Document ID: EPA-HQ-OEI-2003-0025-0069
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-10-27T05:00Z

1
EPA
Response
to
Public
Comments
for
EPA
Public
Docket
OEI­
2003­
0025
On
Tuesday,
July
1,
2003,
Federal
Register
(
FR)
notices
were
published
that
began
the
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
renewal
process
for
the
TRI
Reporting
Form
R
(
68
FR
39074)
and
the
Form
A
Certification
Statement
(
68
FR
39071).
The
TRI
Program
is
seeking
OMB
approval
in
compliance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA)
for
these
two
collection
activities
that
are
due
to
expire
on
October
31,
2003.
The
EPA
docket
for
this
action,
OEI­
2003­
0025
received
over
50
comment
submissions.
The
commenters
and
their
corresponding
docket
identifiers
are
listed
in
a
table
at
the
end
of
this
comment
response
document.

For
the
Form
R
ICR
renewal,
the
TRI
Program
sought
public
comment
on
extensive
changes
to
the
Form
R
in
an
effort
to
collect
information
in
a
more
logical
and
easier
manner.
However,
in
light
of
significant
comments
from
States,
the
regulated
community
and
other
TRI
data
users
concerning
the
implementation
burden
of
so
many
changes
at
once,
EPA
is
deferring
most
of
the
proposed
changes.
Some
of
the
changes
for
which
EPA
sought
comment
remain
in
this
submission.
For
example,
section
8.1
is
subdivided
into
four
subsections:
section
8.1a
Total
on­
site
disposal
to
Underground
Injection
to
Class
I
Wells,
RCRA
Subtitle
C
landfills,
and
other
landfills;
section
8.1b
Total
other
on­
site
disposal
or
other
releases;
section
8.1.
c
Total
off­
site
disposal
to
Underground
Injection
to
Class
I
Wells,
RCRA
Subtitle
C
landfills,
and
other
landfills;
and
section
8.1d
total
other
off­
site
disposal
or
other
releases.
A
copy
of
the
revised
Form
R
(
EPA
Form
9350­
1,
Rev.
01/
2001)
is
being
submitted
to
OMB
for
review
and
is
included
with
the
Form
R
ICR
Supporting
Statement
as
Attachment
G.

An
outline
of
the
proposed
changes
to
the
Form
R
follows:

Part
I
&
II:

°
The
TRIFID
and
chemical
ID
will
be
kept
on
every
page.

Section
5:
Quantity
of
the
Toxic
Chemical
Entering
Each
Environmental
Medium
Onsite:

°
The
existing
data
element
5.5.3
Surface
Impoundment
will
be
broken
out
into
5.5.3.
A
RCRA
Subtitle
C
Surface
Impoundments
and
5.5.3.
B
Other
Surface
Impoundments.
This
was
proposed
in
the
ICR
and
can
easily
be
implemented.

Section
6:
Transfers
of
the
Toxic
Chemical
in
Wastes
to
Off­
site
Locations:

°
Information
for
surface
impoundments
for
RCRA
Subtitle
C
and
other
surface
impoundments
(
as
requested
for
Section
5)
will
be
broken
down.
This
was
proposed
as
two
separate
data
elements
in
the
proposed
Form
R,
however,
this
can
be
easily
implemented
by
deleting
the
existing
code
M63­
Surface
Impoundment,
and
replacing
it
2
with
codes
M66­
RCRA
Subtitle
C
Surface
Impoundment
and
M67­
Other
Surface
Impoundments.

°
Because
of
the
changes
to
Section
8.1
described
below,
the
existing
code
M71­
Underground
Injection
will
be
deleted
and
replaced
with
codes
M81­
Underground
Injection
to
Class
I
Wells
and
M82­
Underground
Injection
to
Class
II­
V
Wells.

Section
7B:
On­
site
Energy
Recovery
Processes
°
The
code
U09
­
Other
Energy
Recovery
Methods
will
not
be
used.
This
element
is
no
longer
applicable
since
the
only
energy
recovery
methods
are
combustion
in
a
boiler
or
industrial
furnace.
Combustion
units
other
than
boilers
and
industrial
furnaces
are
used
for
treatment
of
the
toxic
chemical
(
except
for
metal
and
metal
compounds).

Section
8:
Source
Reduction
and
Recycling
Activities:

°
Section
8.1
will
be
broken
out
into
the
following
four
categories
not
using
the
proposed
categories
of
"
contained
disposal"
or
"
uncontained
releases."
The
terms
"
contained"
and
"
uncontained"
were
dropped
from
the
four
disposal
and
other
release
subsections
because
those
terms
were
too
confusing
to
both
the
public
and
the
regulated
community.

8.1.
a.
Total
on­
site
disposal
to
Underground
Injection
to
Class
I
Wells,
RCRA
Subtitle
C
landfills,
and
other
landfills
8.1.
b.
Total
other
on­
site
disposal
or
other
releases
8.1.
c.
Total
off­
site
disposal
to
Underground
Injection
to
Class
I
Wells,
RCRA
Subtitle
C
landfills,
and
other
landfills
8.1.
d.
Total
other
off­
site
disposal
or
other
releases
Public
Comments
It
was
generally
agreed
by
the
respondents
to
the
FR
notice's
request
for
public
comment
that
the
proposed
Form
R
revisions
resulted
in
a
Form
that
was
too
lengthy
and
that
would
be
costly
to
implement.
Many
commenters
expressed
their
opinion
that
the
proposed
changes
provided
some
clarity;
others
found
the
changes
confusing
and
cumbersome.
Most
commenters
recommended
that,
if
substantial
changes
were
to
be
made
to
the
Form
R,
that
they
be
implemented
no
sooner
than
Reporting
Year
2004,
and
that
additional
training
be
provided
to
the
regulated
community
and
other
users
of
the
Form
R.
Comments
were
mixed
regarding
the
utility
of
the
proposed
changes
to
Sections
5
&
6,
however,
it
was
generally
agreed
that
the
volume
of
the
reporting
form
changes
would
be
difficult
and
costly
to
implement.
Many
respondents
supported
changes
to
Part
II,
Section
8.1
of
the
Form
R
reporting
form
that
would
help
to
break
out
and
clarify
release
quantities
in
Section
8.1.
Others
recommended
additional
changes
to
further
clarify
Section
8.1.
Some
were
opposed
to
all
proposed
changes
to
Section
8.
3
Based
on
the
comments
received,
the
Agency
has
reduced
and
modified
the
proposed
changes
to
the
existing
Form
R,
and
is
submitting
this
newly
revised
Form
R
to
OMB
for
review
and
approval.
The
new
draft
Form
R
is
being
submitted
to
OMB
for
review
as
an
attachment
to
the
ICR
renewal
request
(
EPA
ICR
No.:
1363.13,
OMB
Control
No.:
2070­
0093).

The
comments
submitted
in
response
to
EPA's
request
for
renewal
of
the
ICR
for
the
Form
R
can
be
categorized
into
five
broad
issue
areas
that
are
outlined
below.

A.
Burden
reduction
at
the
TRI
Program
level
General
Comments:
The
commenters
suggested
a
number
of
changes
to
the
TRI
program
that
they
believed
would
reduce
the
burden
associated
with
reporting.
Some
of
the
comments
focused
on
increased
electronic
reporting
while
others
suggested
specific
changes
to
the
TRI
reporting
requirements.
Expansion
of
the
eligibility
to
use
the
Form
A
was
a
common
suggestion
as
were
alternative
reporting
schedules.

Some
Specific
Comments:
°
Mandate
the
use
of
TRI­
ME
to
minimize
errors
and
improve
data
quality
°
Increase
use
of
electronic
reporting
°
Expand
use
and
eligibility
for
using
Form
A
Certification
Statement
(
do
not
include
chemical
quantity
reporting
in
section
8.6
toward
the
500
lb.
threshold)
°
Expand
TRI­
ME
to
include
additional
non­
TRI
chemicals
for
use
as
an
inventory
°
Have
TRI­
ME
calculate
summary
fields
for
section
8
of
current
Form
R
°
Restore
Form
A,
de
minimis,
and
range
reporting
for
lead
and
other
PBTs
°
Institute
alternative
reporting
schedules:
multi­
year
Form
R,
two­
year
reporting
cycle,
etc.
°
Evaluate
use
of
non­
statutory
data
elements
on
Form
R
°
Allow
multi­
year
reporting
on
a
single
Form
R
°
Exempt
zero­
releasers
from
TRI
reporting
°
EPA
should
develop
electronic
data
management
and
reporting
tool
for
the
states
that
would
compile
the
states'
TRI
data
set
and
manipulate
the
raw
data
to
deliver
a
standard
set
of
statistical
results
at
the
state­
specific
level
°
Allow
forms
to
be
submitted
on
CD
ROM
°
Expand
CDX
to
include
submissions
to
the
states
Response:
At
this
time,
EPA
has
determined
that
it
would
not
be
appropriate
and/
or
possible
to
make
the
changes
suggested
by
the
commenters.
Some
of
the
commenters'
suggestions
for
reducing
the
reporting
burden
would
require
regulatory
changes
that
cannot
be
accomplished
under
the
ICR
renewal
process.
In
addition,
many
of
the
suggested
changes
are
going
to
be
included
in
an
issue
paper
for
an
upcoming
stakeholder
dialogue
on
how
to
reduce
TRI
reporting
burden.
During
the
stakeholder
process,
EPA
will
solicit
comments
on
the
ideas
included
in
the
paper
and
any
other
suggestions
that
stakeholders
may
have
for
reducing
the
reporting
burden
of
the
TRI
program.

B.
Proposed
changes
related
to
the
expansion
of
Form
R
sections
5
&
6
4
General
Comments:
In
general,
the
majority
of
the
commenters
did
not
support
the
extensive
changes
to
sections
5
and
6
of
the
Form
R
that
EPA
had
proposed.
Issues
were
raised
concerning
the
increased
burden
that
would
result
from
the
changes
and
the
impact
the
changes
would
have
on
the
electronic
reporting
systems
that
facilities
and
states
use
to
report,
process
and
store
TRI
data.
Some
states
felt
that
the
changes
would
have
such
a
significant
impact
on
their
ability
to
process
and
maintain
TRI
data
that
they
may
even
be
prevented
from
processing
the
data.
There
was
some
support
for
certain
specific
changes
but
no
support
for
the
overall
scope
of
the
proposed
changes.
Most
commenters
felt
that
the
changes
were
not
needed
and
would
neither
clarify
nor
simplify
TRI
reporting.
The
commmenters
felt
that
none
of
the
changes
would
reduce
reporting
burden
but
would
rather
increase
burden
and
require
additional
training.

Some
Specific
Comments:
°
Changes
proposed
will
have
a
serious
impact
on
states
(
e.
g.
changing
databases
and
websites,
retraining
staff,
providing
training
and
assistance
to
industries,
etc.)
°
Proposed
changes
present
significant
implementation
costs
for
facilities
that
report
to
the
TRI
such
as
training,
data
collection
systems,
etc.
(
many
industry
commenters)
°
Proposed
revisions
do
not
clarify
and
simplify
and
greatly
increase
stakeholder
burden
°
EPA's
proposed
form
collects
additional
information
that
isn't
being
collected
on
the
current
Form
R,
ie.,
quantities
treated,
recycled,
or
burned
for
energy
recovery
onsite
by
individual
method
°
Approves
of
changes
to
5.8
­
5.11
°
Recommends
maintaining
differentiation
in
section
5.12
to
ensure
consistency
and
avoid
confusion
°
Do
not
aggregate
releases
in
5.12,
column
B,
this
aggregation
is
misleading
°
Does
not
support
changes
for
reporting
offsite
transfers
in
section
5.6
and
6.1­
6.3
°
Supports
addition
of
column
B
in
Section
5
°
Changes
from
M
codes
to
individual
categories
make
the
Form
R
harder
to
read
and
more
prone
to
errors
in
reporting.
The
current
M
code
pull­
down
menus
in
TRI­
ME
work
better.
°
"
Storage,"
"
solidification/
stabilization",
"
wastewater
treatment",
"
other
offsite
management",
and
"
transfers"
should
not
be
characterized
as
"
uncontained
releases"
in
Section
5.10.
These
activities
are
regularly
covered
by
federal
or
state
regulation.
Call
them
"
controlled
releases"
instead.
°
Section
5.6.12
(
Unknown
Disposal)
should
not
be
included.
Facilities
should
report
the
specific
waste
management
method
under
Section
5.6.10
so
the
public
doesn't
have
to
guess.
°
Supports
using
M
codes
to
indicate
final
disposition
of
offsite
transfers
(­
0046)
°
Approves
proposed
sections
in
Section
6
for
reporting
onsite
treatment,
energy
recovery
and
recycling
quantities
°
Retain
range
reporting
in
Sections
5
&
6
(
was
deleted
from
proposed
Form
R)
°
Remove
ability
to
enter
range
codes
for
release
°
Supports
factoring
accidental
releases
in
Col.
B
°
Does
not
support
factoring
accidental
releases
in
Col.
B
5
°
Supports
getting
rid
of
M
codes
and
having
a
specific
line
for
the
activity
covered
by
that
code
°
Not
clear
where
to
enter
name/
location
of
receiving
facility
or
how
to
report
multiple
offsite
locations
Response:
At
this
time,
EPA
has
determined
that
it
would
not
be
appropriate
to
implement
all
of
the
proposed
changes
to
Sections
5,
6,
and
7
of
the
current
version
of
the
Form
R.
This
decision
is
predominantly
based
on
the
comments
identifying
implementation
concerns.
Data
collection
systems
as
well
as
systems
that
disseminate
this
information
to
the
public
would
require
significant
updating.
Also,
there
would
be
a
need
to
significantly
update
existing
compliance
assistance
materials
such
as
guidance
documents,
training
materials,
etc.
When
the
implementation
concerns
are
considered
as
a
whole,
EPA
believes
it
is
not
feasible
to
implement
these
changes
immediately
but
rather
the
Agency
should
consider
these
changes
in
a
more
manageable
period
of
time.
EPA
still
believes
that
some
of
the
proposed
changes
may
still
be
feasible
to
implement
now
and
in
future
years
without
increasing
the
reporting
burden,
but
EPA
has
not
identified
which
changes
it
might
adopt
in
the
future
nor
is
the
Agency
going
to
respond
to
all
comments
in
favor
or
against
specific
changes.
Rather,
EPA
will
reevaluate
the
changes
in
an
appropriate
future
proceeding.

However,
EPA
will
be
implementing
one
change
to
Section
5
of
the
current
reporting
form.
Section
5.5.3
will
now
be
subdivided
into
two
parts:
5..
5.3A:
RCRA
subtitle
C
surface
impoundment;
and
5.5.3B:
other
surface
impoundment.
Previously
this
information
was
combined
and
reported
in
section
5.5.3
surface
impoundment.
There
was
support
for
this
breakdown
and
EPA
believes
that
this
change
is
minor
and
will
not
cause
significant
implementation
problems.
This
change
is
also
consistent
with
the
changes
to
Section
8.1
that
EPA
is
making
today,
changes
generally
supported
by
commenters,
as
discussed
below.
Also,
as
noted
in
the
July
1
proposal,
EPA
will
be
no
longer
be
using
the
code
U09
­
Other
Energy
Recovery
Methods,
because
this
element
is
not
applicable
since
the
only
energy
recovery
methods
are
combustion
in
a
boiler
or
industrial
furnace.
Combustion
units
other
than
boilers
and
industrial
furnaces
are
used
for
treatment
of
the
toxic
chemical
(
except
for
metal
and
metal
compounds).
EPA
did
not
receive
any
comments
opposing
the
discontinuation
of
this
code.

C.
Proposed
changes
to
section
8.1
General
Comments:
There
were
considerable
changes
to
Part
II,
Section
8.1
that
were
proposed
in
the
July
1,
2003,
FR
Notice.
Also,
there
were
considerable
differences
of
opinion
on
the
proposed
addition
of
the
"
contained
disposal"
and
"
uncontained
releases"
language.
While
a
number
of
the
commenters
supported
the
addition
of
the
language,
some
did
not
support
the
definition
EPA
proposed
to
use
and
others
suggested
changes
to
the
language.
Several
commenters
requested
that
additional
activities
also
be
considered
contained
disposal
rather
than
uncontained
releases.
Still
others
did
not
agree
with
the
contained
disposal
and
uncontained
releases
language
at
all.
Some
commenters
suggested
additional
changes
to
section
8
and/
or
changes
in
the
way
EPA
presents
the
data
in
its
annual
data
release
documents
and
electronic
databases.
6
Some
Specific
Comments:
°
Use
rulemaking
process
for
Section
8
changes,
not
ICR
approval
°
Make
"
Prior
Year"
col.
A
(
new
section
8.1.
a
­
8.1.
d)
optional
the
first
year
the
new
form
is
used
°
Disagrees
that
all
metals
sent
to
POTWs
be
considered
uncontained
releases
°
Recommends
codified
definitions
for
data
required
in
Section
8
°
Does
not
support
Part
II
revisions
°
Supports
revisions
to
Part
II
of
the
Form
R
°
Supports
addition
of
contained
disposal
category
and
distinguishing
between
contained
disposal
and
uncontained
releases
°
Category
of
"
contained
disposal"
should
be
expanded
to
include
surface
impoundments
°
The
existing
Form
R
currently
already
makes
the
distinction
between
disposal
and
uncontained
releases,
therefore,
no
changes
are
necessary.
°
The
categories
of
"
contained
disposal"
should
be
broken
out
as
separate
data
elements
within
Section
8.
°
The
category
of
"
contained
disposal"
will
lead
EPA
and
industry
to
characterize
harmful
toxic
transfers
and
releases
as
having
minimal
impact
on
public
health
and
the
environment
°
Believes
that
contained
and
uncontained
release
characterizations
will
work
against
source
reduction
and
obscure
pollution
prevention
°
Expand
Section
8
to
include
total
quantity
in
waste
managed,
quantity
generated
as
waste
on­
site,
and
quantity
received
as
waste
from
off­
site
°
Column
A,
prior
year
would
need
to
be
recalculated
to
fit
new
classifications
°
New
Form
R
should
only
institute
change
that
distinguishes
between
a
waste
transfer
or
disposal
and
a
release
°
Definition
of
contained
vs
uncontained
is
inconsistent
with
other
regulatory
programs
°
Distinction
between
"
contained"
disposal
and
"
uncontained"
releases
will
be
fundamentally
unfair
to
the
mining
industry
and
western
states
°
Limiting
"
contained"
to
landfills
and
Class
I
UIC
wells
places
EPCRA
313
at
odds
with
EPCRA
and
EPA's
implementing
regulations
°
Recommends
that
transfers
to
POTWs
and
waste
brokers
also
be
reclassified
as
contained
releases
°
If
contained
disposal
is
used,
should
be
expanded
to
include
all
permitted
management
units
°
Supports
adding
a
footnote
for
section
8.1
that
clarifies
what
is
included
as
"
contained
disposal"
and
what
is
included
in
"
uncontained
release"
°
Does
not
agree
with
designation
of
management
activities
as
"
uncontained"
releases
°
Supports
format
changes
that
affect
Underground
Injection
°
Recommends
clarification
to
the
public
on
the
difference
between
contained
disposal
and
uncontained
release
°
Recommends
use
of
the
term
"
controlled
disposal"
°
Contained
disposal
should
not
be
considered
a
release
°
Only
8.1.
a
and
8.1.
c
should
be
classified
as
releases
°
Objects
to
aggregating
various
types
of
contained
disposal
°
On­
site
land
release
­
other
disposal,
considered
"
uncontained"
in
the
proposed
Form
R,
7
could
possibly
be
contained
or
uncontained
releases
°
"
Contained
disposal"
category
should
include
surface
impoundments,
which
are
equivalent
to
landfills.
°
Form
R
should
be
modified
to
provide
the
option
to
report
either
"
contained
disposal"
or
"
uncontained
release"
for
each
type
of
land
disposal
unit
without
any
prior
eligibility
determination
by
EPA
on
the
Form.
°
The
new
categories
"
contained
disposal"
and
"
uncontained
releases"
should
be
added
at
the
end
of
Section
5
to
avoid
reformatting
of
the
entire
Form
R.
°
EPA's
current
regulations
at
372.85(
15)
don't
require
reporting
of
"
contained
disposal"
and
"
uncontained
releases;"
thus,
the
proposed
changes
are
substantive
and
must
be
done
through
rulemaking.
°
With
passage
of
the
Data
Quality
Act
and
the
data
quality
guidelines
developed,
EPA
is
obligated
to
accurately
collect
information
on
and
report
to
the
public
the
distinction
between
disposal
of
a
toxic
chemical
into
a
secure
landfill
and
release
of
a
toxic
chemical
into
ambient
air,
water,
or
soil
°
No
total
release
categories
should
be
used
°
Subtitle
C
landfills
and
transfers
to
disposal
should
not
be
considered
"
releases"
or
counted
toward
"
total
releases."
Describing
such
transfers
as
"
off­
site
contained
disposal"
and
thus
as
a
subtotal
of
"
total
releases"
violates
current
regulations
and
laws
and
must
be
changed
°
Approves
of
section
8
changes
proposed
°
EPA
could
just
change
8.1,
not
other
more
extensive
changes
proposed
in
sections
5
and
6
of
the
Form
R.
°
Move
onsite
inventory
to
Sec.
8
along
with
other
chemical­
summary
data
°
PDR
should
follow
the
new
terminology
of
"
disposal"
and
not
"
release"
and
reflect
the
data
in
the
same
manner
in
the
PDR
and
TRI
Explorer
°
Add
section
total
of
total
air
releases,
total
water
releases,
total
onsite
land,
and
total
offsite
land.
Remove
total
contained/
uncontained
on/
offsite
summaries
°
It
appears
that
EPA
intends
to
continue
classifying
"
contained
disposal"
as
a
"
release,"
even
though
such
disposal
does
not
introduce
TRI
chemicals
to
the
environment.
Requiring
reporting
of
materials
not
actually
released
to
the
environment
is
inconsistent
with
the
intent
of
Congress
under
EPCRA.

Response:
Based
on
the
comments
received,
EPA
is
proposing
that
Section
8.1
be
further
broken
down
as
follows:

°
8.1.
a.
­
Total
on­
site
disposal
to
Underground
Injection
to
Class
I
Wells,
RCRA
Subtitle
C
landfills,
and
other
landfills;
°
8.1.
b.
­
Total
other
on­
site
disposal
or
other
releases;
°
8.1.
c.
Total
off­
site
disposal
to
Underground
Injection
to
Class
I
Wells,
RCRA
Subtitle
C
landfills,
and
other
landfills;
and
°
8.1.
d.
­
Total
other
off­
site
disposal
or
other
releases.

EPA
believes
that
this
description
more
accurately
reflects
the
intent
of
EPA's
original
8
proposed
breakdown
without
introducing
the
confusion
created
by
using
the
terms
"
contained"
and
"
uncontained."
As
described
in
the
initial
proposal,
EPA's
original
intent
to
the
breakdown
of
Section
8.1
was
to
provide
a
more
accurate
and
precise
characterization
of
TRI
chemicals
in
waste
streams
in
that
it
provides
for
distinctions
between
releases
to
ambient
media.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
changes
being
proposed
to
Section
8.1
are
regulatory
changes
that
would
require
a
rulemaking
since
the
proposed
Section
8.1
will
include
all
of
the
same
information
as
before
and
no
additional
information
is
being
collected.
EPA
also
believes
that
this
change
will
not
cause
implementation
issues
as
previously
discussed.
This
proposed
Section
8.1
also
provides
for
a
greater
parallel
structure
between
data
elements
collected
throughout
the
Form
R.
EPA
has
made
no
decisions
at
this
time
as
to
how
these
changes
might
be
reflected
in
the
annual
Public
Data
Release
or
other
public
dissemination
tools
(
e.
g.,
TRI
Explorer).
Finally,
EPA
does
not
agree
it
is
necessary
to
make
prior
year
reporting
for
8.1.
a­
8.1.
d
voluntary
because
facilities
generated
the
information
necessary
to
report
prior
year
data
when
reporting
EPA
received
several
comments
suggesting
that
additional
disposals
or
other
releases
should
be
broken
out
in
a
manner
similar
to
Class
I
underground
injection
or
disposal
to
landfills.
The
concern
behind
many
of
these
comments
appears
to
have
been
that
calling
one
or
more
of
these
activities
"
uncontained
releases"
might
lead
to
confusion
about
the
regulatory
status
of
such
activities.
For
this
reason,
EPA
is
dropping
the
labels
"
contained
disposal"
or
"
uncontained
release",
as
discussed
above.
However,
EPA
believes
that
these
two
activities
are
distinct
from
the
others
mentioned
by
commenters,
for
the
reasons
discussed
in
the
July
1,
2003
notice.

D.
Other
Form
R
formatting
issues
General
Comments:
There
were
a
wide
range
of
comments
on
other
aspects
of
the
format
and
content
of
the
Form
R.
These
comments
ranged
from
general
comments
that
the
proposed
form
was
too
long
to
very
specific
comments
such
as
what
kind
of
font
should
be
used
on
the
Form
R.
Some
commenters
suggested
that
certain
data
elements
should
be
removed
entirely
from
the
From
R
while
other
commenters
suggested
some
minor
additions
to
the
form.

Some
Specific
Comments:
°
Proposed
form
is
too
long
°
Support
addition
of
chemical
name,
reporting
year
and
facility
ID
number
to
each
page
°
Add
NAICS
codes
now
°
Remove
redundant
headers;
Use
Arial
font
for
everything;
include
2.1
(
trade
secret
names)
into
1.4
field
since
trade
secrets
are
a
very
rare
case;
group
water
releases
together
into
same
section
(
i.
e.,
5.3
&
6.1);
use
NA
check
box
for
source
reduction
activities
instead
of
"
yes/
no"
for
purpose
of
consistency
°
Reordering
and
renumbering
of
data
elements
will
cause
confusion.
°
The
proposed
format
does
not
accommodate
the
entry
of
large
numbers.
°
The
proposed
Form
as
well
as
the
existing
Form
should
better
accommodate
the
use
of
additional
pages.
°
Drop
Section
7A
(
proposed
Section
10).
The
information
is
not
used
by
EPA
for
the
PDR
or
on
an
EPA
website.
9
°
Do
not
collect
e­
mail
addresses.
They
cannot
be
protected
from
misuse
by
spammers,
and
EPA
has
previously
stated
it
would
release
them
in
response
to
FOIA
requests.
°
Format
text
consistently
throughout
and
clearly
mark
section
headings
°
Would
like
to
use
TRI
software
for
including
all
chemicals
whether
they
are
Sec.
313
chemicals
or
not
for
the
purpose
of
keeping
a
chemical
use
inventory
°
Revise
form
to
allow
for
reporting
of
multiple
owners
of
a
facility
(
e.
g.
joint
owners
of
power
plants)
°
Support
TEQ
reporting
for
dioxin
and
dioxin­
like
compounds
°
Add
GPS
to
Form
R
since
addresses
can
change
°
Evaluate/
eliminate
13
non­
statutory
data
elements
that
add
to
overall
reporting
burden
°
Continued
changes
to
TRI
since
its
inception
affect
the
public's
ability
to
use
and
understand
TRI
data
°
The
proposed
changes
will
make
data
analysis
more
difficult
(
e.
g.,
trend
analysis
using
previous
year
data)
°
Revise
Form
R
to
clarify
that
those
toxic
chemicals
that
are
removed
from
the
ambient
environment
as
part
of
a
remediation
operation
need
not
be
recounted
as
"
releases"
by
remediation
waste
generators
when
managed
in
treatment
or
contained
disposal
facilities.
Hazardous
waste
treatment
and
disposal
operations
receiving
the
waste
should
not
have
to
account
for
such
waste
in
their
Form
R
reporting
°
Request
that
EPA
consider
adding
sections
for
Total
Air
Releases,
Total
Land
Releases,
and
Total
Water
Releases
to
assist
in
analyzing
the
data
by
ensuring
that
states
and
Federal
EPA
calculate
these
totals
in
the
same
manner
Response:
In
the
Federal
Register
notice
that
was
issued
on
July
1,
2003
(
68
FR
39074),
numerous
changes
were
proposed
to
clarify
and
simplify
reporting
Form
R.
Although
some
of
those
who
commented
on
the
proposed
Form
R
changes
believed
that
the
changes
had
merit,
the
overwhelming
majority
of
commenters
believed
that
implementing
so
many
changes
at
once
would
be
difficult
and
costly.

Based
on
the
those
comments
received
during
the
public
comment
period
and
other
comments
received
from
TRI
stakeholders,
EPA
will
not
implement
most
of
the
proposed
changes,
but
is
proposing
that
OMB
approve
some
minor
modifications
(
described
in
detail
above)
that
will
help
to
clarify
the
data
reported
without
adding
undue
burden
to
TRI
data
users.
The
length
of
this
proposed
Form
R
will
remain
the
same
as
the
existing
Form.
The
chemical
name
and
facility
identification
number
(
TRIFID)
will
appear
on
each
page
of
the
reporting
form.
Although
no
additional
formatting
changes
will
be
proposed
now,
EPA
will
consider
the
proposed
format
revisions
(
e.
g.,
consistent
headings,
consistent
font,
combining
like
sections,
adding
GPS
codes)
in
future
Form
R
ICR
renewal.

Two
commenters
requested
that
the
Form
R
be
revised
to
allow
facilities
to
report
multiple/
joint
owners.
Q&
A
625
in
the
1998
version
of
the
EPCRA
Section
313
Questions
and
Answers
document
responds
directly
to
an
example
of
an
electricity
generating
facility
that
is
comprised
of
multiple
independent
owners,
each
with
his
or
her
own
separate
operation
but
with
a
financial
interest
in
the
operation
of
the
entire
facility.
The
response
states
that
an
"
electricity
10
generating
facility
should
enter
in
Part
I,
Section
5.1
of
the
Form
R
the
name
of
the
holding
or
parent
company,
consortium,
joint
venture,
or
other
entity
that
owns,
operates,
or
controls
the
facility."
Also,
further
clarification
is
provided
in
the
2001
Reporting
Forms
and
Instructions
document.

The
Agency
is
conducting
a
rulemaking
to
add
NAICS
codes
to
the
TRI
reporting
process.
Public
comments
to
the
proposed
rule
are
currently
being
reviewed.
After
a
final
rule
is
published,
NAICS
codes
will
be
reported
by
facilities
on
the
Form
R.
In
regards
to
dioxin
TEQ
reporting,
the
Agency
is
now
in
the
process
of
preparing
a
proposed
rule.

EPA
has
responded
in
the
past
to
requests
to
eliminate
some
or
all
of
the
"
non­
statutory"
data
elements
from
Form
R
reporting.
First,
EPA
maintains
statutory
authority
to
collect
all
of
the
information
contained
on
the
Form
R.
Second,
the
data
elements
discussed
by
commenters
are
requested
on
the
Form
R
in
order
to
cross­
reference
the
facility
and
the
level
of
activity
being
certified
with
other
reporting
systems
and
data
bases.
They
are
also
useful
for
more
accurate
tracking
of
a
facility's
reporting
history.

E.
Chemical
Assessment
Guidelines
(
CAG)
and
TRI
rules,
lawsuits
and
petitions
General
Comment:
Some
commenters
raised
issues
that
concern
TRI
program
projects
or
issues
that
are
not
part
of
the
Form
R
ICR
renewal
process.
These
included
rulemakings,
lawsuits,
guidance
documents,
etc.

Some
Specific
Comments:
°
CAG:
EPA
must
revise
its
listing
guidance
through
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
and
must
undergo
OMB
review
under
EO12866.
EPA
cannot
make
any
new
listing
determinations
until
guidance
is
finalized.
Any
new
EPA
proposed
or
draft
final
TRI
listing
determinations
which
have
raised
significant
data
quality
or
"
practical
utility"
issues
in
public
comments
must
be
submitted
to
OMB
with
a
new
ICR
and
pursuant
to
EO
12866
after
the
listing
guidance
has
been
revised.
°
TRI
lead
and
lead
compounds
rule
°
Barrick
lawsuit
issues
°
Discusses
mining
lawsuits
°
Incorporate
risk
context
to
data
reported
°
Facilities
should
not
be
allowed
to
report
amounts
of
non­
PBT
listed
chemicals
to
the
right
of
the
decimal
place.
Only
whole
numbers
should
be
reported
Response:
Since
the
comments
on
these
issues
are
not
within
the
scope
of
the
ICR
renewal
process
they
are
not
being
addressed
by
EPA
at
this
time.

F.
Form
R
and
Form
A
Burden
General
Comments:
Many
of
the
comments
related
to
Form
R
burden
focused
on
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
Form
R
and
the
expected
impact
of
these
proposed
changes
on
reporting
burden.
11
Many
comments
indicated
that
the
increase
in
form
length
and
changes
in
formatting
would
result
in
additional
burden.
Comments
also
noted
that
the
proposed
changes
would
create
additional
burden
for
states.

There
were
also
a
number
of
comments
related
to
EPA's
revised
burden
estimates
for
subsequent
year
reporting
on
Form
R
and
Form
A.
Some
comments
acknowledged
that
EPA's
revised
estimates
were
consistent
with
the
reporting
experience
at
affected
facilities,
however
other
comments
took
issue
with
the
revised
estimates
and
EPA's
method
for
deriving
them.
On
the
issue
of
TRI­
ME's
impact
on
reporting
burden,
most
comments
indicate
that
TRI­
ME
reduces
reporting
burden,
but
some
comments
disagreed
with
EPA's
burden
reduction
estimate.
Finally,
there
were
a
few
comments
related
to
the
relationship
between
Form
R
and
Form
A
burden.

Some
Specific
Comments:
°
Proposed
revisions
to
Form
R
will
increase
reporting
burden
beyond
EPA
estimates
due
to
increased
length
of
form,
need
for
in­
house
training,
revision
of
multiple
spreadsheets,
changes
to
collection
and
aggregation
of
data,
proofing,
need
to
make
prior
year
calculations,
and
software
revisions.
°
Proposed
revisions
may
not
increase
Form
R
burden
°
Proposed
revisions
to
not
comply
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA)
°
Proposed
revisions
will
create
additional
burden
for
states
to
handle
more
paper,
revise
databases,
provide
training
and
outreach.
°
Burden
for
completing
existing
Form
R
is
consistent
with
EPA's
revised
burden
estimate
°
Larger,
more
complex
facilities
have
more
burden
than
is
estimated
for
the
"
typical"
facility
especially
in
the
area
of
compliance
determination.
°
Burden
estimates
based
on
EPA
sample
not
valid
because
other
facilities
may
not
be
of
the
same
size,
may
have
more
complex
Form
R
issues,
may
file
different
numbers
of
Forms,
and
may
have
less
experience
with
TRI
compliance
°
There
is
no
quantifiable
public
benefit
to
requiring
reporting
from
zero
releasers
°
Delaying
Form
R
changes
to
RY
2004
or
later
would
give
States
adequate
time
to
implement
°
Burden
estimates
fail
to
account
for
the
hours
spent
making
a
threshold
determination
that
does
not
result
in
the
filing
of
a
Form
R
°
TRI
reporting
is
a
year­
round
effort
that
includes
many
activities
°
Facilities
in
the
glass
and
ceramic
decorating
industry
take
longer
to
report
than
EPA
estimates.
°
Staff
turnover
occurs
at
all
facilities
and
requires
new
employees
to
become
familiar
with
TRI
reporting
requirements.
°
Some
new
rule
familiarization
occurs
every
year
for
TRI
filers
as
a
result
of
program
changes,
interpretation,
guidance,
new
information,
and
training.
°
Increased
availability
of
information
has
increased
the
reporting
burden.
°
EPA
has
not
accounted
for
the
increased
burden
of
PBT
and
lead
reporting
which
does
not
allow
de
minimis
exclusions
or
range
reporting.
°
EPA
has
incorrectly
assumed
that
the
current
reporting
pattern
will
be
replicated
in
future
reporting
years.
12
°
Data
used
by
EPA
to
re­
estimate
burden
pre­
date
PBT
and
lead
rules
°
No
discussion
of
statistical
sampling
method
and
representativeness
of
data
is
provided
°
Surveys
were
not
specifically
designed
to
gauge
reporting
burden
°
EPA
should
conduct
a
broader,
more
accurate
survey
°
EPA
should
include
a
burden
question
on
the
Form
R
°
TRI­
ME
reduces
burden
°
TRI­
ME
has
not
reduced
burden
as
much
as
EPA
estimates
°
TRI­
ME
is
not
widely
used
°
Some
facilities
use
proprietary
software
instead
of,
or
in
addition
to,
TRI­
ME
°
Commenter's
facility
uses
a
loading
factor
of
at
least
75
percent
for
most
purposes
which
is
higher
than
EPA's
loading
factor.
°
Supports
downward
adjustment
to
the
number
of
anticipated
Form
Rs
submitted
over
the
next
3­
year
period.
°
EPA
did
not
address
OMB's
terms
of
clearance
for
additional
review
and
support
of
burden
estimates.
°
Estimate
for
Calculations/
Certification
should
be
the
same
for
both
Form
A
and
Form
R
filers
because
the
same
upfront
work
is
done
for
both
the
Form
A
and
Form
R
°
EPA
based
Form
A
burden
estimate
on
an
unjustified
relationship
to
the
burden
of
completing
Form
R.

Response:
EPA
will
not
implement
most
of
the
proposed
changes
to
Form
R
described
in
the
proposed
ICR
renewal
notice
from
July
1,
2003
(
68
FR
39074)
at
this
time.
However,
EPA
is
proposing
that
OMB
approve
some
minor
modifications
(
described
in
previous
sections
of
this
document)
that
will
help
to
clarify
the
data
reported
without
adding
undue
burden
to
TRI
data
users.
These
changes
will
not
affect
the
overall
length
of
the
Form
R,
and
are
expected
to
have
a
negligible
impact
on
total
reporting
burden.

The
issues
raised
in
comments
on
revised
burden
estimates
for
subsequent
year
reporting
and
EPA's
methods
for
deriving
these
estimates
are
addressed
at
length
in
the
Supporting
Statements
for
the
Form
R
and
Form
A
ICRs,
in
EPA's
response
to
OMB's
Terms
of
Clearance,
and
in
responses
to
comments
from
the
previous
ICR
renewal.
The
revised
burden
hour
estimates
are
based
on
the
actual
reporting
experience
of
TRI
facilities,
while
existing
burden
hour
estimates
are
based
on
engineering
estimates
dating
to
the
late
1980s.
In
eliciting
burden
data,
facilities
were
encouraged
to
think
comprehensively
about
the
overall
burden
of
TRI
reporting
including
time
for
the
activities
mentioned
in
the
comments.
The
available
burden
data
are
appropriate
and
adequate
for
the
purpose
of
revising
unit
reporting
burden
estimates,
especially
in
light
of
the
validation
provided
by
more
recent
burden
data
independently
gathered
by
the
American
Petroleum
Institute
after
implementation
of
the
PBT
and
lead
rules.
Overall,
the
available
data
reflect
the
experience
of
a
broad
range
of
industries
reporting
to
TRI,
and
the
data
consistently
show
that
existing
estimates
of
reporting
burden
used
by
EPA
are
not
an
accurate
representation
of
current
reporting
burden.

As
reported
in
the
appendix
to
EPA's
response
to
OMB's
Terms
of
Clearance,
average
total
reporting
burden
per
Form
R
is
11.7
hours
plus
or
minus
1.8
hours.
This
is
lower
than
the
13
revised
estimate
used
in
the
ICR
renewal
of
19.5
hours
per
Form
R
(
composed
of
14.5
for
calculation/
report
completion
and
5
hours
for
recordkeeping/
submission)
plus
4
hours
per
facility
for
compliance
determination.
Although
EPA's
revised
estimate
is
more
of
an
aggregate
estimate
than
an
estimate
that
is
built­
up
from
numerous
discrete
activities,
there
is
little
danger
that
the
total
reporting
burden
is
underestimated.
The
revised
estimate
is
based
on
responses
that
reveal
actual
facility
burden
hours,
and
is
substantially
higher
than
the
average
of
these
responses.
It
may
be
appropriate
to
think
of
the
difference
in
estimates
of
total
hours
per
form
as
addressing
various
comments
about
additional
time
spent
on
training,
guidance
review,
and
other
activities
that
are
not
individually
estimated
as
part
of
EPA's
revised
burden
hour
estimate
for
subsequent
year
reporting.
The
revised
burden
estimates
represent
an
improvement
over
the
previous
estimates
dating
back
to
the
1980s,
and
their
use
provides
a
more
accurate
representation
of
the
current
burden
of
the
TRI
program
on
reporting
facilities.

With
respect
to
the
burden
reduction
attributable
to
TRI­
ME,
EPA
has
reduced
its
estimate
of
burden
reduction
from
25
percent
to
15
percent.
At
the
time
of
the
last
ICR
renewal
EPA
had
contacted
9
facilities
that
used
a
pilot
version
of
TRI­
ME
in
RY2000.
EPA
has
now
incorporated
additional
data
from
9
facilities
using
TRI­
ME
for
the
first
time
in
RY2001
as
described
in
the
Supporting
Statements
for
the
ICRs.
Preliminary
counts
from
RY2002
show
92
percent
of
Form
R
responses
and
86
percent
of
Form
A
responses
were
filed
using
TRI­
ME
(
TRIME
output
for
submission
can
be
in
paper
or
electronic
formats).
For
the
purposes
of
this
ICR
renewal,
EPA
is
using
an
estimate
of
90
percent
of
Form
Rs
and
85
percent
of
Form
As
being
filed
using
TRI­
ME.

With
respect
to
the
comments
on
the
revised
burden
estimates
for
Form
A,
EPA
notes
that
the
calculations
needed
to
determine
eligibility
are
a
subset
of
the
calculations
necessary
to
complete
Form
R.
Thus,
the
time
required
to
calculate
the
annual
reportable
amount
was
estimated
in
previous
ICRs
and
economic
analyses
by
aggregating
EPA's
estimates
of
the
time
required
to
calculate
each
of
the
sections
of
Form
R
that
are
relevant
to
determining
annual
reportable
amount.
According
to
these
estimates,
calculations
for
a
Form
A
take
approximately
64
percent
of
the
time
of
calculations
for
the
Form
R.
To
validate
the
revised
burden
hour
estimate
for
Form
A,
EPA
contacted
9
facilities
that
filed
Form
As
to
inquire
about
the
typical
facility
level
burden
associated
with
using
the
reporting
form.
Depending
on
whether
the
midpoint
or
maximum
of
the
reported
range
was
used,
the
average
facility­
level
burden
hours
per
chemical
certification
was
reported
at
11.2
to
15.5
hours.
EPA's
revised
estimate
of
13.7
total
hours
for
a
facility
certifying
one
chemical
on
a
Form
A
falls
within
this
range.

Form
R
ICR
Commenters
14
Commenter
OEI
E­
Docket
Identification
Number
John
Parker
OEI­
2003­
0026­
0003
(
Form
R
comment,
submitted
under
Form
A
docket)

Center
for
Regulatory
Effectiveness
(
CRE)
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0006
Anonymous
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0008
3M
Company
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0010
Minnesota
ERC
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0011
Indiana
Dept.
of
Env.
Mgmt.
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0012
Intl.
Dairy
Foods
Assn.
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0013
Ameren
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0014
Louisiana
DEQ
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0015
ML
Johnson,
Conectiv
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0016
Tri­
Power
Consulting
Svcs.
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0017
Clean
Harbors
Env.
Svcs.
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0018
Ohio
EPA
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0019
Waste
Management
Inc.
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0020
Information
Unlimited,
Baton
Rouge,
La
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0021
Edison
Electric
Institute
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0022
Anonymous
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0023
PPG
Industries
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0024
Claude
Earl
Wells
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0025
Environmental
Technology
Council
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0026
Weyerhaeuser
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0027
Michigan
DEQ
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0028
National
Association
of
Manufacturers
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0029
Pharmaceutical
Research
&
Manufacturers
of
America
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0030
NFIB
Legal
Foundation
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0031
Va.
DEQ
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0033
Southern
Company
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0034
Onyx
Environmental
Svcs.
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0035
15
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0036
Texas
Chemical
Council
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0037
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Association
(
SOCMA)
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0038
IPC
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0039
Society
of
Glass
&
Ceramic
Decorators
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0040
Dupont
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0041
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Assn.
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0043
National
Mining
Association
(
NMA)
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0044
ACC
­
UIC
Task
Force
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0045
Alcoa,
Inc.
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0046
Eastman
Chemical
Co.
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0047
Washington
State
TRI
Program
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0048
Texas
Commission
on
Env.
Quality
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0049
American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC)
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0050
Louisiana
Mid­
Continental
Oil
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0051
Northeast
Utilities
System
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0052
American
Petroleum
Institute
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0053
Phelps­
Dodge
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0054
State
of
Utah
Department
of
Env.
Quality
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0055
Working
Group
on
Community
Right­
to­
Know
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0056
Cytec
Industries,
Inc.
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0057
Lower
Colorado
River
Authority
(
LCRA)
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0058
Westar
Energy
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0059
Monsanto
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0060
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(
USWAG)
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0061
Ground
Water
Protection
Council
(
GWPC)
OEI­
2003­
0025­
0062