the
PPA
"
source
reduction
and
recycling
report"
supplements
the
TRI
report,
where
it
applies.
The
PPA
also
specifically
reiterates
that
no
provision
of
the
PPA
amends
or
modifies
the
TRI
requirements.
Thus,
EPA
is
free
to
modify
the
TRI
requirements
(
such
as
modifying
the
ARA)
under
the
provisions
of
EPCRA
without
any
concern
that
it
is
contravening
the
PPA
requirements.

In
addition,
those
who
have
small
releases
generally
have
little
or
no
pollution
prevention
activity
to
perform.
For
example,
the
National
Soft
Drink
Association,
in
its
1994
comments,
indicated
that
soft
drink
manufacturers
commonly
use
over
10,000
pounds
of
phosphoric
acid
each
year,
with
no
releases
into
the
environment
(
it
is
a
soft
drink
28
PPA
section
6607(
a).
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
31
ingredient)
and
supported
eligibility
for
Form
A
based
on
release
quantities.
"
For
a
food
processor
whose
only
reportable
substance
is
an
FDA­
approved
food
ingredient
for
which
there
are
zero
releases,
[
it]
is
an
absolute
absurdity.
There
is
neither
a
`
source'

which
merits
reduction
nor
any
`
pollution'
to
prevent."

Facilities
in
the
chemical
and
petroleum
wholesale
industries
also
report
low
levels
of
releases.
EPA
extended
TRI
reporting
requirements
to
chemical
and
petroleum
wholesalers
in
1997
despite
the
Office
of
Advocacy's
opposition
on
the
grounds
that
their
releases
to
the
environment
were
insignificant.
Subsequent
data
releases
have
confirmed
that
releases
by
the
chemical
and
petroleum
wholesale
industry
were
at
low
levels.
In
2001,
these
industries
accounted
for
8.5
percent
of
all
TRI
reports
filed
but
only
0.4
percent
of
all
toxic
releases
to
the
environment.
29
Most
significantly,
a
release­
based
threshold
provides
another
important
tool
in
promotion
of
pollution
prevention.
All
facilities
that
release
TRI
chemicals
in
excess
of
the
release­
based
exemption
level
would
strive
to
get
below
that
level
to
receive
substantial
paperwork
and
regulatory
relief.
Therefore,
a
release­
based
reporting
exemption
should
provide
an
important
new
incentive
for
pollution
prevention.

Elimination
of
data
on
minimal
releases
would
allow
EPA,
the
states,
and
the
public
to
focus
on
significant
sources
of
toxic
chemical
emission.
EPA
could
direct
its
enforcement
resources
to
facilities
that
are
more
likely
to
affect
the
environment.

29
Written
Statement
of
Thomas
Sullivan,
Chief
Counsel
for
Advocacy,
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration,
Subcommittee
on
Energy
and
Minerals
Committee
on
Natural
Resources
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives
On
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Rule:
Costs,
Compliance,
and
Science,
September
25,
2003,
p.
3.
See
proposal
IV,
Section
4.4
for
further
discussion
of
this
issue.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
32
Protection
of
the
environment
would
be
better
served
if
EPA
used
the
several
million
dollars
it
currently
spends
on
collecting,
reviewing,
and
maintaining
the
minimal
release
data
for
other
purposes
such
as
enhancing
the
public
accessibility
of
the
database
or
implementing
measures
that
actually
protect
the
environment.
Furthermore,
as
a
matter
of
fairness,
a
facility
should
not
bear
the
stigma
of
being
labeled
a
TRI
facility
when,
in
fact,
its
releases
are
inconsequential.

3.2
Concerns
of
PBT
Reporting
Facilities
EPA
regulations
designated
a
class
of
persistent
bioaccumulative
toxic
(
PBT)
chemicals
beginning
with
reporting
year
1999.
In
RY
2001,
lead
and
lead
compounds
were
added
to
the
PBT
chemical
list,
and
facilities
that
manufacture,
process,
or
otherwise
use
more
than
100
pounds
were
required
to
file
Form
R.
30
EPA
added
lead
and
lead
compounds
to
the
PBT
chemical
list
because
it
believed
that
a
significant
amount
of
these
chemicals
were
being
released
or
treated
as
waste
and
were
not
being
reported.
Unfortunately,
with
the
exception
of
a
few
hundred
sites,
most
of
which
are
landfills
and
mines,
the
great
majority
of
new
reports
that
the
rule
generated
are
unlikely
to
be
of
interest
to
the
public.

(
The
median
on­
site
release
of
lead
and
lead­
based
compounds
is
only
one
pound.)

Lead
and
lead
compounds
constitute
a
substantial
portion
of
the
TRI
database
for
PBT
chemicals.
As
shown
in
Figure
5,
lead
and
lead
compounds
accounted
for
59.3
percent
of
the
Form
R's
filed
for
PBT
chemicals
in
2001.
Lead
and
lead
compounds
comprised
30
The
lower
reporting
threshold
for
lead
applies
to
all
lead
except
when
it
is
alloyed
with
stainless
steel,
brass,
or
bronze.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
33
97.5
percent
of
non­
dioxin
PBT
on­
site
releases
(
subset
of
element
8.1)
and
96.4
percent
of
non­
dioxin
PBT
total
production­
related
waste
(
sum
of
elements
8.1­
8.7)
in
2001.

Figure
5:
Lead
and
Lead
Compound
vs.
Total
Non­
Dioxin
PBT
Filings
in
2001
#
of
%
of
On­
site
%
of
Total
Production
%
of
Forms
Forms
Releases
On­
site
Related
Waste
Total
(
lbs.)
Releases
(
lbs.)
Waste
Lead/
Lead
Compounds
8,734
59.3%
389,571,429
97.5%
1,270,104,976
96.4%
Other
Non­
Dioxin
PBT
Chemicals
6,000
40.7%
9,814,745
2.5%
46,908,146
3.6%
Total
Non­
Dioxin
PBT
Chemicals
14,734
100.0%
399,386,174
100.0%
1,317,013,122
100.0%

Source:
Compiled
from
EPA
Form
R
database
(
December
2003)

Reports
for
lead
and
lead
compounds
more
than
quadrupled
in
2001
as
a
result
of
the
lowered
reporting
threshold
for
these
chemicals.
Whereas
only
2,025
forms
were
filed
for
lead
and
lead
compounds
in
2000,
8,734
forms
were
filed
in
2001
after
the
threshold
was
lowered.
The
American
Chemistry
Council
has
estimated
the
national
costs
for
TRI
reporting
for
RY
1998
through
RY
2001.
Between
RY
2000
and
2001,
it
estimates
that
total
costs
increased
from
$
607.5
million
to
$
660.8
million,
largely
due
to
the
lowered
threshold
for
lead
and
lead
products.
31
Many
Form
R's
for
lead
and
lead
compounds
indicate
no
or
insignificant
on­
site
releases.

In
2001,
3,220
facilities
reported
zero
on­
site
releases
of
lead
and
lead
compounds.
32
Some
of
these
zero­
release
sites
are
concentrated
in
certain
industries:
nearly
90
percent
of
the
276
petroleum
bulk
terminals
(
SIC
5171)
in
the
lead
and
lead
compounds
TRI
database
for
2001
had
zero
on­
site
releases.

31
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
now
American
Chemistry
Council),
September
27,
1999,
Comments
to
EPA,
Estimated
National
Costs
for
TRI
Reporting,
1998­
2001.
32
Compiled
from
EPA
Form
R
database
(
December
2003).
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
34
Figure
6
shows
that
the
mean
on­
site
release
from
a
TRI
lead
and
lead
compound
facility
is
44,604
pounds
versus
a
median
of
a
mere
1.0
pound.
33
Routine
releases
(
including
both
on­
site
and
off­
site
releases)
averaged
49,628
pounds
in
2001.34
The
median
routine
release
of
lead
and
lead
compounds
was
24
pounds.
The
mean
total
production­
related
waste
at
TRI
lead
and
lead
compound
facilities
was
145,421
pounds
compared
to
a
median
of
392
pounds.
The
large
variance
between
the
mean
and
the
median
reflects
the
fact
that
there
are
thousands
of
very
small
release
reports
(
see
section
4.2
below),
and
40
sites
with
releases
in
excess
of
1
million
pounds
(
landfills
and
mines).
The
high
number
of
insignificant
reports
provides
EPA
with
a
large
opportunity
to
make
revisions
to
the
TRI
reporting
requirements
for
these
facilities
without
harming
the
utility
of
the
database.

Figure
6:
Mean
and
Median
Lead/
Lead
Compounds
On­
Site
Releases,
Routine
Releases,
&
Total
Waste
in
2001
On­
Site
Routine
Total
Production­
Related
Releases
(
lbs.)
Releases
(
lbs.)
Waste
(
lbs.)
(
8.1)
(
8.1
through
8.7)
Mean
44,604
49,628
145,421
Median
1
24
392
Source:
Compiled
from
EPA
Form
R
database
RY
2001(
December
2003)

TRI
reporters
with
low
releases
and
wastes
of
lead
and
lead
compounds
are
frustrated
with
the
annual
Form
R
reporting
requirement.
So
long
as
a
facility
manufactures,

processes,
or
otherwise
uses
100
pounds
of
lead
and
lead
compounds,
it
must
file
a
Form
33
The
mean
is
skewed
by
large
mining
operations.
For
example,
the
Red
Dog
zinc
concentrates
mine
in
Alaska
alone
accounted
for
nearly
one­
third
of
all
on­
site
releases
of
lead
and
lead
compounds
in
2001.
34
Routine
releases
are
defined
as
normal
production­
related
releases
excluding
one­
time
events
reported
in
section
8.8
of
Form
R.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
35
R,
even
if
all
of
the
lead
is
incorporated
into
a
product
and
none
is
released.
Proposal
II
in
Section
4
of
this
report
proposes
that
lead
and
lead
compounds
facilities
be
permitted
to
file
a
Form
NS
in
years
when
a
facility
releases
fewer
than
five
pounds
on­
site.

Alternatively,
EPA
could
employ
a
modified
Form
A
for
PBTs
(
to
reflect
the
lower
reporting
threshold).

As
discussed
above
in
section
2.2.3,
reporters
of
non­
PBT
chemicals
have
a
de
minimis
concentration
exemption
that
allows
them
to
exclude
concentrations
of
non­
PBT
chemicals
of
less
than
1.0
percent
(
0.1
percent
for
carcinogens)
from
their
quantity
calculations.
Since
this
exemption
is
not
available
to
PBT
chemicals,
the
inclusion
of
lead/
lead
products
on
the
PBT
list
in
RY
2001
forced
large
numbers
of
facilities
to
file
reports.

At
least
three
commenters
in
the
Stakeholder
Dialogue
have
called
for
lead
and
lead
compounds
to
be
eligible
for
the
de
minimis
concentration
exemption,
as
they
were
before
EPA
added
them
to
the
PBT
chemical
list
in
2001.
A
commenter
in
the
food
package
manufacturing
industry
states
that
suppliers
guarantee
that
lead
is
not
present
below
100
parts
per
million
in
polyethylene
resin
that
is
used
to
make
the
containers.
35
According
to
the
commenter,
the
Food
and
Drug
Administration
and
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
believe
that
lead
below
that
threshold
cannot
adversely
affect
the
food
that
it
contacts.
The
commenter
observes:

How
can
lead
 
be
harmful
to
a
landfill
when
bound
up
in
plastic,
when
it
does
not
even
present
a
significant
risk
to
food?
The
EPA
is
being
very
35
Stakeholder
Dialogue
Phase
II,
Anonymous
Commentor,
Nov.
25,
2003,
TRI­
2003­
0001­
0028.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
36
silly
in
this
case,
unnecessarily
causing
industry
to
waste
resources
and
harm
the
EPA's
credibility.

A
comment
from
the
wood
products
industry
addressed
the
issue
of
lead
as
an
impurity
in
lumber.
36
The
commenter
observed
that
two
of
his
wood
processing
facilities
had
zero
releases;
the
third
had
less
than
one
pound.
However,
the
lack
of
a
de
minimis
exemption
for
lead
causes
the
company
to
submit
three
Form
R's
per
year.
The
commenter
implied
that
pollution
prevention
is
not
viable
and
that
his
reports
add
little
to
the
TRI
database:

Clearly
we
have
no
method
of
controlling
the
lead
in
the
raw
material
and
cannot
reduce
our
amount
processed
below
the
100
pound
threshold
unless
we
stop
processing
lumber.
Labelling
wood
products
facilities
as
lead
processing
facilities
is
misleading.

Lead
that
is
alloyed
with
stainless
steel,
brass,
or
bronze
is
currently
eligible
for
the
de
minimis
concentration
exemption.
One
commenter
proposes
that
the
exemption
be
extended
to
lead
in
all
grades
of
steel
because
"[
i]
t
is
added
for
the
same
purpose
and
has
the
same
minimal
effect
upon
the
environment."
37
The
National
Federation
of
Independent
Business
(
NFIB)
urges
EPA
to
simplify
TRI
reporting
for
lead.
"
The
guidance
documents
are
needlessly
confusing,
and
must
be
simplified
in
order
for
small
entities
to
be
certain
what
their
requirements
are,"
NFIB
says.
38
NFIB
observes
that
the
compliance
guide
for
lead
has
more
than
200
pages
and
that
other
documents
that
presumably
facilitate
reporting
are
also
lengthy.
The
lack
of
clear
guidance
is
also
costly
to
non­
filers,
as
NFIB
found
in
its
informal
survey
of
small
businesses:

36
Stakeholder
Dialogue,
Anonymous
commenter,
November
6,
2003,
TRI­
2003­
0001­
0010.
37
Stakeholder
Dialogue,
Sauer
Danfoss
comment,
November
6,
2003,
TRI­
2003­
0001­
0004.
38
Karen
Harned,
NFIB
Legal
Foundation,
et.
al.
to
EPA
Document
Control
Office,
Dec.
22,
2003,
p.
2.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
37
Perhaps
the
most
interesting
response
 
was
from
the
business
owner
who
reported
that
he
did
not
have
to
comply
with
TRI
filing,
but
he
had
to
spend
"
17­
40
hours
to
make
sure."
Clearly,
the
EPA
needs
to
use
better
and
more
succinct
executive
summaries
in
the
guidance
documents
to
enable
business
owners
to
ascertain
relatively
quickly
whether
compliance
is
in
fact
required.
All
of
this
searching
process
(
at
about
$
50
per
hour)
is
another
added
cost
of
perhaps
$
1000
(
20
hours
at
$
50
per
hour)
to
a
small
business
owner.
39
NFIB
also
contends
that
releases
are
difficult
to
estimate
because
EPA
has
provided
emissions
factors
for
few
industry
sectors.
40
Furthermore,
NFIB
noted
that
the
removal
of
the
de
minimis
concentration
exemption
for
lead
is
problematic
because
supplier
notification
of
such
low
concentration
levels
is
not
required.
41
As
a
result,
facilities
are
uncertain
what
to
report.
"
Our
members
want
to
do
the
right
thing,"
NFIB
says,
"
but
find
themselves
hamstrung
by
having
to
spend
time
and
energy
figuring
out
just
what
it
is
that
the
government
wants."
42
As
stated
earlier,
the
de
minimis
concentration
provision
is
based
on
the
equivalent
provision
in
OSHA's
MSDS
requirements.
Based
on
the
above
comments,
EPA
should
reinstate
the
de
minimis
concentration
provision
for
PBT
reporters.
Proposal
II
in
Section
4
of
this
report
suggests
that
a
different
type
of
de
minimis
standard
be
established
for
lead
and
lead
compounds
in
conjunction
with
a
new
Form
NS
(
one
based
on
a
de
minimis
on­
site
release,
not
a
de
minimis
concentration).
Facilities
that
manufacture,
process,
or
otherwise
use
more
than
100
pounds
of
lead
and
lead
compounds
would
be
required
to
file
Form
R
every
five
years,
if
their
on­
site
releases
do
not
exceed
5
pounds
and
other
39
Id.
at
8.
40
Id.
at
6.
41
Id.
42
Id.
at
9.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
38
criteria
are
satisfied.
Many
of
those
who
would
qualify
for
the
current
de
minimis
relief
would
be
eligible
for
this
type
of
de
minimis
relief
under
the
Form
NS.

3.3
Frequency
of
Reporting
The
American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC)
is
one
of
many
TRI
stakeholders
supporting
a
biennial
reporting
system
for
the
TRI
program.
43
The
ACC
reviewed
on­
site
release
data
(
Form
R,
section
5)
for
1995,
1996,
and
1997
and
concluded
that
the
majority
of
forms
reported
decreases,
zero
releases,
no
changes,
or
minor
increases
in
on­
site
releases.
Its
analysis
of
year­
to­
year
on­
site
release
changes
from
1995
to
1996
and
from
1996
to
1997
showed
than
82
percent
of
Form
R's
and
A's
filed
reported
either
no
change
or
an
increase
or
decrease
between
one
and
499
pounds.
ACC
argued,
"
EPA
is
requiring
facilities
to
spend
nearly
$
3,000
per
Form
R,
and
nearly
$
2,500
per
Form
A,
to
report
virtually
identical
data
on
a
year­
to­
year
basis."
44
In
sum,
biennial
reporting
would
provide
very
significant
savings,
but
does
not
provide
any
information
in
the
off­
reporting
years.
The
Form
NS,
on
the
other
hand,
has
the
advantage
of
providing
significant
information
to
the
community
in
the
off­
reporting
years,
but
still
captures
significant
reporting
savings.
Form
NS
may
balance
better
the
right­
to­
know
benefits
with
the
industry
burdens.

43
Letter,
James
M.
Solyst,
American
Chemistry
Council,
to
John
Spotila,
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
June
12,
2000.
The
ACC
observes
that
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
has
a
biennial
reporting
system.
44
ACC
letter,
p.
3.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
39
4
Proposed
Reforms
4.1
Proposal
I:
Enhance
Form
A
and
Expand
Eligibility
Proposal
I
would
greatly
reduce
the
TRI
reporting
burden
by
expanding
eligibility
for
Form
A.
An
Enhanced
Form
A
would
be
created
to
preserve
aggregate
data
quality.

This
proposal
is
based
on
Option
3
in
the
Phase
II
Stakeholder
Dialogue.
Currently,
non­

PBT
chemicals
with
annual
total
production­
related
wastes
(
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7
of
Form
R)
of
less
than
or
equal
to
500
pounds
may
be
reported
on
Form
A.
Proposal
I
would
broaden
eligibility
for
Form
A
by
increasing
the
annual
reportable
amount
from
the
current
500
pounds,
or
by
redefining
the
ARA
(
currently,
the
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7),
or
some
combination
of
both.
Thousands
of
Form
R
filers
would
be
able
to
switch
to
Form
A,
saving
facilities
and
regulators
millions
of
dollars
per
year
in
reporting
and
processing
costs.
Proposal
I
would
preserve
TRI
program
data
quality
by
enhancing
Form
A
to
provide
range
estimates
of
certain
release
and
waste
quantities
now
reported
only
on
Form
R.

Expansion
of
Form
A
eligibility
is
justified
in
that
it
tailors
the
reporting
burden
on
the
facility
to
the
risk
it
poses
to
the
community,
as
discussed
earlier.
EPA
found
that
it
could
reasonably
use
Form
A
to
address
99.99
percent
of
total
production­
related
waste,

without
any
detriment
to
the
community's
right­
to­
know
in
1994.
Thus
99.99
percent
is
a
reasonable
benchmark
in
2004
for
TRI
data
comprehensiveness
through
Form
R's.
Also,

as
described
above,
the
revised
Form
A
reporting
should
also
provide
a
reasonable
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
40
amount
of
information
to
inform
the
community.
The
enhanced
Form
A
would
provide
the
same
information
as
the
current
Form
A
plus
additional
data
on
toxic
chemical
release
and
waste
practices.

4.1.1
Increase
the
Minimum
Threshold
of
the
Annual
Reportable
Amount
The
annual
reportable
amount,
currently
defined
as
the
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7,

could
be
increased
from
the
current
500
pounds
to
1,000,
2,000,
or
5,000
pounds.
Figure
7
shows
how
the
various
thresholds
potentially
would
have
affected
non­
PBT
chemical
Form
R
filings
in
2001.45
Many
facilities
that
are
now
potentially
eligible
for
Form
A
still
file
Form
R's.
Figure
7
shows
that
at
the
existing
500­
pound
level,
nearly
10,700
Form
R
filings
could
be
reported
on
Form
A.
This
would
be
in
addition
to
the
12,295
Form
A
reports
filed.

Figure
7:
Estimated
Impacts
of
Various
Thresholds
With
Existing
ARA
(
Total
Production­
Related
Waste:
Sum
of
Elements
8.1­
8.7)
46
Threshold
#
of
%
of
#
of
Newly
(
lbs.)
Non­
PBT
Non­
PBT
Eligible
Form
R's
Form
R's
Reports
Affected
Affected
500
(
full
use)
10,696
15.7
0
1,000
13,997
20.6
3,301
2,000
17,719
26.0
7,023
5,000
23,253
34.2
12,557
Source:
EPA,
Stakeholder
Dialogue
Phase
II­
Burden
Reduction
Options,
Table
2
(
based
on
non­
PBT
Form
R
filings
for
RY
2001).

45
Note
that
facilities
that
exceed
the
alternate
threshold
amount
(
now
1
million
pounds)
are
ineligible
for
Form
A
even
if
their
total
production­
related
waste
(
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7)
of
a
particular
non­
PBT
chemical
is
500
pounds
or
less.
The
number
of
such
facilities
is
unknown,
but
is
believed
to
be
small.
Figures
in
this
section
disregard
the
alternate
threshold
amount
and
assume
that
all
facilities
that
satisfy
the
total
waste
ARA.
46
These
reports
are
in
addition
to
the
12,295
Form
A's
that
were
already
filed
for
RY
2001.
The
10,696
reports
at
the
500­
lb.
level
are
already
eligible
to
the
Form
A,
and
thus
a
total
of
22,991
or
33.8
percent
of
all
non­
PBT
chemical
TRI
reports
are
currently
eligible
for
the
Form
A.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
41
At
the
1,000­
pound
threshold
level,
nearly
14,000
Form
R's
could
be
reported
on
Form
A,
an
additional
3,301
forms
compared
to
the
current
rule.
One
thousand
pounds
would
be
an
appropriate
threshold
because
currently,
quantities
under
1,000
pounds
in
sections
5
and
6
of
Form
R
can
be
reported
with
range
codes.
Since
exact
quantities
under
1,000
pounds
do
not
need
to
be
reported
in
other
sections
of
Form
R,
then
precise
quantities
should
not
need
to
be
reported
in
section
847;
therefore
Form
A
is
appropriate
for
such
facilities.
More
than
7,000
Form
R
filings
would
be
newly
eligible
for
Form
A
if
the
threshold
were
set
at
2,000
pounds.
If
the
threshold
were
set
at
5,000
pounds,
then
12,557
Form
R
filings
would
be
newly
eligible
for
Form
A.
The
Consumer
Specialty
Products
Association
advocates
setting
the
threshold
at
5,000
pounds.
48
Figure
8
shows
how
the
various
thresholds
would
potentially
affect
reporting
of
total
production­
related
wastes
and
total
releases,
assuming
that
all
filings
eligible
for
Form
A
were
substituted
for
Form
R's.
If
all
eligible
facilities
filed
Form
A
at
the
current
500­

pound
threshold,
then
the
remaining
Form
R's
would
capture
99.995
percent
of
production­
related
wastes
(
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7)
and
99.94
percent
of
total
releases
[
routine
releases
(
element
8.1
of
Form
R)
+
non­
routine
releases,
energy
recovery,
recycling,
and
treatment
(
element
8.8)].
49
When
the
threshold
is
1,000
pounds,

the
reduced
reporting
burden
would
eliminate
up
to
20.6
percent
of
Form
R
filings
but
still
account
for
99.99
percent
of
total
production­
related
waste
and
99.91
percent
of
total
47
See
section
4.3
on
Range­
reporting
where
this
is
addressed
in
detail.
48
Letter,
John
E.
DiFazio
Jr.,
Consumer
Specialty
Products
Association,
to
EPA
Document
Control
Office,
August
30,
2002,
p.
4.
49
Section
8.8
does
not
include
only
releases,
but
this
paper
uses
the
same
nomenclature
as
EPA
in
the
Stakeholder
Dialogue
Phase
II
document
for
consistency
and
comparability.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
42
releases.
50
At
5,000
pounds,
more
than
one­
third
of
non­
PBT
chemical
Form
R
filers
potentially
would
enjoy
reporting
relief
in
exchange
for
a
mere
0.11
percent
loss
of
production­
related
waste
data.
Nearly
99.7
percent
of
releases
would
still
be
accounted
for
on
Form
Rs.

Figure
8:
Estimated
Impacts
of
Various
Thresholds
With
Existing
ARA
(
Total
Production­
Related
Waste:
Sum
of
Elements
8.1­
8.7)

Threshold
#
of
%
of
Production­
Related
%
of
Production­
Releases
(
8.1
&
8.8)
%
of
(
lbs.)
Non­
PBT
Non­
PBT
Waste
(
8.1
thru
8.7)
Related
Waste
Not
Reported
Releases
Form
R's
Form
R's
Not
Reported
on
Form
R
(
8.1
thru
8.7)
on
Form
R
(
8.1
&
8.8)
Affected
Affected
(
millions
of
lbs.)
(
millions
of
lbs.)
500­
Full
Use
10,696
15.7%
1.32
0.005%
3.52
0.06%
1,000
13,997
20.6%
3.73
0.014%
5.20
0.09%
2,000
17,719
26.0%
9.17
0.035%
8.57
0.15%
5,000
23,253
34.2%
27.55
0.105%
18.15
0.31%

Total:
All
Form
R's
68,025
100.0%
26,221.39
100.0%
5,810.92
100.0%

Source:
EPA,
Stakeholder
Dialogue
Phase
II­
Burden
Reduction
Options,
Table
3
(
based
on
non­
PBT
Form
R
filings
for
RY
2001).

In
its
July
1994
proposal
on
the
creation
of
Form
A,
EPA
estimated
the
impact
of
a
total
waste­
based
ARA
(
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7)
on
Form
R
filings
using
RY
1991
data.
At
the
500­
pound
level,
it
concluded
that
21,300
Form
R's
would
be
eligible
for
Form
A,
resulting
in
"
losses"
of
0.01
percent
of
total
wastes
on
Form
R.
51
EPA
adopted
this
as
the
Form
A
ARA
and
reporting
threshold.

50
It
is
actually
more
than
99.91
percent
of
total
releases
because
Section
8.8
contains
one­
time
recycling,
energy
recovery,
and
treatment
as
well
as
one­
time
releases,
as
stated
earlier.
51Alternate
Threshold
for
Facilities
With
Low
annual
reportable
amounts:
Toxic
Chemical
release
Reporting;
Community
Right
to
Know;
Proposed
Rule,
59
Fed.
Reg.
35824
(
July
28,
1994),
Table
2;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
tri/
frnotices/
59fr38524.
htm..
As
discussed
above
in
Section
2.3,
in
the
preamble
to
the
1994
Form
A
rule,
EPA
found
that
a
threshold
set
at
500
pounds
represented
99.99
percent
of
total
production­
related
waste
(
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7,
Form
R)
using
RY
1991
data.
With
RY
2001
data,
the
99.99
percent
demarcation
is
somewhere
between
500
and
1,000
pounds.
In
other
words,
since
1992,
EPA
has
added
additional
non­
PBT
chemicals
and
industries
to
the
reporting
requirement
with
a
larger
proportion
of
smaller
waste
quantities
associated
with
each
report.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
43
In
1994,
EPA
viewed
99.99
percent
of
the
reporting
waste
data
to
be
adequate
reporting
under
the
current
scheme
for
Form
R's.
52
As
seen
in
Figure
8,
the
5,000­
pound
scheme
would
lower
that
percentage
to
99.89
percent.
53
The
question
becomes
whether
EPA
can
make
the
same
finding
with
respect
to
5,000
pounds
that
it
made
in
1994
with
regard
to
500
pounds.
As
discussed
earlier,
99.99
percent
was
the
1994
benchmark
of
total
reported
wastes
for
adequate
Form
R
data.
Is
99.99
percent
close
enough
to
99.89
percent?
Is
this
adequate
information
to
the
public?

If
the
ARA
were
increased
to
1,000,
2,000,
or
5,000
pounds,
TRI
facilities
potentially
would
save
millions
of
dollars
in
direct
reporting
costs,
as
seen
in
Figure
9.
As
discussed
in
Section
2.4
above,
EPA
determined
at
the
inception
of
Form
A
in
1994
that
the
cost
difference
between
completion
of
a
Form
A
and
Form
R
is
$
979
per
year
after
the
first
filing.
The
calculations
in
Figure
9
were
derived
by
multiplying
the
cost
difference
($
979)
by
the
number
of
Form
R's
eligible
for
Form
A
at
each
threshold.
Note
that
these
figures
assume
that
all
eligible
facilities
switch
to
Form
A;
actual
savings
may
be
lower.

On
the
other
hand,
since
these
calculations
do
not
include
savings
from
reduction
of
indirect
requirements,
actual
savings
would
be
likely
much
higher.

52
In
RY
1996,
the
second
year
of
Form
A
reporting,
nearly
19,000
Form
R's
were
filed
that
were
eligible
for
Form
A.
Had
all
of
these
been
substituted
with
Form
A's,
then
99.98
percent
of
production­
related
waste
would
still
be
reported.
EPA,
OMB,
&
SBA,
Analysis
of
Changes
to
the
Alternate
Threshold
Provisions
(
presented
to
the
National
Advisory
Council
for
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology,
Toxics
Data
Reporting
Committee),
May
18,
1998,
p.
9.
(
Table
2).
Since
EPA
established
this
threshold,
it
agreed
that
the
"
lost"
data
was
reasonably
be
substituted
by
the
Form
A.
53
As
seen
above
in
Figure
8,
if
the
ARA
were
set
at
5,000
pounds,
99.89
percent
of
production­
related
waste
would
still
be
reported
even
if
all
eligible
Form
R's
switched
to
Form
A.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
44
At
the
500­
pound
threshold,
if
all
eligible
facilities
used
Form
A,
they
would
collectively
save
$
10.5
million
in
direct
reporting
costs.
When
the
ARA
is
5,000
pounds,
the
savings
increase
to
$
22.8
million.
Again,
neither
estimate
accounts
for
indirect
savings.

Figure
9:
Potential
Direct
Reporting
Cost
Savings
with
Existing
ARA
(
Total
Production­
Related
Waste:
Sum
of
Elements
8.1­
8.7)
54
Option
Threshold
Non­
PBT
COST
SAVINGS
(
lbs.)
Form
R's
To
Filers
Affected
($
millions)
Current
Basis
500
(
full
use)
10,696
10.5
$
for
Threshold
1,000
13,997
13.7
$
(
8.1­
8.7)
2,000
17,719
17.3
$
5,000
23,253
22.8
$

Source:
Compiled
from
EPA
Form
R
RY
2001
database
(
December
2003)

4.1.2
Varying
the
Composition
of
the
Annual
Reportable
Amount
The
annual
reportable
amount
is
currently
determined
by
the
amount
of
total
productionrelated
waste,
the
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7
on
Form
R.
In
this
subsection,
the
composition
of
the
ARA
is
reconfigured
and
reanalyzed
at
the
500,
1,000,
2,000,
and
5,000
pound
thresholds.
In
the
first
scenario,
the
ARA
is
based
on
"
releases
and
transfers":
the
sum
of
routine
releases
(
element
8.1)
and
on­
site
and
off­
site
treatment
(
elements
8.6
and
8.7).
Unlike
the
current
ARA,
the
"
releases­
and­
transfers"
definition
of
the
ARA
excludes
energy
recovery
(
elements
8.2
and
8.3)
and
recycling
(
elements
8.4
and
8.5).
In
the
second
scenario,
the
ARA
is
defined
as
the
routine
releases
of
the
reported
chemical
(
exclusively
element
8.1).
These
scenarios
mirror
the
scenarios
in
the
Stakeholder
Dialogue
Phase
II.

54
These
contain
only
the
direct
savings,
and
not
the
greater
costs
attributable
to
savings
from
being
excluded
from
the
"
piggyback
requirements"
(
such
as
the
New
Jersey
cost
of
compiling
pollution
prevention
plans
for
each
Form
R,
irrespective
of
whether
the
chemicals
are
released
to
the
environment).
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
45
4.1.2.1
An
Annual
Reportable
Amount
Based
on
Releases
and
Transfers
This
section
discusses
reconstituting
the
ARA
based
on
releases
and
transfers.
It
would
be
the
sum
of
quantity
released
(
element
8.1),
quantity
treated
on­
site
(
8.6),
and
quantity
treated
off­
site
(
8.7).
This
option
differs
from
the
existing
threshold
in
that
it
excludes
quantity
used
for
energy
recovery
(
elements
8.2
and
8.3)
and
quantity
recycled
(
8.4
and
8.5).
During
the
1994
rulemaking
that
created
Form
A,
EPA
proposed
a
"
release
and
transfer"
eligibility
standard
for
Form
A
that
is
identical
to
the
"
releases
and
transfers"­

based
ARA
proposed
in
this
section.
55
EPA
adopted
the
alternative
ARA
based
on
total
production­
related
waste
(
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7
of
Form
R)
in
the
final
rule,

which
remains
the
current
standard
for
Form
A.

As
discussed
above
in
Section
3,
industry
advocates
urge
that
elements
8.2
through
8.5
not
be
included
in
the
Form
A
qualification
process.
Since
the
toxic
chemicals
are
consumed
in
the
energy
recovery
scheme
or
re­
used
in
the
recycling
process,
they
do
not
pose
significant
risk
to
their
communities
under
normal
circumstances
and
therefore
should
not
be
subject
to
right­
to­
know
considerations.
Furthermore,
exclusion
of
these
items
from
the
ARA
provides
incentives
to
facilities
to
perform
energy
recovery
and
recycling
activities;
these
are
beneficial
activities
that
EPA
should
encourage
because
they
generate
energy
and
keep
chemicals
within
the
production
loop
instead
of
releasing
or
disposing
of
them.
Promotion
of
energy
recovery
and
recycling
have
historically
been
major
EPA
goals
because
of
the
substantial
environmental
and
economic
benefits
55
"
Alternate
Threshold
for
Facilities
With
Low
Annual
Reportable
Amounts;
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Reporting;
Community
Right­
To­
Know;
Final
Rule,"
Federal
Register,
July
28,
1994.
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
tri/
frnotices/
59
fr
38524.
htm.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
46
associated
with
these
practices.
The
Resource
Conservation
and
the
Recovery
Act,

administered
by
EPA,
establishes
these
goals
for
the
agency.

Metals
constitute
the
bulk
of
recycled
chemicals
in
the
TRI
database.
Although
metals
may
have
high
toxicity
in
leachate
form,
most
pose
little
environmental
hazard
in
solid
form.
Since
metals
commonly
generate
sufficient
economic
savings
through
recycling,

facilities
have
an
incentive
to
release
or
dispose
of
as
little
of
them
as
possible.

Reporting
quantities
recycled
in
ranges
would
not
significantly
affect
a
community's
right
to
know,
sources
say.
56
Exclusion
of
energy
recovery
from
the
ARA
may
be
more
controversial
because
it
would
affect
public
access
to
information
about
chemicals
burned
in
cement
kilns,
hazardous
waste
incinerators,
and
municipal
waste
incinerators.
However,
all
these
sources
are
subject
to
substantial
federal
regulation
and
are
subject
to
the
TRI
reporting
requirements
for
the
combustion
product
chemicals.
Figure
10
shows
how
an
ARA
based
on
releases
and
transfers
would
affect
TRI
filings,
based
on
2001
data.
At
the
500­
pound
level,
29.1
percent
of
Form
R
filers
could
switch
to
Form
A.
With
a
5,000­
pound
threshold,
nearly
half
of
non­
PBT
Form
R
filers
could
be
switched
to
Form
A.

Figure
10:
Estimated
Impacts
of
Various
Thresholds
of
an
ARA
Based
on
Releases
and
Transfers
(
Sum
of
Form
R
Elements
8.1,
8.6,
and
8.7)

56
Policy
Planning
and
Evaluation,
Inc.,
Analysis
of
Alternative
Reporting
Thresholds
for
Toxic
Release
Inventory
Form
A,
February
18,
1998,
p.
26.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
47
Threshold
#
of
%
of
#
of
Newly
(
lbs.)
Non­
PBT
Non­
PBT
Eligible
Form
R's
Form
R's
Reports
Affected
Affected
500
19,805
29.1
9,109
1,000
24,007
35.3
13,311
2,000
28,172
41.4
17,476
5,000
33,641
49.5
22,945
Source:
EPA,
Stakeholder
Dialogue
Phase
II­
Burden
Reduction
Options,
Table
6
(
based
on
non­
PBT
Form
R
filings
for
RY
2001).

Figure
11
illustrates
how
an
ARA
based
on
releases
and
transfers
would
affect
aggregate
TRI
release
and
waste
data.
At
the
500­
pound
level,
5.3
percent
of
production­
related
waste
would
no
longer
be
reported
as
facilities
substituted
Form
A
for
Form
R.
Nearly
99.9
percent
of
releases
would
still
be
reported
on
Form
R's.
If
the
threshold
were
set
at
5,000
pounds,
90
percent
of
total
wastes
and
99.5
percent
of
releases
would
be
captured
by
the
remaining
Form
R's.

Figure
11:
Estimated
Impacts
of
Various
Thresholds
of
an
ARA
Based
on
Releases
and
Transfers
(
Sum
of
Form
R
Elements
8.1,
8.6,
and
8.7)

Threshold
#
of
%
of
Production­
Related
%
of
Production­
Releases
(
8.1
&
8.8)
%
of
(
lbs.)
Non­
PBT
Non­
PBT
Waste
(
8.1
thru
8.7)
Related
Waste
Not
Reported
Releases
Form
R's
Form
R's
Not
Reported
on
Form
R
(
8.1
thru
8.7)
on
Form
R
(
8.1
&
8.8)
Affected
Affected
(
millions
of
lbs.)
(
millions
of
lbs.)
500
19,805
29.1%
1,399.68
5.34%
5.86
0.101%
1,000
24,007
35.3%
1,698.50
6.48%
8.60
0.148%
2,000
28,172
41.4%
2,012.16
7.67%
13.68
0.235%
5,000
33,641
49.5%
2,563.18
9.78%
27.69
0.477%

Total:
All
Form
R's
68,025
100.0%
26,221.39
100.0%
5,810.92
100.000%

Source:
EPA,
Stakeholder
Dialogue
Phase
II­
Burden
Reduction
Options,
Table
7
(
based
on
non­
PBT
Form
R
filings
for
RY
2001).
.

These
results
show
less
impact
to
total
production­
related
waste
than
figures
calculated
by
EPA
in
1994
using
1992
data.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
48
Figure
12
shows
the
possible
cost
savings
that
reporters
would
enjoy
if
the
ARA
were
based
on
releases
and
transfers.
EPA's
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
for
the
original
Form
A
rule
stated
that
the
cost
difference
between
a
Form
R
and
Form
A
is
$
1,330
for
each
year
after
the
first
filing
if
the
releases
and
transfers
constitute
the
ARA.
To
calculate
the
savings
figures
in
Figure
12,
the
savings
of
$
1,330
is
multiplied
by
the
number
of
Form
R
filings
that
would
become
eligible
for
Form
A.
Savings
would
range
from
$
26.3
million
at
the
500­
pound
level
to
$
44.7
million
at
the
5,000­
pound
threshold
(
again
not
including
indirect
savings).

Figure
12:
Potential
Direct
Reporting
Cost
Savings
of
an
ARA
Based
on
Releases
and
Transfers
(
Sum
of
Elements
8.1,
8.6,
and
8.7)

Option
Threshold
Non­
PBT
COST
SAVINGS
(
lbs.)
Form
R's
To
Filers
Affected
($
millions)
Modified
Basis
500
19,805
26.3
$
for
Threshold
1,000
24,007
31.9
$
(
8.1,
8.6,
and
8.7)
2,000
28,172
37.5
$
5,000
33,641
44.7
$

Source:
EPA,
Stakeholder
Dialogue
Phase
II­
Burden
Reduction
Options,
Table
6
(
based
on
non­
PBT
Form
R
filings
for
RY
2001).

4.1.2.2
Effect
of
An
ARA
Based
on
Routine
Releases
Only
An
annual
reportable
amount
based
exclusively
on
routine
releases
(
element
8.1
of
Form
R)
is
the
narrowest
ARA
definition
considered
in
this
report.
The
current
ARA
is
defined
as
the
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7.
The
releases­
and­
transfers­
based
ARA
removes
elements
8.2
through
8.5
from
the
calculation.
The
routine­
releases
ARA
presented
in
this
section
further
removes
elements
8.6
and
8.7,
leaving
only
element
8.1.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
49
Routine
releases
constitute
an
appropriate
reporting
threshold
because
"
releases,"

especially
releases
to
air,
water,
and
underground
wells,
are
the
quintessential
components
of
the
TRI
program,
which
was
established
specifically
for
this
purpose.

Element
8.1
includes
both
on­
site
and
off­
site
releases
of
a
routine
nature;
releases
that
are
a
result
of
remedial
actions,
catastrophic
events,
or
one­
time
events
not
associated
with
production
processes
are
reported
separately
as
part
of
element
8.8.57
The
food
processing
industry
advocates
a
routine­
release­
based
ARA.
Some
food
processing
plants
use
large
quantities
of
TRI
acids
(
e.
g.
nitric
acid)
which
are
completely
neutralized
in
the
production
process,
resulting
in
large
quantities
of
chemicals
treated
on­
site
(
element
8.6
of
Form
R)
but
zero
releases
of
the
acid.
58
Polycyclic
aromatic
compounds
(
PACs),
present
in
and
created
by
combustion
of
certain
fuels,
are
also
vexing
to
TRI
reporters
in
the
industry.
The
PACs
are
coincidentally
manufactured
and
are
mostly
destroyed
by
the
combustion
process.
Using
EPA's
emission
factors,
they
are
reported
in
the
TRI
as
treated
on­
site
with
negligible
releases.
If
a
routine­
release­
based
ARA
were
imposed,
both
the
nitric
acid
and
the
PAC
facility
would
likely
become
eligible
for
Form
A.
The
public
would
learn
that
the
chemicals
are
released
at
the
facilities
in
small
quantities,
and
the
inability
to
know
the
precise
quantities
of
the
chemical
would
not
be
a
loss
of
significant
information.

57
Element
8.8
also
includes
one
time
treatment,
energy
recovery,
etc..
58
Letter,
Food
Industry
Environmental
Council
to
EPA
Docket
Center,
Oct.
6,
2003.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
50
Figure
13
analyzes
the
effects
of
a
routine­
release­
based
ARA
at
various
thresholds.
At
the
500
pound
level,
more
than
28,000
Form
R's
could
theoretically
be
replaced
with
Form
A.
This
amounts
to
41
percent
of
all
non­
PBT
chemical
Form
R's
filed
in
2001.

Figure
13:
Estimated
Impacts
of
Various
Thresholds
With
Routine
Release­
Based
ARA
(
Element
8.1
only)

Threshold
#
of
%
of
#
of
Newly
(
lbs.)
Non­
PBT
Non­
PBT
Eligible
Form
R's
Form
R's
Reports
Affected
Affected
500
28,126
41.3
17,430
1,000
33,030
48.6
22,334
2,000
37,707
55.4
27,011
5,000
43,707
64.3
33,011
Source:
EPA,
Stakeholder
Dialogue
Phase
II­
Burden
Reduction
Options,
Table
4
(
based
on
non­
PBT
Form
R
filings
for
RY
2001).

In
1999,
the
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
now
known
as
the
American
Chemistry
Council)
advocated
a
1,000­
pound
routine­
release­
based
ARA,
coupled
with
an
increase
in
the
alternate
threshold.
59
At
the
1000­
pound
release
threshold,
over
33,000
Form
R
filings
could
be
switched
to
Form
A.
Another
4,700
reports
could
switch
to
Form
A
at
the
2,000­
pound
level.
Nearly
two­
thirds
(
64
percent)
of
all
current
non­
PBT
Form
R
filers
would
be
eligible
for
Form
A
if
the
reporting
threshold
were
set
at
5,000
pounds
of
releases.

In
Figure
13,
the
"
newly
eligible
reports"
column
expresses
the
number
of
Form
R's
that
become
eligible
for
Form
A
at
each
threshold.
For
example,
of
the
28,126
Form
R's
59
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association,
TRI
Burden
Reduction
Options
(
revised
Sept.
16,
1999),
p.
23.
{
KB:
Confrim
release
based]
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
51
affected
by
the
500­
pound
threshold,
only
17,430
would
be
newly
eligible
for
Form
A
because
the
remaining
10,696
are
already
eligible
under
existing
regulations
(
Figure
7).

Figure
14
shows
the
potential
effects
of
a
routine­
release­
based
ARA
on
aggregate
TRI
reporting.
At
the
500­
pound
level,
Form
R
data
would
be
preserved
for
99.9
percent
of
all
non­
PBT
releases;
89.3
percent
of
total
production­
related
waste
would
still
be
reported
on
Form
R's.
At
the
1,000­
pound
threshold,
the
remaining
Form
R's
would
continue
to
report
99.8
percent
of
release
data.

At
the
5,000­
pound
level,
the
data
loss
concerning
releases
would
still
be
small.
If
all
eligible
facilities
switched
to
Form
A,
then
merely
0.68
percent
of
total
non­
PBT
chemical
releases
would
be
affected
as
64.3
percent
of
filers
(
43,700
forms)
obtained
relief.
The
effect
on
production­
related
waste
would
be
more
substantial,
with
over
21
percent
not
reported
on
Form
R's.

Figure
14:
Estimated
Impacts
of
Various
Thresholds
With
Routine
Release­
Based
ARA
(
Element
8.1
only)

Threshold
#
of
%
of
Production­
Related
%
of
Production­
Releases
(
8.1
&
8.8)
%
of
(
lbs.)
Non­
PBT
Non­
PBT
Waste
(
8.1
thru
8.7)
Related
Waste
Not
Reported
Releases
Form
R's
Form
R's
Not
Reported
on
Form
R
(
8.1
thru
8.7)
on
Form
R
(
8.1
&
8.8)
Affected
Affected
(
millions
of
lbs.)
(
millions
of
lbs.)
500
28,126
41.3%
2,810.96
10.7%
7.49
0.13%
1,000
33,030
48.6%
3,426.73
13.1%
11.60
0.20%
2,000
37,707
55.4%
4,150.12
15.8%
18.80
0.32%
5,000
43,707
64.3%
5,552.86
21.2%
39.59
0.68%

Total:
All
Form
R's
68,025
100.0%
26,221.39
100.0%
5,810.92
100.0%

Source:
EPA,
Stakeholder
Dialogue
Phase
II­
Burden
Reduction
Options,
Table
5
(
based
on
non­
PBT
Form
R
filings
for
RY
2001).
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
52
The
Enhanced
Form
A,
discussed
below
in
Section
4.1.4,
would
mitigate
the
potential
data
loss
as
data
users
switch
from
Form
R.
The
modified
Form
A
would
provide
range
estimates
for
some
or
all
of
the
elements
8.1
through
8.7.
Although
the
information
would
be
less
precise
than
that
reported
on
Form
R,
TRI
data
users
could
know
approximately
the
releases
and
waste
management
practices
of
the
affected
facilities,
and
the
modified
Form
A
would
provide
much
more
information
than
the
current
Form
A.

Figure
15
shows
the
potential
direct
cost
savings
associated
with
an
ARA
defined
as
"
total
quantity
released"
(
element
8.1).
As
explained
above
in
Section
2.4,
this
report
assumes
that
the
cost
difference
between
filing
a
Form
R
and
a
Form
A
in
subsequent
years
is
$
1,630
per
form
for
this
option.
If
all
facilities
that
met
the
500­
pound
threshold
switched
to
Form
A,
then
they
would
collectively
save
$
45.8
million
per
year
after
their
first
year
of
reporting.
If
all
facilities
with
releases
up
to
5,000
pounds
substituted
Form
A
for
Form
R,
then
TRI
reporters
would
save
$
71.2
million
in
direct
reporting
years
(
not
including
indirect
savings).

Figure
15:
Potential
Direct
Reporting
Cost
Savings
from
Routine
Release­
Based
ARA
(
Element
8.1
only)
60
Option
Threshold
Non­
PBT
COST
SAVINGS
(
lbs.)
Form
R's
To
Filers
Affected
($
millions)
Modified
Basis
500
28,126
45.8
$
for
Threshold
1,000
33,030
53.8
$
(
8.1)
2,000
37,707
61.5
$
5,000
43,707
71.2
$

Source:
Compiled
from
EPA
Form
R
RY
2001
database
(
December
2003)

60
See
footnote
46.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
53
4.1.3
Increase
the
Alternate
Threshold
to
10
Million
Pounds
Regardless
of
how
the
ARA
is
redefined,
the
alternate
threshold
for
Form
A
could
be
increased
from
1
million
pounds
manufactured,
processed,
or
otherwise
used
to
10
million
pounds.
As
discussed
above,
the
number
of
facilities
that
would
become
eligible
for
Form
A
as
a
result
of
this
change
is
unknown
because
neither
Form
A
nor
Form
R
currently
requests
precise
data
on
this
quantity.
However,
the
Office
of
Advocacy's
review
of
Massachusetts
data
in
1995
revealed
that
about
5
percent
of
the
facilities
would
have
qualified
for
Form
A
based
on
a
10
million­
pound
threshold.
61
EPA
selected
the
1
million­
pound
threshold
in
1994
based
on
its
presumption
that
it
would
exclude
few
facilities
that
met
the
ARA
of
500
pounds.
62
The
May
1998
report
by
the
National
Advisory
Council
for
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology's
Toxics
Data
Reporting
Committee
suggested
that
the
alternate
threshold
could
be
raised
to
2
million,
5
million,
or
10
million
pounds.
The
committee
report
cautioned
that
there
may
be
a
public
interest
in
knowing
detailed
data
about
even
small
waste
quantities
from
high
volume
facilities
because
they
"
could
provide
an
example
to
other
facilities
of
efficient
toxic
chemical
management
practices"
and
reduce
the
probability
of
Form
A
misuse.
63
Of
course,
the
Form
R
data
from
these
same
plants
would
still
reside
in
the
database
archives
from
previous
years,
which
would
minimize
any
enforcement
concerns.
In
the
1994
final
rule
preamble,
the
agency
noted
that
industry
commenters
stated
that
facilities
in
the
61
Letter,
Thomas
M.
Sullivan
and
Kevin
Bromberg,
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
Office
of
Advocacy,
to
the
Hon.
Kimberly
T.
Nelson,
Asst.
Adminstrator
for
Environmental
Information,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Sept.
2,
2003,
p.
7.
62
EPA,
OMB,
&
SBA,
Analysis
of
Changes
to
the
Alternate
Threshold
Provisions
(
presented
to
the
National
Advisory
Council
for
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology,
Toxics
Data
Reporting
Committee),
May
18,
1998,
p.
11.
63
Id.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
54
metal
and
metal
fabrication
and
animal
feed
industries
exceeded
the
1
million
pound
threshold.
The
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
favored
an
increase
of
the
alternate
threshold
to
10
million
pounds
in
a
1999
report.
64
4.1.4
Create
Enhanced
Form
A
As
currently
designed,
Form
A
provides
TRI
data
users
with
no
information
about
waste
management
practices
beyond
the
certification
that
total
production­
related
wastes
(
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7)
are
less
than
500
pounds.
Some
TRI
stakeholders
express
concern
that
increased
Form
A
filings
would
result
in
a
concomitant
loss
in
TRI
data
quality,
especially
to
local
communities,
as
Form
R
filings
decline.
Although
proponents
of
Form
A
reform
believe
that
the
Form
A
certification
process
provides
adequate
information,
as
in
the
original
EPA
determination
in
1994,
the
SBA
Office
of
Advocacy
has
suggested
that
EPA
go
one
step
further
in
assuring
that
the
public
receives
some
additional
waste­
related
information.

This
report
proposes
the
creation
of
an
Enhanced
Form
A,
which
would
include
a
series
of
range­
reporting
checkboxes
for
data
that
are
now
reported
on
Form
R.
Figure
16
is
an
example
of
the
new
sections
that
would
be
added
to
Form
A.
The
section
called
"
release
and
transfer
information"
corresponds
to
data
in
sections
5
and
6
of
Form
R
that
are
used
to
calculate
elements
8.1,
8.6,
and
8.7.
The
section
on
"
recycling
and
energy
recovery
information"
is
a
range­
reporting
of
the
existing
elements
8.2
through
8.5
of
Form
R.
The
64
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association,
TRI
Burden
Reduction
Options
(
revised
Sept.
16,
1999),
p.
23.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
55
Enhanced
Form
A
could
provide
all
eleven
rows
of
data
reflecting
all
waste­
related
data,

as
shown
in
the
following
draft,
or
a
subset
of
this
information.

Figure
16
Draft
Example
of
New
Components
on
Enhanced
Form
A
RELEASE
AND
TRANSFER
INFORMATION
Annual
Amount
of
Releases
or
Transfers
Zero
1­
999
1,000­
99,999
100,000+
lbs.

1.
Air
Emissions
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
2.
Water
Release
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
3.
Underground
Injection
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
4.
Releases
to
Land
On­
Site
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
5.
On­
Site
Treatment
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
6.
Off­
Site
Transfers
to
POTW
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
(
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works)

7.
Off­
Site
Transfers
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
Other
Than
POTW/
Recycling/
Energy
Recovery
ANNUAL
AMOUNT
RECYCLED
OR
ENERGY
RECOVERED
Annual
Amount
of
Releases
or
Transfers
Zero
1­
999
1,000­
99,999
100,000+
lbs.

1.
On­
site
Energy
Recovery
(
8.2)
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
2.
Off­
site
Energy
Recovery
(
8.3)
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
3.
On­
site
Recycling
(
8.4)
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
4.
Off­
site
Recycling
(
8.5)
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
yes/
no
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
56
The
new
elements
on
Form
A
could
vary
depending
upon
the
definition
of
the
annual
reportable
amount.
For
example,
if
a
releases­
and­
transfers­
based
ARA
is
adopted,
then
the
additions
to
Form
A
could
be
limited
to
energy
recovery
and
recycling
(
elements
8.2
through
8.5).
This
information
would
otherwise
not
be
captured
in
the
certification
determination
sent
to
EPA.
Facilities
would
be
spared
the
expenses
of
reporting
the
additional
elements
of
Form
R,
along
with
the
state­
imposed
"
piggyback
requirements"

and
fees
and
the
public
would
gain
energy
recovery
and
recycling
data
on
all
Form
A's.

The
Office
of
Advocacy
has
suggested
that
the
Enhanced
Form
A
would
include
all
of
Form
A's
existing
components
plus
range
estimates
of
some
or
all
of
the
elements
8.1
through
8.7.65
Range­
reporting
is
not
an
impairment
to
effective
TRI
reporting.
As
currently
designed,

Form
R
already
provides
for
range­
reporting
of
quantities
under
1,000
pounds
in
section
5
(
quantity
of
toxic
chemical
entering
each
environmental
medium
onsite)
and
section
6
(
offsite
transfers).
Range­
reporting
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7
would
not
be
unduly
burdensome
to
current
Form
A
filers
because
they
already
compile
these
data
to
determine
eligibility
for
Form
A.
66
Also,
the
ranges
are
broad
enough
(
e.
g.
1­
999,

instead
of
1­
9
pounds)
to
be
ascertainable
within
a
reasonably
short
period
of
time,
thus
preserving
the
costs
savings
from
the
use
of
Form
A.

65
Letter,
Thomas
M.
Sullivan
and
Kevin
Bromberg,
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
Office
of
Advocacy,
to
the
Hon.
Kimberly
T.
Nelson,
Asst.
Administrator
for
Environmental
Information,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Sept.
2,
2003,
p.
7.
66
If,
however,
EPA
re­
defined
the
ARA
in
order
to
save
additional
estimation
costs
from
the
threshold
calculation,
EPA
would
need
to
account
for
the
offsetting
increase
in
costs
to
estimate
the
particular
wasterelated
activities
if
that
activity
were
excluded
from
the
ARA
calculation.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
57
The
Office
of
Advocacy
has
suggested
that
the
Enhanced
Form
A
could
also
be
available
to
PBT
reporters
(
excluding
dioxins
and
dioxin­
like
compounds)
with
less
than
50
pounds
of
total
production­
related
waste.
67
If
this
standard
had
been
in
effect
in
2001,

6,536
of
the
14,734
PBT
Form
R
reports
(
44.6
percent)
would
have
been
eligible
for
Form
A
based
on
an
anlysis
of
the
2001
TRI
database
as
of
December
2003.

Perhaps
element
8.9,
Production
Ratio
or
Activity
Index,
might
also
be
included
on
Form
A.
This
figure
is
the
ratio
between
production
in
the
reporting
year
to
production
in
the
previous
year.
Some
agencies,
such
as
the
Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
require
Form
A
filers
to
report
element
8.9
as
part
of
its
state
Toxics
Use
Reduction
(
TUR)
program
because
it
"
is
used
by
the
agency
to
calculate
state
wide
TUR
progress."
68
As
discussed
below
regarding
Proposal
II,
element
8.9
could
play
a
significant
role
in
determining
a
facility's
eligibility
for
the
new
Form
NS
in
a
particular
year.

As
early
as
October
1994,
the
Office
of
Advocacy
suggested
the
first
version
of
the
Enhanced
Form
A:
a
release­
based
threshold
of
1,000
pounds
and
range­
reporting
for
the
waste­
related
activities.
It
pointed
out
that
the
EPA
waste­
based
threshold
rewards
only
source
reduction,
and
not
recycling,
energy
recovery,
or
waste
treatment.
Despite
this
advice,
EPA
promulgated
a
waste­
based
Form
A
form
in
November
1994,
providing
67
Letter,
Thomas
M.
Sullivan
and
Kevin
Bromberg,
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
Office
of
Advocacy,
to
the
Hon.
Kimberly
T.
Nelson,
Asst.
Adminstrator
for
Environmental
Information,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Sept.
2,
2003,
p.
8.
68
Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
2002
Toxics
Use
Reporting
Instructions.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
58
relief
only
to
a
fraction
of
the
facilities
that
warranted
relief,
in
the
view
of
the
Office
of
Advocacy.

The
Enhanced
Form
A
would
compensate
for
the
detailed
data
that
would
have
been
reported
on
Form
R.
The
Enhanced
Form
A
is
in
some
sense
a
compromise
between
the
existing
Form
A
and
Form
R.
Reporting
burden
would
not
be
as
onerous
as
with
Form
R
and
data
users
would
retain
access
to
information
about
smaller
facilities.
The
National
Federation
of
Independent
Business
has
endorsed
the
Enhanced
Form
A
concept,
stating,

"
The
Enhanced
Form
A
would
preserve
the
practical
utility
of
all
reported
data
by
allowing
right­
to­
know
users
to
easily
access
the
size
of
releases
and
waste
activities
without
placing
further
undue
burden
on
reporters
that
release
insignificant
amounts
of
chemical
waste."
69
4.1.5
Allow
Enhanced
Form
A
For
PBT
Chemicals
In
addition,
under
appropriate
conditions,
EPA
could
also
consider
making
PBT
chemicals
eligible
for
Form
A.
Using
the
Enhanced
Form
A
makes
the
expansion
of
Form
A
eligibility
more
likely,
including
its
expansion
to
PBT
chemicals.

4.2
Proposal
II:
Create
and
Implement
Form
NS
TRI
facilities
would
enjoy
significant
relief
if
they
were
allowed
to
file
postcard­
sized
certifications
of
"
no
substantial
revision"
(
Form
NS)
whenever
changes
in
their
year­

toyear
operations
are
not
significant.
Form
NS
would
minimize
reporting
burden
at
69
Karen
Harned,
NFIB
Legal
Foundation,
et.
al.
to
EPA
Document
Control
Office,
Dec.
22,
2003,
p.
12.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
59
facilities
that
either
release
small
amounts
of
chemicals
or
operate
in
a
substantially
similar
manner
year­
to­
year.
A
standard
Form
R
filing
would
serve
as
the
baseline
form;

eligible
facilities
would
file
a
Form
NS
in
subsequent
years.
PBT
and
non­
PBT
chemicals
would
be
eligible
for
Form
NS.
This
proposal
is
based
on
Option
4
in
the
Phase
II
Stakeholder
Dialogue.

Facilities
could
file
a
Form
NS
whenever:

year­
to­
year
production
levels
increase
or
decrease
by
less
than
10
percent,
OR

a
de
minimis
on­
site
release
threshold
is
not
exceeded,
AND

total
releases
(
sum
of
elements
8.1
and
8.8
of
Form
R)
are
less
than
10,000
pounds,
AND

production,
treatment,
or
disposal
processes
did
not
change
at
the
facility,
AND

less
than
five
years
have
passed
without
filing
a
Form
R.

The
TRI
database
would
use
the
baseline
report
to
represent
the
facility
during
the
years
the
facility
files
a
Form
NS,
which
could
be
used
for
up
to
four
subsequent
years.
All
TRI­
covered
chemicals
would
be
eligible
for
the
Form
NS.

Form
NS
would
have
simple
contents.
In
essence,
it
would
be
a
certification
that
the
facility's
release
and
waste
quantities
and
practices
have
not
substantially
changed
since
the
baseline
form.
Checkboxes
could
indicate
whether
the
facility
qualifies
for
Form
NS
through
the
de
minimis
threshold
or
via
the
year­
to­
year
variation
criterion.
Another
set
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
60
of
checkboxes
could
indicate
zero
releases
or
zero
total
wastes
so
that
facilities
could
communicate
this
information
to
data
users.

Because
the
10
percent
change
requirement
would
be
inappropriate
for
very
small
releases,
Form
NS
could
also
be
used
by
any
facility
for
which
the
total
onsite
releases
were
less
than
some
de
minimis
threshold.
Thus,
there
is
a
need
for
two
types
of
Form
NS:
one
based
on
a
percent
threshold;
the
other
based
on
some
type
of
de
minimis
threshold.

Form
NS
goes
one
step
further
by
providing
information
in
the
subsequent
years
that
the
facility
has
not
undergone
any
significant
changes,
and
yet
still
achieves
substantial
burden
relief
to
reporters.
The
Form
NS
would
be
especially
beneficial
to
small
businesses.
Since
small
entities
face
higher
per­
form
reporting
costs
than
large
firms,
the
use
of
the
simpler
form
would
save
each
small
firm
proportionately
more
than
a
large
firm.
EPA
analyzed
forms
for
the
same
chemical
and
facility
in
1997
and
1998
and
found
that
30
percent
showed
changes
of
less
than
10
percent
in
total
releases,
and
23
percent
showed
changes
of
less
than
5
percent.
70
This
is
a
large
number
of
forms.
Thus,

Form
NS
would
provide
relief
from
thousands
of
forms
annually.

4.2.1
Criterion
1:
Year­
to­
Year
Variance
in
Production
Process
or
Output
Level
TRI­
reporting
facilities
whose
production,
treatment,
and
disposal
processes
or
output
levels
are
consistent
from
year
to
year
would
enjoy
burden
relief
with
Form
NS.
For
70
Letter
from
Elaine
Stanley,
EPA
to
John
Spotila,
OIRA,
dated
July
7,
2000.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
61
example,
the
criteria
for
Form
NS
eligibility
could
be
a
percentage
change
in
on­
site
releases
(
subset
of
elements
8.1
and
8.8
of
Form
R),
a
percentage
change
in
total
routine
releases
(
element
8.1),
or
a
percentage
change
in
total
production.
71
In
addition,
the
facility
would
also
certify
that
no
significant
change
in
material
inputs,
production
processes,
pollution
prevention,
and
waste
handling
or
management
practices
had
occurred
for
a
given
chemical
at
the
facility
during
the
reporting
year.
72
These
criteria
would
ensure
that
the
baseline
Form
R
would
be
consistent
with
data
for
the
Form
NS
reporting
years.
The
Phase
II
Stakeholder
Dialogue
paper
suggests
that
a
facility
whose
total
releases
(
sum
of
elements
8.1
and
8.8)
or
total
production­
related
waste
(
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7)
increased
or
decreased
by
less
than
10
percent
from
the
baseline
year
should
be
permitted
to
file
the
Form
NS
for
that
year,
provided
that
production,
treatment,
and
disposal
processes
remain
the
same.
The
Office
of
Advocacy
has
proposed
that
facilities
that
do
not
modify
their
annual
production
by
more
than
10
percent
would
be
eligible
for
the
Form
NS,
so
long
as
other
production
practices
do
not
change.
73
In
order
for
this
alternative
to
be
a
practical
alternative,
the
"
no
substantial
change"
determination
needs
to
be
easy
to
estimate.
Therefore,
the
Form
NS
should
not
require
the
facility
to
make
calculations
that
are
as
burdensome
as
calculating
the
full
sections
8.1
to
8.7
data
elements.
TRI
reporters
object
to
the
current
Form
A
on
the
basis
that
little
burden
reduction
results
due
to
the
requirement
to
make
this
calculation.

71
EPA,
Phase
II
Stakeholder
Dialogue,
Option
4.
72
For
example,
if
a
facility
reported
only
routine
releases
(
Element
8.1
of
the
Form
R)
and
off­
site
recycling
(
Element
8.5)
on
the
baseline
Form
R
report,
then
it
could
not
file
Form
NS
in
the
following
year
if
the
facility
diverted
some
of
the
chemical
into
energy
recovery,
treatment,
or
on­
site
recycling.
73
Letter,
Thomas
M.
Sullivan
and
Kevin
Bromberg,
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
Office
of
Advocacy,
to
the
Hon.
Kimberly
T.
Nelson,
Asst.
Adminstrator
for
Environmental
Information,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Sept.
2,
2003,
p.
9.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
62
The
production
ratio
or
activity
index
(
element
8.9
of
Form
R)
could
be
utilized
to
determine
Form
NS
eligibility.
Form
R
instructions
define
the
production
ratio
as
"
a
ratio
of
reporting
year
production
to
prior
year
production."
It
is
a
measure
of
production
or
activity,
not
of
TRI
chemical
or
material
usage.
An
index
of
"
1.10"
indicates
a
10
percent
annual
increase
in
production
or
activity;
the
current
existence
of
this
index
suggests
that
Form
NS
could
be
implemented
relatively
easily.
In
fact,
the
Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
finds
element
8.9
to
be
so
useful
that
it
requires
Form
A
filers
to
continue
to
calculate
and
report
it.

One
commenter
in
the
Stakeholder
Dialogue
suggests
5
percent
as
the
maximum
permissible
year­
to­
year
variation
for
Form
NS
eligibility
because
of
the
use
of
two
significant
digits
in
TRI
reporting.
74
The
commenter
observes,

Rounding
numbers
to
2
significant
digits
allows
5
percent
of
the
number
to
be
rounded
off
and
thus
may
produce
a
5
percent
error
in
the
number
 
reported.
If
we
stay
within
the
5
percent
range,
the
public
information
is
not
compromised
in
any
way
as
that
amount
of
error
is
already
built­
in
to
the
system.

A
representative
of
the
Working
Group
on
Community
Right­
to­
Know
has
voiced
support
for
the
Form
NS
proposal
so
long
as
EPA
carefully
defines
"
no
significant
change"
and
it
is
tied
to
a
baseline
year,
rather
than
being
cumulative
over
time.
75
The
commenter
suggests
10
percent
of
total
production
waste
and
total
releases
as
an
appropriate
limit
for
year­
to­
year
variation.

74
Stakeholder
Dialogue,
Anonymous
Commentor
(
Electric
Utility),
December
1,
2003,
TRI­
2003­
0001­
0032.
75
Stakeholder
Dialogue,
Anonymous
Commentor
Representing
Working
Group
on
Community
Right­
to­
Know,
December
8,
2003,
TRI
2003­
0001­
0044.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
63
Another
commenter
believes
that
Form
NS
eligibility
should
be
pegged
to
a
percentage
change
in
raw
material
usage.
76
He
states
that
his
company
currently
tracks
such
data
on
a
monthly
basis
and
that
"[
i]
t
really
is
this
raw
material
total
that
goes
into
computing
the
emissions
that
are
on
the
Form
R."
This
comment
underscores
the
fact
that
TRI
data
are
imprecise
assessments
of
pollution
activity
under
current
regulations;
Form
NS
would
not
significantly
erode
data
quality.

Given
the
appropriate
criteria
for
applicability,
the
Form
NS
would
lessen
the
annual
form­
completion
burden
at
many
facilities
while
data
on
the
baseline
Form
R
would
assure
that
community
right­
to­
know
needs
are
met.

4.2.2
Criterion
2:
De
Minimis
Threshold
Should
Be
Established
Because
the
10
percent
change
requirement
would
be
inappropriate
for
very
small
releases,
Form
NS
could
also
be
used
by
any
facility
for
which
the
total
on­
site
releases
were
less
than
some
de
minimis
threshold.
Thus,
there
is
a
need
for
two
types
of
Form
NS:
one
based
on
a
percent
threshold;
the
other
based
on
some
type
of
de
minimis
threshold.
The
Office
of
Advocacy
suggests
thresholds
of
100
pounds
for
non­
PBT
chemicals
and
10
pounds
for
PBT
chemicals
(
other
than
dioxin
and
dioxin­
like
compounds).
77
The
Phase
II
Stakeholder
Dialogue
white
paper
suggests
that
100
pounds
of
releases
or
total
quantity
managed
as
waste
could
serve
as
the
de
minimis
threshold
for
76
Stakeholder
Dialogue,
Steve
Pizzute,
December
9,
2003,
TRI­
2003­
0001­
0053.
77
Letter,
Thomas
M.
Sullivan
and
Kevin
Bromberg,
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
Office
of
Advocacy,
to
the
Hon.
Kimberly
T.
Nelson,
Asst.
Adminstrator
for
Environmental
Information,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Sept.
2,
2003,
p.
9.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
64
Form
NS
for
each
non­
PBT
chemical.
78
This
subsection
analyzes
how
a
de
minimis
threshold
for
lead
and
lead
compounds
would
have
affected
Form
R
filings
in
2001.

On­
site
releases
constitute
a
good
basis
for
the
for
the
Form
NS
de
minimis
threshold
because
they
most
directly
affect
local
communities.
They
are
the
quintessential
component
of
the
TRI
program.
On­
site
releases
include
discharges
to
air
(
by
stacks,

vents,
ducts,
pipes,
leaks,
evaporative
losses)
or
to
surface
waters
(
streams,
rivers,
lakes,

oceans),
underground
injection
(
into
subsurface
wells),
and
land
releases
(
on­
site
landfills,
surface
impoundments,
waste
piles).
On­
site
releases
are
components
of
element
8.1
[
total
routine
releases,
which
include
off­
site
releases
(
landfills
and
underground
injection
wells
away
from
facilities)]
and
element
8.8
[
which
includes
nonroutine
on­
site
and
off­
site
releases
and
non­
routine
treatment
and
pollution
prevention
activities].

Total
routine
releases
(
element
8.1)
and
total
production­
related
wastes
(
elements
8.1
through
8.7),
are
less
desirable
bases
for
a
toxics
"
release"
reporting
threshold
because
release
data
are
subsumed
by
other
factors
that
pose
few
risks
to
communities.
For
example,
off­
site
releases
(
subsets
of
elements
8.1
and
8.8),
off­
site
energy
recovery
(
element
8.3),
off­
site
recycling
(
8.5),
and
off­
site
treatment
(
8.7)
by
definition
occur
away
from
the
facility.
On­
site
energy
recovery
(
8.2)
is
zero
for
facilities
reporting
lead
and
lead
compounds,
and
generally
poses
no
risks
to
the
community.
On­
site
recycling
(
8.4)
and
on­
site
treatment
(
8.6)
of
toxic
chemicals
are
activities
that
reduce
on­
site
releases.

78
EPA,
Phase
II
Stakeholder
Dialogue,
p.
11.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
65
Figure
17
shows
how
a
de
minimis
threshold
of
10
pounds
of
on­
site
releases
of
lead
and
lead
compounds
would
have
affected
Form
R
filings
in
2001.
Nearly
65
percent
of
all
Form
R
filings
for
these
chemicals
indicated
on­
site
releases
of
ten
pounds
or
less.
Those
5,672
forms
accounted
for
less
than
two­
thousandths
of
one
percent
of
lead/
lead
compound
on­
site
releases
and
just
5.6
percent
of
total
production­
related
waste
for
these
chemicals.
Figure
17
demonstrates
that
TRI
reporters
would
enjoy
substantial
relief
if
the
de
minimis
Form
NS
threshold
were
instituted
for
lead
and
lead
compounds,
with
a
negligible
effect
on
national
data.

Figure
17:
Lead
&
Lead
Compounds
On­
Site
Releases
in
2001:
10
lbs.
Threshold
On­
Site
Release
#
of
%
of
On­
Site
%
of
Total
Production­
%
of
Total
Threshold
Forms
Forms
Releases
On­
Site
Related
Waste
Production­
(
subset
of
8.1
&
8.8)
(
subset
of
8.1
&
8.8)
Releases
(
8.1
through
8.7)
Related
(
lbs.)
(
lbs.)
Waste
<=
10
lbs.
5,672
64.9%
5,945
0.0015%
70,598,196
5.6%
>
10
lbs.
3,062
35.1%
389,565,484
99.9985%
1,199,506,780
94.4%
Total
8,734
100.0%
389,571,429
100.0000%
1,270,104,976
100.0%

Source:
Compiled
from
EPA
Form
R
database
(
December
2003)

At
a
5­
pound
threshold,
5,284
lead
and
lead
compounds
Form
R's
would
be
eligible
for
the
Form
NS,
as
shown
in
Figure
18.
This
is
nearly
400
fewer
forms
than
at
the
10­

pound
threshold.
If
all
eligible
facilities
used
Form
NS,
then
99.9993
percent
of
on­
site
releases
and
95.1
percent
of
total
production­
related
waste
would
still
be
reported
on
Form
R.

Figure
18:
Lead
&
Lead
Compounds
On­
Site
Releases
in
2001:
5
lbs.
Threshold
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
66
On­
Site
Release
#
of
%
of
On­
Site
%
of
Total
Production­
%
of
Total
Threshold
Forms
Forms
Releases
On­
Site
Related
Waste
Production­
(
subset
of
8.1
&
8.8)
(
subset
of
8.1
&
8.8)
Releases
(
8.1
through
8.7)
Related
(
lbs.)
(
lbs.)
Waste
<=
5
lbs.
5,284
60.5%
2,792
0.0007%
62,089,917
4.9%
>
5
lbs.
3,450
39.5%
389,568,637
99.9993%
1,208,015,059
95.1%
Total
8,734
100.0%
389,571,429
100.0000%
1,270,104,976
100.0%

Source:
Compiled
from
EPA
Form
R
database
(
December
2003)

Other
PBT
chemicals
would
also
benefit
from
a
Form
NS
based
upon
a
de
minimis
onsite
release
threshold.
For
example,
a
facility
that
manufactures
a
PBT
chemical
within
the
manufacturing
process
that
is
subsequently
consumed
within
the
process
would
have
zero
releases
and
zero
total
wastes.
The
existence
of
Form
NS
would
considerably
reduce
such
a
facility's
reporting
burden,
and
the
public
would
lose
no
useful
data.

4.2.3
Criterion
3:
Total
Releases
Cannot
Exceed
10,000
Pounds
Facilities
with
total
releases
(
sum
of
elements
8.1
and
8.8
of
Form
R)
of
more
than
10,000
pounds
would
not
be
eligible
for
the
Form
NS,
according
to
the
latest
proposal
from
the
Office
of
Advocacy.
The
proposal
explained,
"[
a]
10
percent
change
in
production
for
a
large
quantity
releaser
could
be
a
significant
change
to
the
local
community."
79
4.2.4
Criterion
4:
Form
R
or
A
To
Be
Filed
At
Least
Every
Five
Years
The
Office
of
Advocacy
has
suggested
that
facilities
be
allowed
to
file
a
Form
NS
for
just
four
consecutive
years,
assuming
that
the
other
Form
NS
criteria
are
satisfied.
80
To
prevent
data
from
becoming
stale,
facilities
would
be
required
to
file
a
Form
R
once
79
Letter,
Thomas
M.
Sullivan
and
Kevin
Bromberg,
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
Office
of
Advocacy,
to
the
Hon.
Kimberly
T.
Nelson,
Asst.
Adminstrator
for
Environmental
Information,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Sept.
2,
2003,
p.
10.
80
Id.,
at
9.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
67
every
five
years,
even
if
their
releases
or
total
wastes
remain
under
the
de
minimis
threshold
or
their
output
or
production
processes
remain
exactly
the
same.
The
five­
year
cycle
would
ensure
that
the
diverse
users
of
TRI
data
continue
to
receive
up­
to­
date
information.
One
commenter
comment
observes
that
a
five­
year
cycle
would
be
compatible
with
other
environmental
reporting
practices
and
data
uses
because
many
air
pollution
dispersion
models
utilize
five­
year
time
series.
81
Some
TRI
stakeholders,
such
as
the
American
Chemistry
Council,
have
advocated
an
alternate
year
reporting
system
in
which
facilities
would
report
TRI
data
every
other
year.

Form
NS
goes
one
step
further
by
providing
information
in
subsequent
years
that
the
facility
underwent
no
significant
changes,
and
yet
still
achieves
substantial
burden
relief
for
Form
NS
reporters.

Since
PBT
chemicals
pose
potentially
greater
environmental
risks,
perhaps
the
five­
year
limit
for
Form
NS
could
be
restricted
to
non­
PBT
chemicals.
PBT
chemical
filers
could
be
on
a
shorter
reporting
cycle,
requiring
a
Form
R
every
three
years.

4.3
Proposal
III:
Range­
Reporting
This
range­
reporting
option,
described
in
Stakeholder
Dialogue
Option
5,
also
offers
substantial
relief
to
those
who
will
be
reporting
on
Form
R.
As
EPA
found
in
1991,
the
option
to
report
in
ranges,
rather
than
in
point
estimates,
relieves
the
reporter
of
a
considerable
burden.
EPA
estimated
a
9.5­
hour
reduction
in
1991
when
it
was
proposing
81
Stakeholder
Dialogue,
Anonymous
commenter,
November
7,
2003,
TRI­
2003­
0001­
0013.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
68
to
promulgate
the
range­
reporting
option.
82
Range­
reporting
will
save
time
if
the
needed
precision
in
reporting
is
reduced,
for
example
from
two­
digit
precision
to
one­
digit.

Furthermore,
allowing
range­
reporting
has
the
additional
benefit
of
providing
the
facilities
with
increased
comfort
in
making
their
estimates.
If
EPA
allowed
rangereporting
to
the
pollution
prevention
section
(
section
8),
the
savings
previously
permitted
in
sections
5
and
6,
the
releases
and
transfer
sections,
could
be
captured.
Currently,
many
of
the
entries
in
sections
5
and
6
and
duplicated
in
section
8,
and
facilities
are
no
longer
able
to
capture
these
cost
savings
for
the
entries
in
sections
5
and
6
from
range­
reporting.

In
addition,
EPA
could
reconsider
the
elimination
of
range­
reporting
relief
for
the
PBT
reporters.
The
PBT
reporters
are
subject
to
considerable
burden
for
reporting
releases
that
equal
or
approach
zero.
For
these
reasons,
the
range­
reporting
option
is
suitable
for
such
reports,
possibly
with
reduced
ranges
for
PBT
chemicals,
in
comparison
to
the
non­

PBT
chemicals,
reflecting
a
possible
additional
need
for
precision.

4.4
Proposal
IV:
Reporting
Threshold
for
Small
Chemical
and
Petroleum
Wholesalers
Option
1
in
the
Stakeholder
Dialogue
discusses
the
implementation
of
higher
reporting
thresholds
for
small
businesses,
while
Option
2
discusses
the
same
for
specified
chemicals
or
facilities.
Under
either
option,
EPA
should
seriously
consider
a
significant
burden
reduction
for
chemical
wholesalers
and
petroleum
bulk
terminal
operators.
The
1997
TRI
expansion
of
the
list
of
covered
chemicals
and
industries
led
to
the
inclusion
of
SIC
5169,
wholesale
chemical
distributors
(
NAICS
424690),
and
SIC
5171,
petroleum
bulk
stations
and
terminals
(
NAICS
424710)
for
the
first
time.
At
that
time,
both
82
56
Fed.
Reg.
1154,
January
11,
1991.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
69
industry
representatives
and
the
Office
of
Advocacy
informed
EPA
that
because
these
industries
routinely
report
low
release
amounts,
the
value
of
the
data
to
the
public
did
not
warrant
the
high
cost
of
reporting
the
facilities
in
these
industries
would
face.
83
Subsequent
data
has
borne
out
that
contention:
the
SIC
5169
and
SIC
5171
facilities
now
required
to
file
have
filed
a
significantly
higher­
than­
average
number
of
forms
(
Form
R
and
Form
A)
and
reported
significantly
lower­
than­
average
chemical
releases
per
form.

In
June
2002
testimony
before
the
House
Small
Business
Committee
Subcommittee
on
Regulatory
Reform
and
Oversight,
Chief
Counsel
for
Advocacy
Thomas
M.
Sullivan
wrote:
"
Despite
our
opposition
to
the
expansion
of
the
TRI
to
chemical
and
petroleum
wholesalers
on
the
grounds
that
releases
to
the
environment
were
insignificant,
EPA
did
promulgate
that
requirement
in
1997.
The
Office
of
Advocacy
stands
by
its
projections
that
were
later
verified
by
EPA's
summary
graph
[
Figure
ES­
3]
from
the
2000
data
release
[
see
enclosed
Attachment
A].
The
graph
shows
the
reported
releases
were
essentially
zero
for
these
industries
for
all
three
years
[
1998­
2000]
 
they
make
up
less
than
six­
hundredths
of
one
percent
of
the
total
reported
releases.
With
these
figures
in
mind,
Advocacy
is
hopeful
that
EPA
will
re­
examine
the
decision
to
expand
TRI
to
these
industries."
Both
trade
associations
representing
these
industries
have
asked
EPA
to
either
exempt
these
industries
entirely,
or
provide
a
reporting
exemption,
based,
for
example
on
the
number
of
employees.

83
Letter,
Jere
W.
Glover,
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
Office
of
Advocacy
to
Lynn
Goldman,
Assistant
Administrator
for
Prevention,
Pesticides,
and
Toxic
Substances,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Sept.
25,
1996.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
70
Across
all
industries,
the
average
TRI­
reporting
facility
filed
3.84
forms
(
Forms
R
and
A)

and
released
247,348
pounds
of
releases
(
total
on­
site
and
off­
site
releases).
Conversely,

facilities
in
SIC
5169
filed
7.02
forms
per
facility
while
reporting
on
average
just
3,091
pounds
of
releases
per
form.
Those
in
SIC
5171
filed
an
average
of
8.02
forms
per
facility
while
reporting
35,806
pounds
of
releases
per
form.
84
In
general,
the
average
amount
released
per
facility
is
driven
up
by
a
relatively
small
number
of
very
large
releasers,
while
many
facilities
release
very
small
or
zero
amounts.
Hence
it
is
clear
that
within
SIC
5169
and
SIC
5171
there
is
a
larger­
than­
average
number
of
facilities
that
release
very
small
amounts
of
chemicals.
At
the
same
time,
the
number
of
forms
per
facility
is
more
evenly
distributed
across
facilities.
For
instance,
nearly
all
bulk
petroleum
terminals
(
SIC
5171)
handle
the
same
chemical
substances
and,
regardless
of
how
small
the
facility
is,
nearly
all
handle
large
enough
quantities
to
trigger
reporting.

However,
many
small
facilities
release
insignificant
amounts
of
chemicals.
Within
SIC
5169
15
percent
of
all
reporting
facilities
had
zero
total
chemical
releases,
yet
still
had
to
file
multiple
forms.
The
unusually
small
release
totals
in
these
industries,
coupled
with
the
significantly
higher­
than­
average
number
of
forms
per
facility,
makes
them
worthy
candidates
for
targeted
burden
relief.

To
achieve
targeted
burden
relief
where
it
is
most
needed,
SIC
5169
and
SIC
5171
should
be
subject
to
a
special
small
business
reporting
threshold
to
alleviate
the
excessive
burden
arising
from
the
high
number
of
TRI
forms
currently
required
that
report
insignificant
chemical
releases.
The
small
business
threshold
would
extend
the
standard
employment
size
threshold
for
TRI
reporting,
currently
10
employers
or
greater,
to
a
higher
number,

84
Calculations
based
on
2001
TRI
data
as
reported
in
the
2001
Public
Data
Release.
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
71
e.
g.
20,
50,
or
even
100
employees.
By
raising
the
reporting
threshold
with
regard
to
employment,
EPA
can
specifically
exclude
small
businesses
that
release
zero
or
insignificant
amounts
of
TRI­
listed
chemicals.
This
is
especially
important
in
these
two
industries
where
the
number
of
forms
filed
per
facility
is
significantly
higher
than
the
average,
more
than
double
in
the
case
of
SIC
5171.
As
Advocacy
commented
during
the
1997
expansion
of
the
TRI,
EPA's
own
economic
analysis
showed
that
the
cost
of
reporting
for
SIC
5169
could
eclipse
many
small
firm's
net
revenues.
85
This
industryspecific
small
business
exemption
provides
the
opportunity
to
relieve
a
significant
burden
of
the
TRI
with
no
consequent
reduction
in
data
quality
or
availability
to
the
public.

85
Letter,
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration,
Office
of
Advocacy
to
Fred
Hansen,
Deputy
Administrator,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
"
Toxic
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
Report
Requirements
­
Industry
Expansion;
Chemical
Wholesalers;
Docket
No.
OPPTS­
400104,"
December
24,
1996..
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
72
5
Conclusion
The
Toxics
Release
Inventory
program
places
a
significant
burden
on
the
small
businesses
in
the
covered
industries.
While
the
1994
addition
of
Form
A
created
a
feasible
option
for
some
filers,
it
did
not
extend
relief
far
enough.
The
500­
pound
threshold
for
total
production­
related
wastes
excluded
many
filers
with
extremely
small
releases
from
using
the
simplified
form.
EPA
has
since
extended
the
reach
of
TRI
with
an
expansion
of
covered
industries
and
chemicals
in
1997
and
the
redesignation
of
lead
and
lead
compounds
as
persistent
bioaccumulative
chemicals
in
2001.
Both
actions
dramatically
increasing
the
number
of
reports
filed
and
the
number
of
facilities
required
to
report.
Most
of
the
filers
under
these
program
expansions
reported
significantly
lower
than
average
chemical
releases,
and
most
of
the
costs
associated
with
this
increased
reporting
have
fallen
on
small
businesses.
Simple
reforms
to
the
TRI
program
would
result
in
substantial
cost
savings
to
many
filers
with
negligible
effects
on
data
quality.

The
options
for
burden
reduction
discussed
in
this
report
offer
simple
yet
practical
means
to
minimize
the
burden
of
TRI
reporting
on
small
businesses
while
maintaining
the
quality
and
utility
of
data
that
the
program
provides
to
the
public.
An
examination
of
the
TRI
filing
data
shows
that
currently
there
are
a
significant
number
of
reports
that
show
zero
or
minimal
releases.
The
proposed
options
seek
not
only
to
maintain
to
the
largest
extent
possible
the
percentage
of
aggregate
data
reported
on
Form
R,
they
also
ensure
that
local
interests
are
preserved
by
seeking
burden
relief
only
for
the
class
of
filers
that
individually
release
minimal
amounts
of
chemicals
wastes.
To
balance
cost
reductions
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
73
with
maintaining
data
quality,
this
report
looks
closely
at
specific
thresholds
under
various
reporting
change
scenarios
that
simultaneously
reduce
costs
and
maintain
the
quality,
utility,
and
integrity
of
TRI
data
to
public
users.

Four
simple
reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
program
would
result
in
substantial
cost
savings
to
filers
with
minimal
effects
on
data
quality.

°
Eligibility
for
Form
A
ought
to
be
expanded
by
increasing
the
existing
annual
reportable
amount
(
sum
of
elements
8.1
through
8.7
on
Form
R)
to
1,000,
2,000,
or
5,000
pounds.
As
an
alternative,
the
ARA
could
be
redefined
as
a
facility's
routine
releases
(
element
8.1
only)
or
its
releases
and
transfers
(
the
sum
of
elements
8.1,
8.6,
and
8.7),

and
the
redefined
ARA
set
at
500,
1,000,
2,000,
or
5,000
pounds.
Millions
of
dollars
and
thousands
of
hours
of
reporting
burden
could
be
saved
as
facilities
switch
from
Form
R
to
Form
A.

°
Form
A
could
be
modified
to
provide
range
estimates
of
selected
release
and
waste
data
now
reported
on
Form
R.
This
Enhanced
Form
A
would
mitigate
the
loss
of
data
from
the
potential
substitution
of
thousands
of
the
longer
Form
R's
with
the
simpler
Form
A's.
Therefore,
communities
would
continue
to
receive
regular
information
about
routine
chemical
releases
and
waste
management
practices
at
these
facilities.
Since
range
estimates
are
currently
allowed
on
Form
R,
TRI
filers
and
data
users
are
accustomed
to
the
practice.
With
the
enhanced
Form
A,
EPA
should
reinstate
Form
A
for
PBT
Proposed
Reforms
to
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program
74
reporters.
In
addition,
EPA
should
reconsider
allowing
the
de
minimis
concentration
provision
to
apply
to
PBT
reporters.

°
A
new
Form
NS
should
be
created
to
allow
facilities
a
cost­
effective
means
to
report
no
significant
change
in
year­
to­
year
activities
that
pertain
to
the
TRI.
A
de
minimis
threshold
would
permit
facilities
with
small
on­
site
releases
to
file
Form
NS
and
avoid
detailed
annual
reporting
for
sites
that
are
of
little
public
interest.
All
facilities
affected
by
the
TRI
program,
including
those
handling
persistent
bioaccumulative
toxic
chemicals,
would
benefit
from
Form
NS.
Facilities
would
be
limited
to
four
consecutive
Form
NS's
for
a
particular
chemical;
they
would
need
to
file
a
Form
R
at
least
once
every
five
years.
Range­
reporting
would
be
allowed
in
section
8,
as
well
as
sections
5
and
6
on
Form
R.

°
Petroleum
wholesalers
(
SIC
5171)
and
chemical
wholesalers
(
SIC
5169)
should
be
subject
to
a
special
small
business
reporting
threshold
based
on
the
number
of
employees.
This
would
eliminate
a
large
number
of
TRI
reports
with
insignificant
chemical
releases.

These
reforms,
if
adopted,
would
merely
alter
the
forms
filed
by
facilities.
They
would
not
eliminate
facilities
from
the
TRI
database.
These
proposals
would
allow
the
TRI
program
to
operate
more
efficiently
as
it
continues
to
provide
a
high­
quality
public
service
to
the
public,
regulators,
and
industry.