Document ID: EPA-HQ-TRI-2004-0001-0054
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-06-27T04:00Z

1
Response
to
Comments
Received
on
the
January
10,
2005
Proposed
Rule
(
70
FR
1674)
to
Modify
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
Reporting
Forms
Office
of
Information
Analysis
and
Access,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.
(
2005)

I.
GENERAL
COMMENTS
IN
SUPPORT
OF
THE
RULE
A.
Comments
supportive
overall
without
reservations
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
stated
their
overall
support
for
the
proposed
rule.
The
commenter
said
that
if
the
rule
were
adopted,
it
would
reduce
the
burden
associated
with
submitting
annual
Toxics
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
reports
by
substantially
reducing
the
amount
of
time
that
facility
representatives
spend
each
year
on
the
task.
The
commenter
also
noted
that
they
supported
EPA's
goal
of
enhancing
the
efficiency
and
effectiveness
of
the
TRI
program
without
impacting
human
health
or
environmental
quality.

Response
EPA
appreciates
receiving
this
comment.

B.
Comments
supportive
overall
but
with
reservations
(
details
provided
in
subsequent
sections
of
this
document)
(
23
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Twenty­
three
commenters
stated
overall
support
for
the
proposed
rule
but
had
various
reservations
to
one
or
more
sections
of
the
proposal.
The
commenters
expressed
support
for
streamlining
TRI
reporting
requirements
and
reducing
burden
for
TRI
reporters.
The
concerns
raised
by
these
commenters
are
described
in
more
detail
in
subsequent
sections
of
this
Response
to
Comments
document.

Response
EPA
appreciates
receiving
these
comments
and
has
addressed
specific
concerns
raised
by
the
commenters
in
subsequent
sections
of
this
Response
to
Comments
document.

II.
GENERAL
COMMENTS
IN
OPPOSITION
TO
THE
RULE
A.
Comments
expressing
overall
opposition
(
3
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Three
commenters
expressed
overall
opposition
to
the
proposed
rule.
One
commenter
stated
that
while
they
understood
that
reducing
the
burden
of
reporting
is
an
important
goal
for
EPA,
they
believed
that
the
TRI
reporting
partnership
between
EPA
and
the
States
had
been
ignored.
The
commenter
strongly
encouraged
EPA
address
these
issues
before
finalizing
the
rule.
Another
commenter
raised
concerns
about
poisons
being
released
upon
an
unsuspecting
American
public
and
stated
that
the
rule
was
on
the
wrong
2
track.
Another
commenter
focused
their
opposition
on
the
section
of
the
proposal
dealing
with
locational
data.

Response
EPA
appreciates
receiving
these
comments
but
disagrees
with
the
commenters'
contention
that
EPA
ignored
the
partnership
relationship
between
EPA
and
the
states
in
this
burden
reduction
effort.
EPA
held
a
TRI
Conference
on
February
8
 
10,
2005
and
invited
states
to
attend.
The
Agency
provided
general
information
about
upcoming
TRI
burden
reduction
activities,
including
this
rulemaking
effort.
In
addition,
EPA
held
a
meeting/
conference
call
with
states
on
June
2,
2005,
to
specifically
address
implementation
issues
related
to
this
rulemaking.
EPA
has
addressed
the
concerns
expressed
by
the
commenter
who
raised
a
number
of
concerns
regarding
locational
data
under
section
IV.
A.
below.

B.
Comments
expressing
overall
opposition
unless
specific
changes
are
made
to
the
proposal
(
details
provided
in
subsequent
sections
of
this
document)
(
3
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Three
commenters
stated
that
they
opposed
the
proposed
changes
overall
unless
a
number
of
specific
changes
were
made
to
prevent
the
loss
of
publicly
available
data
or
the
erosion
of
data
quality
in
the
TRI
program.
They
urged
the
Agency
to
adequately
take
into
account
the
needs
of
data
users,
and
provide
full
access
to
data
about
toxic
chemical
releases
when
considering
options
to
reduce
industry's
burden.

One
commenter
stated
that
efforts
to
reduce
reporting
burden
should
never
detract
from
the
primary
purpose
of
TRI
providing
accurate
useful
information
to
the
public
about
chemical
releases
into
the
environment.
The
commenter
asserted
that
the
public
has
the
right
to
know
what
is
being
put
into
the
land
they
live
on,
the
air
they
breathe,
and
the
water
they
drink.
According
to
the
commenter,
Congress
recognized
this
right
when
it
passed
the
statute
creating
TRI,
and
it
is
not
EPA's
role
to
undercut
Congress's
intention
for
the
sake
of
burden
reduction.
While
the
commenter
stated
that
many
of
the
changes
contained
in
EPA's
proposed
rule
have
merit
and
deserve
serious
consideration,
they
expressed
concerns
about
several
proposed
changes
and
urged
EPA
to
carefully
consider
the
issues
raised
in
their
comments
before
finalizing
these
provisions.

Another
commenter
stated
that
they
were
concerned
about
several
of
the
proposed
changes
in
this
rule
and
greatly
concerned
about
a
potential
second
round
of
"
more
substantial
changes"
to
the
TRI
program.
According
to
the
commenter,
without
the
critical
public
data
provided
by
the
TRI
program,
communities
and
individuals
would
no
longer
be
aware
of
the
toxic
chemicals
released
in
their
neighborhoods,
depriving
them
of
critical
information
needed
to
protect
their
health
and
environment.
In
addition,
the
commenter
asserted
that
TRI
has
been
a
proven
tool
for
inspiring
toxics
use
reduction
methods
among
a
variety
of
industries.
The
commenter
urged
EPA
to
make
decisions
protective
of
the
public's
access
to
information,
instead
of
focusing
on
reducing
burden
to
industry.
3
One
of
the
commenters
urged
the
Agency
to
develop
burden
reduction
options
that
capitalize
on
technological
advances
and
educational
efforts
rather
than
reductions
in
information
collection.
According
to
the
commenter,
electronic
reporting
is
already
being
implemented
and
can
continue
to
reduce
reporting
burden
as
it
becomes
more
widely
used
by
submitters
as
the
software
program
becomes
more
refined.

Response
EPA
disagrees
with
the
comments
asserting
that
this
TRI
burden
reduction
would
detract
from
EPA's
statutorily­
mandated
goal
of
providing
useful
information
to
the
public
about
chemical
releases
into
the
environment.
The
Agency
believes
that
we
can
meet
our
commitment
to
reduce
reporting
burden
without
compromising
the
usefulness
of
TRI
data.
As
explained
in
more
detail
in
other
sections
of
this
document,
facility
identification
data
will
be
supplied
through
existing
information
stored
in
EPA's
Facility
Registry
System
(
FRS).
We
do
not
expect
these
and
other
changes
to
other
sections
of
Forms
R
and
A
to
reduce
valuable
data.
In
fact,
by
reducing
redundancies
among
various
Agency
databases
and
providing
much
greater
access
to
information
correction
tools
(
e.
g.,
the
Integrated
Error
Correction
Process),
the
Agency
believes
the
overall
quality
of
information
will
be
improved.
In
the
case
of
other
changes,
such
as
range
reporting
for
treatment
efficiency,
we
believe
changes
will
provide
more
realistic
estimates
of
TRI
reporting
facilities'
activities.
In
addition,
today's
changes
will
increase
public
access
to
information
about
reporting
facilities'
source
reduction,
recycling
and
other
pollution
control
activities.
Commenters
will
have
the
opportunity
to
raise
concerns
about
the
"
more
substantial
changes"
to
the
TRI
Program
during
the
comment
period
after
that
rule
is
proposed.

III.
COMMENTS
RELATED
TO
GENERAL
POLICY
ISSUES
A.
Proposed
rule
would
provide
minimal
burden
reduction
(
14
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Thirteen
commenters
expressed
overall
support
for
the
proposal
but
contended
that
it
would
provide
only
minimal
burden
relief.
One
commenter
stated
that
the
proposal
was
well
thought
out
and
a
step
in
the
right
direction
but
that
its
member
companies
estimated
the
"
cost
savings"
to
be
only
on
the
order
of
approximately
5%.
The
commenter
noted
that
some
of
the
changes
proposed
were
for
information
that
is
collected
one
time
and
that
it
can
be
used
from
year­
to­
year.
Thus,
there
are
no
real
time
savings
for
subsequent
year
reporters.

Another
commenter
stated
that
more
significant
revisions
should
be
made
to
the
TRI
program
to
substantially
reduce
the
burden
on
reporting
entities.
An
additional
commenter
stated
that
while
the
changes
proposed
were
positive
steps,
existing
TRI­
ME
software
already
automatically
populates
most
of
the
fields
that
are
proposed
for
change,
and
thus
any
additional
burden
reduction
stemming
from
this
proposal
would
be
minimal.

One
commenter
contended
that
while
it
did
not
object
to
the
proposed
rule's
changes,
it
objected
to
EPA's
continued
claim
of
meaningful
burden
reduction
where
none
exists,
and
that
in
some
instances
the
proposal
would
actually
increase
burden.
Another
4
commenter
said
that
although
well
intentioned,
the
proposed
changes
failed
to
address
the
foremost
sources
of
burden
in
the
TRI
program,
and
would
thus
yield
little,
if
any,
real
reduction
in
reporting
burdens.
The
commenter
went
on
to
state
that
while
the
reporting
of
minor
data,
such
as
facility
coordinates,
waste
treatment
codes,
or
other
program
ID
numbers
were
time
consuming,
they
were
not
significant
contributors
to
the
burden
associated
with
TRI
requirements.

Response
The
changes
finalized
in
today's
rule
are
the
first
step
in
the
Agency's
larger
effort
to
reduce
reporting
burden
for
TRI
reporters.
While
these
changes
provide
only
a
modest
amount
of
burden
relief,
they
are
important
nonetheless,
and
based
on
comments
received,
a
majority
of
TRI
reporters
support
this
burden
relief
measure.
As
a
few
commenters
point
out,
first­
time
reporters
will
particularly
benefit
from
removal
of
facility
identification
data
elements.
While
these
changes
may
not
appear
to
substantially
benefit
subsequent
year
reporters,
they
will
help
EPA
streamline
our
many
database
systems
and
centralize
its
facility
identification
data.
The
changes
will
thus
eliminate
redundancies
throughout
the
Agency,
which
will
in
turn
lead
to
future
streamlined
reporting
processes
and
burden
relief
for
industry.

EPA
is
committed
to
all
of
its
ongoing
burden
reduction
activities.
As
stated
in
the
proposed
rule,
the
Agency
is
pursuing
a
broader
and
more
complex
set
of
regulatory
burden
reduction
alternatives.
That
effort
is
expected
to
provide
additional
regulatory
relief
for
TRI
reporters
and
is
expected
to
be
proposed
in
late
summer
2005.

B.
Rule
would
increase
burden
initially
(
4
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
The
commenters
expressed
concerns
about
the
initial
costs
that
would
be
imposed
upon
TRI
reporters,
as
well
as
the
states,
if
this
rule
were
finalized.
Several
commenters
referred
to
the
transition
costs
that
industry
would
have
to
bear,
including
the
following:
1)
revisions
to
in­
house
training
materials
and
courses
and
the
need
to
retrain
all
appropriate
facility
staff,
2)
changes
to
data
collection
spreadsheets
and
other
documents,
3)
increased
corporate
support
required
for
responding
to
questions
from
individual
facilities,
and
4)
adjustments
to
TRI
analysis
mechanisms
already
in
place.

One
commenter
focused
on
the
burden
that
frequent
changes
to
TRI
reporting
forms
impose
upon
industry.
The
commenter
contended
that
the
proposal
offered
extremely
modest
burden
relief
and
urged
the
Agency
to
withhold
the
changes
proposed
in
this
rulemaking
until
the
agency
is
ready
to
proceed
with
the
more
significant
second
set
of
reductions
anticipated
to
be
proposed
later
this
year.

Response
EPA
acknowledges
that
any
changes
to
the
TRI
reporting
forms
can
impose
additional
initial
costs
on
facilities
in
order
for
them
to
retrain
staff
and
update
various
documents
and
database
systems.
However,
EPA
believes
that
a
number
of
long­
term
benefits
will
accrue
as
a
result
of
these
changes,
and
will
outweigh
the
short­
term
costs.
In
addition,
5
the
Agency
notes
that
while
real,
much
of
the
cost
and
burden
are
not
legally­
mandated
compliance
costs
or
burden
and
so
are
not
attributable
to
this
rulemaking.

C.
Rule
represents
an
unfunded
mandate/
would
increase
burden
on
states
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
contended
that
the
burden
and
cost
to
the
states
of
addressing
the
data
changes
in
the
proposal
have
not
been
addressed.
The
commenter
stated
that
changes
that
would
add
or
delete
data
elements
represent
an
unfunded
mandate
for
states.
According
to
the
commenter,
changes
in
data
structure
which
delete
key
data
elements,
such
as
the
EPA
program
identification
number,
would
require
significant
data
system
changes.
To
make
matters
worse,
these
changes
would
be
added
on
top
of
any
changes
associated
with
the
second
phase
of
EPA's
burden
reduction
effort.
The
commenter
did
not
believe
that
the
burden
relief
supplied
by
this
rule
would
be
great
enough
to
justify
the
extra
burden
that
would
be
placed
on
states.
They
concluded
that
the
rule
ignored
the
TRI
reporting
partnership
between
EPA
and
the
States
and
strongly
encouraged
EPA
to
address
these
issues
before
finalizing
the
rule.

Response
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenters'
characterization
that
today's
rule
constitutes
an
unfunded
mandate.
See
the
Analysis
in
section
VII
D
of
the
rule
preamble.
Although
the
commenter
may
be
correct
that
changes
in
data
structure
could
trigger
data
system
changes
for
States,
such
changes
are
not
a
federally
enforceable
duty
imposed
on
States
by
the
federal
government.
Rather,
the
maintenance
and
operation
of
a
State
community
right­
to­
know
database
is
an
elective
activity
that
a
State
may
modify
or
change
at
will.
section
313
of
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
(
EPCRA)
does
not
impose
any
duties
on
States
beyond
requiring
the
designation
of
a
receiver
for
chemical
release
reports.
Creation
of
separate
data
systems
and
effort
to
keep
them
current
are
elective
State
activities.

Regardless,
in
the
interest
of
the
continuing
partnership
with
the
States,
the
Agency
has
and
will
continue
to
assist
States
in
making
whatever
changes
are
necessary
for
their
data
systems
as
seamless
as
possible.
Currently,
the
Agency
provides
translation
tools
for
States
to
input
disk
and
CD­
ROM­
based
reports
into
their
data
systems
as
well
as
a
pilot
program
for
direct
electronic
reporting
through
the
Exchange
Network.
These
tools
will
be
updated
to
incorporate
the
changes
in
this
rule.

The
Agency
has
also
sought
input
from
state
agencies
over
the
past
decade
and
worked
with
them
to
improve
State
processing
of
TRI
data,
and
its
pilot
project
through
the
Exchange
Network
will
make
today's
and
future
TRI
forms
changes
easier
to
implement
in
state
data
systems.
In
addition,
EPA
sought
and
received
input
from
the
Environmental
Council
of
the
States
(
ECOS)
and
state
environmental
agencies
regarding
the
best
means
of
implementing
the
replacement
of
data
elements
with
FRS­
derived
data
as
described
in
this
rule
6
In
EPA's
Stakeholder
Dialogue,
we
made
a
commitment
to
reduce
the
reporting
burden
for
industry.
The
Agency
believes
this
rule
is
a
first
step
in
attaining
that
goal.
In
order
to
fulfill
the
Agency's
mission
of
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment,
it
is
imperative
that
EPA
work
hand­
in­
hand
with
its
state
partners.
EPA
has
embarked
in
a
number
of
efforts
to
enhance
that
partnership
and
advance
EPA­
State
mutual
goals,
recognizing
that
States
may
encounter
burdens
when
changes
are
made
to
EPA's
reporting
requirements
and
EPA
will
work
with
States
to
ease
that
burden
when
possible.

D.
Make
proposed
modifications
effective
for
the
2005
reporting
year
(
6
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Six
commenters
recommended
that
EPA
finalize
this
rulemaking
as
soon
as
possible
and
make
the
changes
effective
for
reporting
year
2005.
One
commenter
also
recommended
that
the
replacement
of
facility
identification
data
with
data
from
FRS
be
built
into
the
next
reporting
year's
version
of
TRI­
ME.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
this
rule
should
be
made
effective
as
soon
as
possible,
and
we
will
implement
it
in
reporting
year
2005.
The
changes
finalized
in
today's
action
will
be
made
to
the
TRI
hard­
copy
reporting
forms,
as
well
as
in
the
TRIME
reporting
software.
The
Agency's
annual
TRI
Reporting
Forms
and
Instructions
booklet
will
be
updated
to
cover
all
of
the
changes
finalized
in
today's
action.

E.
Rule
should
be
delayed
until
the
release
of
the
Phase
II
rule
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
contended
that
EPA
failed
to
consider
the
burden
imposed
through
frequent
changes
to
the
TRI
reporting
forms.
Much
of
this
increased
burden,
according
to
the
commenter,
is
due
to
the
need
for
subsequent
year
reporters
to
become
familiar
with
the
new
reporting
forms
and
instructions.
The
commenter
urged
EPA
to
minimize
the
burdens
for
reporters,
data
users,
and
EPA
that
are
caused
by
repeated
changes
in
the
reporting
forms,
and
recommended
that
the
Agency
withhold
the
changes
proposed
in
this
rulemaking
until
the
second
phase
of
EPA's
burden
reduction
effort
is
ready
to
be
released
later
this
year.

Response
Some
of
the
changes
being
promulgated
today
will
significantly
improve
the
quality
of
facility
identification
information.
Furthermore,
other
changes
(
e.
g.,
wastewater
treatment
range
codes)
were
cited
as
providing
substantial
benefits
to
reporters
by
a
number
of
reporters.
The
Agency
believes
that
this
rule
offers
significant
and
meaningful
burden
reduction
measures
and
consequently
sees
no
reason
to
delay
its
implementation.

IV.
BURDEN
REDUCTION
OPTIONS
INCLUDED
IN
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
A.
Replacement
of
certain
facility
data
reporting
requirements
with
existing
data
in
FRS
7
1.
Comments
in
support
of
proposed
change
(
14
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Eight
commenters
supported
removing
certain
facility
identification
data
from
Forms
A
and
R,
and
instead,
replacing
it
with
existing
data
in
the
Agency's
Facility
Registry
System
(
FRS)
so
that
TRI
reporters
would
no
longer
have
to
report
these
data
elements.
Several
commenters
voiced
support
for
greater
consistency
between
EPA's
program
databases,
as
well
as
increased
simplification
and
standardization
of
the
facility
identification
data
that
EPA
collects,
stores
and
makes
available
to
the
public.
One
commenter
asserted
that
the
change
would
enhance
TRI
reporting
efficiency
and
improve
data
quality,
especially
if
existing
databases
are
utilized
for
populating
Forms
R
and
A.
Two
commenters
stated
that
the
change
would
ease
paperwork
and
reporting
burdens
and
lead
to
greater
consistency
on
data
collection
across
Agency
programs.
Several
commenters
also
stated
that
the
change
would
help
eliminate
redundant
data
collection.
One
commenter
stated
that
the
change
would
promote
the
use
of
the
FRS
on
a
wider
basis.
Another
commenter
asserted
that
the
change
should
help
to
avoid
data
entry
errors
and
ensure
consistent
reporting
of
facility
locational
data.
Another
noted
that
the
locational
data
should
not
have
been
collected
in
the
first
place.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
the
Agency's
databases
should
be
standardized
and
made
as
consistent
as
possible
across
various
programs.
We
believe
that
removing
section
4.6
from
Forms
R
and
A,
and
instead
using
pre­
existing
facility
identification
data
stored
in
the
Facility
Registry
System
(
FRS)
will
help
achieve
this
objective.
We
are
thus
finalizing
this
change
and
expect
it
to
help
ease
reporting
burden
and
result
in
increased
facility
location
data
quality
over
the
long
run.
This
regulatory
change
is
part
of
a
larger
Agency
initiative
to
increase
the
reliability
and
accuracy
of
the
Agency's
FRS
database
system.

2.
FRS
should
be
kept
updated
and
reporters
should
be
able
to
correct
inaccuracies
in
FRS
(
3
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Three
commenters
recommended
that
reporters
be
provided
the
opportunity
to
review
and
correct
the
latitude/
longitude
data
stored
in
the
EPA
Facility
Registry
System
(
FRS)
before
removing
section
4.6
from
Form
R
and
replacing
it
with
locational
data
from
FRS.
One
of
the
commenters
also
recommended
that
EPA
keep
FRS
locational
data
updated
in
a
timely
manner.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
TRI
reporters
should
be
allowed
to
review
and
correct
their
latitude/
longitude
data
in
FRS.
We
will
provide
a
means
for
doing
this
and
will
provide
appropriate
guidance
in
the
annual
TRI
Form
R
instruction
materials.
EPA
recently
formed
a
new
Geospacial
team
in
the
Office
of
Environmental
Information
that
will,
among
other
things,
focus
on
improving
the
Agency's
locational
data.
Since
FRS
8
will
serve
as
the
Agency's
authoritative
source
for
such
data,
EPA
has
embarked
on
a
number
of
activities
to
improve
the
data
quality
of
locational
data
in
FRS
specifically,
and
ways
to
keep
such
data
updated
in
a
timely
manner.

EPA
already
has
in
place
an
error
correction
process
that
can
be
used
by
state
agencies,
as
well
as
the
general
public
to
correct
inaccuracies
in
many
of
the
Agency's
databases,
including
FRS.
The
agency
plans
to
improve
access
to
this
system
to
make
it
very
easy
for
TRI
reporters
who
submit
data
electronically
to
review
and
correct
their
data
entries.
Reporters
who
submit
their
reporting
forms
on
paper
will
be
able
to
view
their
submissions
and
correct
inaccuracies
through
the
Electronic
 
Facility
Data
Release
(
e­
FDR)
for
reporting
year
2004.
The
e­
FDR
is
expected
to
be
publicly
released
in
Fall
2005.

3.
"
Facility"
is
defined
differently
in
EPCRA
(
TRI)
than
in
RCRA
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
cautioned
EPA
that
the
definition
of
"
facility"
under
EPCRA
is
not
necessarily
the
same
as
the
definition
of
"
facility"
under
other
statutes,
and
that
this
could
affect
the
use
of
FRS
locational
data.
The
commenter
asserted
that
under
EPCRA
two
sites
that
are
adjacent
and/
or
contiguous
that
are
owned
by
the
same
entity
are
considered
to
be
one
facility
(
even
if
separated
by
a
public
road).
However,
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
they
would
be
considered
two
facilities.
As
such,
there
may
be
instances
where
the
latitude/
longitude
data
from
each
source
is
different
for
the
same
"
facility".

Response
Variation
in
facility
definitions
as
one
crosses
program
boundaries
is
one
of
the
major
challenges
the
Agency
faces
in
its
efforts
to
develop
a
central
facility
registry.
However,
it
is
a
challenge
which
already
faces
some
users
of
TRI
information.
For
example,
users
of
information
for
RCRA
assessments
are
already
faced
with
the
challenge
to
create
a
map
between
multiple
RCRA
facilities
and
a
single
TRI
facility,
when
the
facility
definitions
are
not
consistent.
Likewise,
there
may
be
cases
where
the
TRI
reported
RCRA
IDs
do
not
constitute
the
totality
of
RCRA
IDs
associated
with
a
given
TRIFID
due
to
a
limited
number
of
blanks
on
the
TRI
form.
Presently,
crosswalk
checks
are
completed
manually
by
data
users.

The
conversion
to
the
use
of
FRS
for
facility
information
should
actually
strengthen
the
mapping
across
programs
with
different
facility
definitions.
To
understand
why
this
is
so,
one
needs
to
understand
the
meaning
of
a
facility
in
FRS.
In
FRS,
each
entity
with
a
discrete
street
address
is
an
independent
facility.
Where
individual
programs
will
disagree
is
in
the
case
of
more
complex
facilities
where
ownership
or
programmatic
considerations
have
lead
to
clustering
of
multiple
FRS
"
facilities"
into
a
single
entity
for
the
purposes
of
a
program
(
e.
g.,
TRI).

A
key
step
in
the
transition
to
the
use
of
a
locational
data
from
FRS
will
be
the
creation
of
a
program
map.
This
map
will
use
the
2004
TRI
responses
to
assign
a
valid
TRIFID
to
9
each
relevant
FRS
facility.
Where
multiple
FRS
facilities
have
the
same
TRIFID,
all
will
be
assigned
the
same
TRIFID.
This
map
will
ensure
that
the
locational
information
for
the
TRI
facility
contains
not
only
all
relevant
locational
information,
but
also
all
relevant
program
IDs.
Furthermore,
the
locational
information
retrieved
will
be
superior
to
current
TRI
information
because
it
will
have
method,
accuracy
and
description
(
i.
e.,
whether
it
is
centroid
based,
an
outfall,
etc.).
This
change
will
provide
a
much
more
comprehensive
look
at
all
of
the
locational
information
for
TRI
facilities.
Furthermore,
the
enhanced
access
to
the
Integrated
Error
Correction
Process
(
IECP)
for
data
suppliers
and
users
should
result
in
ongoing
improvement
in
locational
information.

4.
Flaws
in
FRS
(
3
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
The
commenters
expressed
concerns
regarding
inherent
flaws
in
the
Agency's
Facility
Registry
System
(
FRS)
that
compromise
the
Agency's
efforts
to
consolidate
environmental
data,
minimize
reporting
redundancies
and
create
a
single
identification
system.
Contrary
to
statements
in
the
proposed
rule,
one
commenter
claimed
that
facility
identification
records
in
FRS
are
not
accurate
or
authoritative.
The
commenter
asserted
that
this
is
supported
by
industry
representatives
who
must
reconcile
FRS
data
with
company
records.
Another
commenter
stated
that
the
FRS
does
not
always
cover
the
TRI
dataset
containing
locational
data.
Several
commenters
emphasized
that
it
was
imperative
to
enable
the
public
to
easily
retrieve
all
environmental
information
about
a
specific
facility.

Another
commenter
asserted
that
FRS
gets
its
data
from
individual
program
databases.
The
commenter
further
stated
that
too
often,
basic
facility
identification
information
in
these
databases
is
inconsistent,
erroneous,
incomplete
or
out­
of­
date.
These
inaccuracies
are
magnified
when
a
matching
program
such
as
FRS
attempts
to
integrate
the
data.
The
commenter
contended
that
EPA's
FRS
data
stewards
diligently
attempt
to
verify
and
correct
mistakes
in
the
database,
but
this
does
not
make
up
for
the
fact
that
the
program
staff
who
are
most
engaged
with
facilities
do
not
use
FRS
and
have
no
incentive
to
keep
it
up­
to­
date
and
accurate.
The
commenter
claimed
that
the
problems
with
FRS
are
such
that
a
recent
report
to
EPA
by
the
National
Academy
for
Public
Administration
(
NAPA)
recommends
that
EPA
revamp
its
system
and
create
a
"
Master
File
of
shared
facility
identification
information
that
is
legally
recognized
in
all
media
programs
at
all
levels
of
government
as
the
sole
definitive
source
of
information
for
the
data
elements
it
covers."

Response
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenters.
The
Agency
examined
FRS
coverage
of
EPA
program
identifiers
in
the
context
of
RCRA
identification
numbers
(
hereafter
referred
to
as
RCRA
IDs)
to
test
the
commenters'
concern.
The
FRS
database
contains
all
EPA
program
identification
numbers
that
are
stored
in
EPA's
national
program
system
databases.
Regarding
RCRA,
FRS
contains
all
the
RCRA
IDs
from
the
RCRAInfo
database,
and
is
thus
a
definitive
source
for
such
information.
The
Agency
examined
over
10,000
TRI
forms
with
RCRA
IDs
from
the
2002
reporting
year.
These
facilities
10
were
selected
because
they
were
used
by
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
in
its
annual
evaluation
of
waste
minimization
progress
for
approximately
thirty
chemicals
related
to
a
federal
Government
Performance
and
Result
Act
(
GPRA)
goal.
In
its
evaluation,
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
uses
the
RCRA
IDs
in
conjunction
with
Form
R
sections
5
and
6
data
to
estimate
the
quantities
of
priority
chemicals
that
may
be
contained
in
hazardous
versus
non­
hazardous
wastes.
This
activity
is
analogous
to
those
of
interest
to
the
commenters.

Approximately
800
RCRA
IDs
were
found
in
the
TRI
database
that
did
not
match
RCRA
IDs
in
the
RCRAInfo
database.
Some
of
these
RCRA
IDs
contained
obvious
transcription
errors
(
i.
e.,
"
o"
substituted
for
"
zero",
etc).
It
is
not
clear
to
what
extent
the
remainder
represent
more
subtle
transcription
errors
or
other
factors,
although
it
is
important
to
note
that
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
OSW)
maintains
an
active
data
stewardship
program.
On
the
other
hand,
it
is
also
important
to
note
that
the
TRI
Reporting
Form
has
only
two
spaces
for
the
listing
of
RCRA
IDs.
Because
of
differences
in
facility
definitions,
it
is
quite
reasonable
to
assume
that
a
current
TRI
facility
could
be
associated
with
more
than
two
RCRA
IDs.
Given
these
factors,
and
the
fact
that
FRS
contains
RCRA
IDs
assigned
by
EPA's
RCRA
program,
there
can
be
little
doubt
that
FRS
is
a
more
definitive
source
of
information
on
RCRA
IDs,
and
that
cross
program
coverage
will
actually
be
improved
by
conversion
to
the
use
of
FRS.

We
believe
that
the
few
cases
in
which
there
may
be
information
gaps
can
be
addressed
by
improving
communication
between
EPA's
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
which
operates
both
the
TRI
and
FRS
programs,
and
the
other
Agency
offices
responsible
for
the
program
identification
data
at
issue.
Probably
the
most
difficult
example
of
what
will
be
needed
relates
to
IDs
for
underground
injection
sites
reported
under
the
UIC
program.
Presently,
UIC
IDs
are
not
collected
on
the
federal
level
except
as
a
part
of
TRI.
States
maintain
these
records.
Unfortunately,
because
of
form
limitations,
TRI
reporters
have
not
necessarily
provided
a
full
listing
of
UIC
permitted
wells.
EPA's
Office
of
Information
Collection
is
working
with
the
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water,
however,
to
gather
UIC
information
from
individual
states
to
include
in
FRS.
It
is
anticipated
that
this
more
complete
information
will
begin
to
be
available
in
2006.

It
is
important
to
note
here
that
the
FRS
database
covers
all
the
TRI
reports
for
reporting
year
2003
and
has
retained
all
TRIFIDs
(
there
are
over
49,000
of
them)
since
the
TRI
program
began
in
the
late
1980'
s.
FRS
also
has
the
latitude
and
longitude
coordinates
for
all
historical
TRIFIDs.
The
Burden
Reduction
Rule
will
not
impair
the
public's
access
to
information
about
TRI
reporting
facilities,
including
locational
data
and
EPA
program
identification
numbers.
These
data
will
continue
to
be
publicly
available
through
various
TRI
access
tools.
Only
now
they
will
be
supplemented
by
the
larger
and
more
authoritative
data
files
in
FRS.
To
the
extent
that
inconsistencies
and
errors
are
identified
in
the
future,
the
Agency's
Integrated
Error
Correction
Process
(
IECP)
will
provide
a
convenient
and
effective
mechanism
for
bringing
these
issues
to
the
Agency's
attention
for
resolution.
11
As
to
the
commenter
concern
with
the
conclusions
of
the
draft
NAPA
report,
it
is
premature
to
comment
on
this
effort.
There
is
no
final
NAPA
report.
The
draft
report,
which
is
still
being
prepared
under
contract
to
the
Agency,
is
still
undergoing
revision.
Regardless,
the
purpose
of
that
effort
is
to
find
ways
for
better
integrating
facility
information.
The
TRI
program's
movement
to
the
use
of
FRS'
master
files
of
information
rather
than
continuing
to
rely
on
a
stand­
alone
system
of
program
identifiers
and
locational
values
would
appear
to
be
entirely
consistent
with
the
commenters'
suggested
approach
to
maintaining
Federal
data.

5.
Lapses
in
pulling
locational
data
from
FRS
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
was
troubled
about
how
long
it
would
take
to
populate
FRS
with
TRI
data
and
complete
data
quality
checks.
They
urged
EPA
to
ensure
that
no
lapses
occur
in
the
availability
of
locational
data
as
a
result
of
this
process.

Response
EPA
will
ensure
that
there
is
no
lapse
in
making
locational
data
available
for
TRI
data
users.
Locational
data
is
already
stored
in
FRS
and
the
Agency
will
provide
a
seamless
transition
from
collecting
locational
data
from
TRI
reporters
to
pulling
existing
locational
data
out
of
FRS
and
providing
it
along
with
other
facility
information
to
TRI
data
users
starting
with
the
2006
public
data
release
for
reporting
year
2005
information.

6.
Delay
implementation
until
all
states
are
actively
involved
in
EPA's
state
exchange
network
(
2
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Two
commenters
asserted
that
ideally,
EPA
should
refrain
from
relying
on
FRS
to
supply
data
to
TRI
until
all
states
are
participating
in
the
FRS
program.
One
commenter
stated
that
14
states
are
still
are
not
active
in
the
National
Environmental
Information
Exchange
Network,
commonly
referred
to
as
the
state
exchange
network.
The
commenter
asserted
that
data
regarding
facilities
in
non­
participating
states
are
not
being
scrutinized
by
people
most
familiar
with
those
facilities.
According
to
the
commenter,
until
all
states
are
part
of
the
network,
EPA
lacks
the
on­
the­
ground
intelligence
needed
to
ensure
that
FRS
data
is
accurate
or
complete.

Response
EPA
agrees
that
ideally
all
the
states
should
be
part
of
the
existing
EPA
state
exchange
network.
We
believe
the
commenter
that
urged
EPA
to
wait
to
implement
this
rule
"
until
all
states
are
participating
in
the
FRS
program"
may
not
have
understood
that
FRS
contains
data
about
regulated
facilities'
identification
information
provided
by
EPA's
many
database
systems
and
by
many
state
environmental
agencies.
States
do
not
need
to
take
any
specific
action
to
access
information
data
from
FRS.
Anyone,
including
state
agencies
can
access
data
from
FRS
at
any
time.
While
not
all
states
currently
participate
in
the
EPA
state
exchange
network,
the
vast
majority
of
states
do
participate,
and
EPA
is
12
working
closely
with
non­
participating
states
to
help
facilitate
their
full
participation
in
the
near
future.

We
do
not
agree
with
the
commenters
that
the
rule
should
be
delayed
until
all
states
are
participating
in
the
state
exchange
network,
nor
does
EPA
agree
that
the
Agency
lacks
the
on­
the­
ground
intelligence
needed
to
ensure
that
FRS
data
is
accurate
or
complete
until
such
time.
The
FRS
is
already
functioning
and
will
be
further
enhanced
as
part
of
the
effort
to
implement
this
rule.
EPA
will
provide
all
states
the
opportunity
to
correct
inaccurate
data
maintained
for
use
by
TRI
data
users.
Reporters
participating
in
the
state
exchange
network
will
be
able
to
correct
inaccurate
information
by
using
the
Agency's
Integrated
Error
Correction
Process
(
IECP).
States
that
do
not
yet
participate
in
the
state
exchange
network
will
be
correct
inaccurate
data
in
the
Electronic
 
Facility
Data
Release
(
e­
FDR)
for
reporting
year
2004.
The
e­
FDR
is
expected
to
be
publicly
released
in
Fall
2005.
We
will
work
closely
with
states
to
ensure
a
smooth
transition
to
the
switch
in
utilizing
pre­
existing
facility
identification
data
in
FRS.

7.
Conduct
a
study
to
determine
the
quality
of
facility
identification
and
locational
data
in
FRS
(
4
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Several
commenters
recommended
that
EPA
delay
implementing
the
use
of
FRS
to
supply
facility
locational
data
and
EPA
program
identification
numbers
until
a
pilot
study
is
conducted
to
ensure
that
this
data
is
of
equal
or
higher
quality
in
FRS
than
is
contained
in
the
TRI
database.
One
commenter
stated
that
contrary
to
statements
in
the
proposed
rule,
facility
identification
records
in
FRS
are
not
accurate
or
authoritative.
The
commenter
stated
that
this
problem
is
supported
by
industry
representatives
who
must
reconcile
FRS
data
with
company
records.
In
addition,
according
to
the
commenter,
problems
arise
when
the
TRI
dataset
contains
locational
data
for
facilities
that
FRS
does
not
cover.
While
having
all
states
as
part
of
the
information
exchange
network
may
help
address
these
problems,
the
commenter
asserted
that
there
are
inherent
limits
to
this
kind
of
after­
the
fact
reconciliation.
The
commenter
urged
EPA
to
delay
implementation
of
this
section
of
the
rule
until
the
FRS
dataset
is
complete
and
the
agency
can
ensure
the
accuracy
of
the
data.

Another
commenter
stated
that
unless
EPA
conducted
a
small
study
to
compare
subsets
of
the
FRS
and
TRI
database
information
on
program
identification
numbers,
EPA
could
risk
losing
accuracy
in
this
important
data.
If
the
study
revealed
that
FRS
contained
less
accurate
data
than
the
data
in
the
TRI
database,
the
commenter
contended
that
EPA
should
eliminate
this
section
of
the
rule
until
the
FRS
data
is
sufficiently
improved.

Response
As
stated
earlier
in
the
response
to
Comment
IV.
A.
5,
the
Agency
did
conduct
an
analysis
of
RCRA
IDs
and
concluded
FRS
provided
higher
data
quality
than
under
separate
TRI
reporting.
13
In
addition,
a
separate
assessment
was
conducted
of
locational
information
in
FRS
versus
that
contained
in
the
TRI
data
base.
The
locational
information
in
the
two
systems
was
compared
on
the
basis
of
performance
against
two
criteria:
a
quality
screening
approach
and
on
the
basis
of
their
conformance
to
the
Agency's
data
standard
for
locational
information.

Absent
very
detailed
site
information,
it
is
difficult
to
design
a
locational
screening
test.
What
the
Agency
did
was
to
compare
the
locational
data
stored
in
FRS
versus
such
data
in
the
TRI
database
on
a
county
basis
(
i.
e.,
what
percentage
of
reported
locational
data
were
within
the
boundaries
of
the
counties
where
the
facilities'
street
addresses
were
located).
While
it
is
possible
for
street
address
to
vary
appreciably
from
the
location
of
the
center
of
production,
the
Agency
believes
this
test
provides
a
first
approximation
of
relative
performance.
We
found
that
98%
of
all
FRS
locational
data
as
opposed
to
only
97%
of
all
TRI
locational
data
met
the
Agency
data
quality
criteria.
Further,
in
the
same
study,
information
was
obtained
on
the
portions
of
reporting
year
2003
TRI
facilities
in
FRS
that
met
this
criterion.
Therefore,
on
the
basis
of
this
broad
measure,
the
two
systems
had
comparable
information.

For
the
second
test,
the
Agency
looked
at
how
the
data
conformed
with
the
Agency's
data
standards
for
locational
information
(
i.
e.,
a
description
of
the
method
of
data
collection
and
what
is
measured,
as
well
as
probable
accuracy).
Fully
89%
of
all
TRI
facility
locational
data
for
reporting
year
2003
would
have
been
able
to
meet
the
Agency's
data
standard
requirements
if
FRS
had
been
used
to
derive
TRI
locational
data.
Currently,
none
of
the
TRI
locational
data
can
meet
the
Agency's
data
standards
for
locational
information,
which
require
metadata
for
the
method,
accuracy
and
description
of
what
the
latitude
and
longitude
coordinates
represent.

Over
the
coming
months,
the
Agency
is
implementing
a
program
to
ensure
that
virtually
all
TRI
facilities
will
have
locational
information
that
meet
the
Agency's
data
standard
requirements.
An
implementation
plan
describing
this
program
has
been
included
in
the
docket
that
accompanies
today's
action.
Furthermore,
through
the
IECP,
EPA
provides
the
opportunity
to
correct
inaccurate
data
maintained
for
use
by
TRI
data
users.

8.
Locational
data
(
latitude­
longitude
coordinates)
in
section
4.6
a.
Impact
upon
small
businesses
(
2
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Two
commenters
asserted
that
the
proposed
removal
of
the
requirement
to
report
latitude/
longitude
data
in
section
4.6
and
to
replace
it
instead
with
existing
data
in
EPA's
Facility
Registry
System
(
FRS),
was
the
only
part
of
the
proposal
that
would
have
any
impact
on
small
firms.
However,
both
commenters
stated
that
it
would
only
provide
burden
relief
to
small
businesses
that
are
first­
time
reporters,
not
to
small
businesses
that
are
subsequent
reporters.

Response
EPA
appreciates
receiving
information
about
proposed
changes
that
could
provide
some
14
burden
relief
to
small
businesses.
We
agree
with
the
commenters
that
this
proposed
change
would
be
particularly
helpful
for
those
small
businesses
that
are
first­
time
reporters.
EPA
has
finalized
this
section
of
the
proposal
in
this
final
rule.
While
we
expect
it
to
provide
some
relief
to
all
small
businesses,
we
believe
that
first­
time
reporters
will
benefit
the
most
from
the
change.

b.
New
reporters
(
4
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Several
commenters
expressed
concern
that
EPA's
FRS
database
does
not
often
have
locational
data
previously
stored
for
first­
time
reporters.
One
commenter
noted
that
during
EPA's
TRI
Conference
on
February
9,
2005,
an
Agency
employee
stated
that
TRI's
Reporting
Year
(
RY)
2003
data
contained
over
400
new
facilities
for
which
FRS
did
not
have
locational
data.
According
to
the
commenter,
even
if
this
were
an
above
average
number
of
new
facilities,
it
clearly
indicates
that
there
will
be
a
significant
number
of
data
gaps
in
TRI
for
those
facilities
that
have
not
previously
submitted
lat/
long
data
to
the
Agency.
The
commenter
asserted
that
this
data
gap
problem
could
also
be
exacerbated
by
the
fact
that
not
every
state
is
participating
in
EPA's
FRS
program.
Because
it
is
unclear
whether
address
matching
will
provide
the
desired
results,
the
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
modify
the
rule
to
require
reporting
of
locational
data
by
first
time
reporters.

Another
commenter
encouraged
EPA
to
delay
implementing
this
change
until
key
aspects
of
FRS
are
addressed.
An
additional
commenter
stated
that
data
gaps
in
the
FRS
database
could
be
best
addressed
by
requiring
new
reporting
entities
to
include
additional
information
on
facility
identification
data
the
first
time
they
are
required
to
complete
Form
A
or
Form
R.
The
commenter
added
that
many
examples
exist
in
which
first­
time
users
are
required
to
provide
additional
identification
that
is
not
required
of
repeat
users.

Response
EPA
acknowledges
that
there
are
a
relatively
small
number
of
new
facilities
that
submit
TRI
Form
R
or
A
reports
each
year
for
which
the
Agency
may
not
already
have
locational
data
stored
in
FRS.
The
Agency
disagrees,
however,
that
new
reporters
should
be
required
to
submit
locational
data.
EPA
plans
to
use
street
address
matching
in
combination
with
the
Agency's
facility
siting
tool
to
populate
FRS
with
locational
data
for
those
cases
in
which
FRS
has
no
previous
locational
data.
Reporters,
as
well
as
the
states
and
the
general
public
will
be
provided
the
opportunity
to
submit
a
request
for
correcting
inaccurate
facility
locational
data
by
using
the
Agency's
Integrated
Error
Correction
Process
(
IECP).
As
stated
in
the
proposed
rule,
the
IECP
is
part
of
an
ongoing
EPA
effort
to
improve
the
quality
of
EPA's
publicly
available
data.
Through
the
IECP,
the
public
can
directly
notify
EPA
of
a
data
error
they've
identified.
Once
the
error
report
is
generated,
it
is
routed
within
EPA
to
appropriate
program
official,
who
has
the
authority
to
make
corrections
to
the
program
database.
Last
year,
IECP
handled
over
8,000
error
notifications
and
continues
to
operate
as
a
simple,
effective
way
of
resolving
errors
in
EPA's
databases.
15
c.
Address
matching
in
FRS
can
provide
inferior
lat/
long
values
(
2
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Two
commenters
expressed
considerable
objections
to
the
use
of
address
matching
for
deriving
TRI
facility
locational
data
(
longitude
and
latitude
coordinates).
One
commenter
stated
that
the
two
most
apparent
problems
with
this
method
are:
1)
If
the
facility
is
in
a
rural
or
unpopulated
area,
offshore,
etc.,
then
the
software
may
be
unable
to
match
the
address
to
a
location;
and
2)
The
facility's
mailing
address
may
not
be
the
location
where
the
toxic
releases
occur.
For
example,
if
a
facility
picks
up
mail
at
a
headquarters
building
that
manages
several
facilities,
this
would
create
a
different
lat/
long
than
where
its
stacks
are
located.

The
second
commenter
asserted
that
as
much
as
70%
of
the
locational
data
derived
from
various
EPA
databases
and
stored
in
FRS
may
be
based
on
address
matching
rather
than
on
a
facility's
actual
location.
The
commenter
maintained
that
some
of
the
locational
data
in
FRS
may
be
based
on
wastewater
outfall
locations
which
can
be
long
distances
from
the
facilities.
Reliance
on
these
other
databases,
according
to
the
commenter,
would
introduce
significant
error
into
the
Agency's
GIS
applications.

Response
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenters.
EPA
believes
that
street
address
matching,
used
in
combination
with
our
facility
siting
tool
(
i.
e.,
a
geospacial
application
that
uses
aerial
imagery
to
determine
latitude
and
longitude
coordinates),
can
provide
credible
locational
coordinates.
Furthermore,
large
facilities
are
extensively
documented
in
FRS
and
many
of
these
facilities
have
multiple
coordinates
from
which
to
choose.
EPA
believes
that
new
facilities
are
more
likely
to
be
small.
We
believe
those
facilities
are
especially
likely
to
be
well
represented
by
street
addresses.

Regardless
of
the
availability
of
information
in
FRS,
however,
the
Agency
believes
that
it
provides
a
better
source
of
data
than
locational
data
for
which
there
is
no
metadata,
i.
e.,
no
explanation
as
to
what
was
measured,
how
the
information
was
derived,
or
its
accuracy.
We
plan
to
use
street
address
matching
for
new
reporters
and
for
other
cases
in
which
no
credible
locational
data
is
available
in
FRS.
Furthermore,
because
the
Agency
plans
to
include
all
locational
information
in
the
next
e­
FDR,
anyone
interested
in
a
particular
facility
will
be
able
to
easily
raise
concerns
through
the
IECP
about
the
value
chosen
to
represent
the
facility.

As
to
the
second
comment,
FRS
has
been
operational
since
2000
and
continues
to
improve
data
quality.
Many
EPA
programs
utilize
FRS
and
the
IECP
process
is
in
place
to
facilitate
receipt
of
suggested
corrections
to
locational
information.
Despite
these
facts,
only
a
very
small
percentage
of
IECP
requests
have
involved
locational
updates.

As
to
the
commenter's
other
concern,
possible
reliance
of
FRS
on
locations
far
from
the
facility,
we
also
must
disagree.
FRS
will
provide
a
complete
picture
of
all
locational
information
available
on
a
facility.
Because
FRS
provides
method,
accuracy
and
16
description
data,
it
will
be
possible
to
know
the
reference
point
of
the
facility
(
e.
g.,
the
street
address,
a
stack,
or
some
permitted
portion
of
the
facility)
for
which
locational
information
is
provided.
To
the
extent
that
a
preferred
location
reported
out
of
FRS
is
incongruent
with
the
intended
use
of
the
TRI
information
(
Note:
use
of
an
outfall
may
be
an
excellent
choice
if
examining
water
releases),
the
data
user
may
simply
use
another
value
for
their
purposes.
This
is
a
significant
improvement
on
the
current
locational
value
of
unknown
accuracy.

d.
TRI
reporters
should
be
required
to
use
EPA's
facility
siting
tool
or
GPS
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
maintained
that
both
TRI
data
and
Geographic
Information
Systems
(
GIS)
data
have
become
essential
for
communities
to
understand
their
local
environment.
The
commenter
noted
that
both
these
tools
have
become
essential
components
of
any
environmental
justice
analysis.
The
commenter
voiced
concern
about
the
accuracy
of
latitude/
longitude
data
in
the
Facility
Registry
System
(
FRS)
and
recommended
that
instead
of
removing
section
4.6
from
the
TRI
reporting
forms,
facilities
should
instead
certify
that
the
latitude
and
longitude
data
reported
to
TRI
is
obtained
either
from
EPA's
Facility
Siting
Tool
or
from
a
Global
Positioning
System
device.
According
to
the
commenter,
this
would
ensure
that
facilities
provide
more
accurate
information.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
the
comment
stating
that
TRI
data
and
Geographic
Information
Systems
(
GIS)
data
have
become
essential
tools
for
communities
and
for
those
conducting
environmental
justice
analysis.
EPA
uses
selects
a
"
best
pick"
from
its
GIS
locational
reference
tables
(
LRT)
tool
in
FRS
to
determine
the
appropriate
latitude/
longitude
coordinates
for
each
facility.
The
LRT
tool
utilizes
a
variety
of
locational
data
tools,
including
GPS
and
the
Agency's
facility
siting
tool.
The
facility
siting
tool
will
be
used
by
EPA
to
confirm
the
location
of
new
facilities.
The
siting
tool
will
also
be
made
available
to
reporters
and
the
general
public
who
wish
to
submit
latitude/
longitude
data
through
the
Agency's
Integrated
Error
Correction
Process
(
IECP).

e.
State­
derived
locational
data
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
expressed
concern
that
ten
percent
of
reporters
each
year
are
new
and
that
a
large
number
of
these
new
reporters
have
no
other
affiliation
with
EPA
or
the
states,
and
thus
have
no
locational
data
available
to
draw
from.
The
commenter
contended
that
it
was
relatively
easy
for
a
facility
to
determine
its
latitude/
longitude
coordinates,
but
it
would
be
a
burden
to
the
states
to
make
those
determinations.
The
commenter
also
voiced
concern
about
how
state­
derived
locational
data
could
potentially
differ
from
EPA's
data
in
EPA's
FRS
database.

Response
As
indicated
in
the
response
to
comment
IV.
A.
8.
b.
above,
only
a
relatively
small
portion
17
of
new
facilities
are
expected
to
lack
historical
information
in
FRS.
The
figure
cited
by
the
EPA
employee
at
the
National
Conference
represents
less
than
two
percent
of
the
facilities
covered
under
TRI.
EPA
fully
expects
that
the
combined
use
of
the
street
address
matching
algorithm
coupled
with
the
siting
tool
will,
with
rare
exceptions,
identify
sound
locational
coordinates
for
the
rest.
Consequently,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
this
rule
will
impose
significant
burden
on
the
states.

The
Agency
will
continue
to
make
all
facility
identification
data
available
through
FRS.
The
FRS
database
covers
all
the
TRI
reports
for
reporting
year
2003
and
has
retained
all
TRIFIDs
(
there
are
over
49,000
of
them)
since
the
TRI
program
began
in
the
late
1980'
s.
FRS
also
has
the
latitude
and
longitude
coordinates
for
all
historical
TRIFIDs.
The
Burden
Reduction
Rule
will
not
impair
the
public's
access
to
information
about
TRI
reporting
facilities,
including
locational
data
and
EPA
program
identification
numbers.

States
can
access
data
from
FRS
at
any
time.
State
agencies
are
under
no
federallydriven
requirements
to
collect
and
store
state­
derived
locational
data.
However,
states
are
encouraged
to
report
facility
locational
data
that
includes
metadata
meeting
EPA's
data
standards
(
i.
e.,
method
of
collection,
probable
accuracy
and
description
codes)
in
EPA's
FRS
database
through
the
Agency's
Integrated
Error
Correction
Process
(
IECP).
Through
the
IECP,
states
can
also
notify
EPA
of
a
data
error
they've
identified
in
EPA's
facility
locational
data.

In
addition,
EPA
will
provide
states
information
about
locational
data
and
EPA
program
identification
numbers
prior
to
the
Agency's
public
data
release
so
that
states
can
comply
with
various
deadlines
tied
to
state
statutorily­
and
regulatory­
driven
requirements.
Furthermore,
the
Agency
will
continue
to
work
with
the
states
to
improve
electronic
information
exchange
capability
and
the
timeliness
of
such
exchanges.

f.
Only
allow
TRI­
ME
submitters
to
get
exemption
from
reporting
lat/
long
data
(
1
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
consider
allowing
only
those
submitters
using
TRI­
ME
software
to
get
an
exemption
from
reporting
latitude
and
longitude
data.
The
commenter
asserted
that
the
TRI­
ME
software
could
allow
for
the
automatic
retrieval
of
FRS
locational
data,
which
would
reduce
burden
for
the
submitter
and
also
encourage
facilities
to
use
TRI­
ME.
The
commenter
added
that
the
TRI­
ME
software
provides
the
best
way
to
reduce
reporting
burden.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter
that
the
Agency's
TRI­
ME
software
significantly
reduces
burden
on
reporters,
as
well
as
on
state
agencies
that
also
collect
and
disseminate
TRI
data.
However,
the
Agency
disagrees
that
only
those
reporters
who
submit
TRI
reports
using
TRI­
ME
software
should
be
allowed
not
to
report
locational
data.
Other
reporters'
forms
are
processed
through
the
Agency's
TRI
data
processing
center.
The
center
will
be
using
the
siting
tool
and
FRS
to
complete
these
fields
for
other
facilities.
18
9.
EPA
program
identification
numbers
in
sections
4.8
­
4.10
a.
Facility
ID
numbers
are
important
to
TRI
and
need
to
be
collected
from
TRI
reporters
(
2
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Three
commenters
emphasized
the
importance
of
EPA
facility
identification
numbers
to
TRI
data
users,
including
various
EPA
program
offices
and
the
general
public.
One
commenter
cited
as
an
example,
the
use
of
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
identification
numbers
to
calculate
"
double
counting"
of
TRI
chemical
disposal
transfers
sent
to
TRI
facilities
that
report
the
same
chemicals
again.
The
commenter
stated
that
RCRA
IDs
allow
transfers
of
chemicals
(
marked
with
RCRA
IDs
in
section
6
of
Form
R)
to
be
matched
up
with
receiving
TRI
facilities
(
marked
with
RCRA
IDs
in
section
4.8).
The
commenter
cited
a
1998
report
by
the
public
interest
organization,
National
Environmental
Trust,
titled
"
Out
of
Sight,
Out
of
Mind?,"
to
demonstrate
the
usefulness
of
collecting
EPA
program
identification
numbers
in
TRI.
The
report
used
the
Underground
Injection
Control
ID
numbers
to
help
analyze
the
completeness
and
accuracy
of
underground
injection
well
data
in
EPA
databases.
According
to
the
commenter,
these
examples
are
just
a
small
sample
of
the
many
uses
for
this
data.
The
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
conduct
a
small
study
to
demonstrate
that
FRS
data
is
of
equal
or
higher
quality
to
TRI's
program
identification
data
before
removing
these
data
elements
from
the
TRI
reporting
forms.

Another
commenter
stated
that
questions
have
been
raised
as
to
the
reliability
of
the
program
identification
data
stored
in
FRS.
The
commenter
referenced
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule,
stating
that
experts
have
raised
concerns
about
how
this
change
would
affect
existing
information
only
available
through
TRI.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
the
EPA
program
identification
numbers
in
section
6
of
Part
II
of
the
Form
R
are
important
for
avoiding
double
counting
of
chemical
management
and
releases.
Those
IDs
will
continue
to
be
collected.
What
is
being
eliminated
is
the
requirement
to
report
IDs
in
sections
4.8
through
4.10
of
Part
I
of
the
TRI
reporting
forms.
The
Agency
appreciates
that
this
information
is
also
important
and
is
used
extensively
by
various
EPA
offices,
the
states
and
general
public.
This
information
will
not
be
lost.
Program
identification
numbers
previously
reported
are
already
stored
in
FRS
and
will
continue
to
be
available
to
data
users.

In
addition,
as
discussed
in
the
response
to
section
IV.
A.
4.
above,
the
Agency
has
conducted
a
study
of
RCRA
IDs
and
concluded
that,
for
most
programs,
FRS
provided
higher
data
quality
than
TRI
reporting.
With
respect
to
UIC
IDs,
work
is
already
underway
to
make
FRS
a
comprehensive
source
of
such
information
in
the
future.
For
the
interim,
we
believe
that
the
few
cases
in
which
there
may
be
information
gaps
can
be
addressed
through
EPA's
Integrated
Error
Correction
Process
(
IECP).

b.
Lag
in
availability
of
program
ID
data
in
TRI
Explorer
(
1
comments)
19
Summary
of
Comments
One
comment
was
received
expressing
concern
about
a
lag
in
the
availability
of
EPA
program
identification
data
if
EPA
removes
the
program
identification
numbers
from
the
TRI
reporting
forms.
The
commenter
cited
the
importance
of
this
data
to
a
variety
of
community
groups
across
the
country
and
urged
EPA
to
quickly
address
this
potential
problem
so
the
public
would
not
experience
a
lag
in
its
use
of
the
TRI
Explorer.

Response
The
FRS
already
stores
EPA
program
identification
data.
EPA
will
ensure
that
there
is
no
lag
in
the
availability
of
such
data
in
TRI
Explorer
or
Envirofacts,
the
two
EPA
data
applications
that
TRI
data
users
rely
upon
to
access
TRI­
related
data.
By
the
time
that
the
TRI
Public
Data
Release
(
PDR)
is
published,
all
applicable
FRS
data
will
have
been
copied
into
the
TRI
database
for
publication.

c.
States'
need
to
use
RCRA
ID
numbers
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
asserted
that
the
EPA
program
identification
numbers
on
the
TRI
reporting
forms
are
used
by
state
environmental
agencies
as
a
cross
reference
for
other
program
applications.
According
to
the
commenter,
at
least
one
state
uses
the
data
as
a
link
to
hazardous
waste
generator
reporting,
in
addition
to
its
use
as
a
key
identifier
for
TRI
facilities.
They
expressed
concern
that
the
proposed
rule
did
not
address
how
states
would
receive
these
data
elements
if
they
are
not
supplied
with
the
Form
R.
The
commenter
contended
that
many
states
have
developed
their
own
data
systems
to
manage
the
TRI
reports
filed
with
the
state
and
they
regard
TRI
reporting
as
a
joint
EPA­
State
partnership
since
facilities
are
required
to
file
their
forms
at
both
the
Federal
and
state
levels.
The
commenter
expressed
concern
that
the
data
elements
states
need
to
manage
their
TRI
data
will
be
lost
if
this
proposed
change
is
finalized.

Response
EPA
appreciates
receiving
information
about
the
concerns
of
state
environmental
agencies
regarding
program
identification
numbers.
As
EPA
stated
in
the
proposed
rule,
the
program
identification
information
that
was
proposed
for
removal
from
TRI's
reporting
forms,
will
still
be
made
available
to
TRI
data
users.
The
program
identification
number
data
that
have
been
collected
through
the
TRI
program
are
stored
in
the
Agency's
Facility
Registry
System
(
FRS),
along
with
facility
records
from
other
EPA
national
program
systems
and
state
master
facility
records.
The
FRS
data
are
subjected
to
rigorous
verification
and
data
management
quality
assurance
procedures.
We
believe
that
extracting
program
identification
number
data
from
FRS
will
reduce
reporting
data
redundancies
and
improve
the
data
quality
of
all
facility
identification
information.
We
will
ensure
that
program
identification
data
is
not
lost
and
will
work
closely
with
state
agencies
to
increase
their
access
capabilities
regarding
facility
identification
data.

B.
Removal
of
section
5.3,
column
C:
Percentage
of
total
quantity
of
toxic
chemicals
contributed
by
stormwater
1.
Comments
in
support
of
proposed
change
(
14
comments)
20
Summary
of
Comments
A
number
of
commenters
expressed
support
for
the
proposed
removal
of
this
data
element.
Reasons
cited
by
the
commenters
included
the
complexity
of
measurement,
a
belief
that
information
was
sufficiently
imprecise
to
render
it
meaningless,
its
availability
from
other
sources
(
i.
e.,
the
National
Pollution
Discharge
Elimination
System
permit
program),
and
a
belief
that
nobody
was
using
the
data.
On
the
other
hand,
some
of
the
commenters
supporting
the
change
indicated
that
its
removal
would
offer
no
meaningful
burden
relief
because
the
information
was
already
calculated
under
another
program
or
that
they
had
created
simple
spreadsheets
that
handled
the
calculations.

Response
There
does
not
appear
to
be
a
consensus
about
the
complexity
of
measuring
the
percentage
of
total
quantity
of
toxic
chemicals
attributed
to
stormwater,
nor
to
the
availability
of
this
data
from
other
sources.
Some
commenters
have
found
ways
to
streamline
their
efforts,
while
others
have
not.
The
Agency
will,
as
resources
permit,
consider
whether
additional
guidance
may
be
helpful
to
respondents.
As
to
the
availability
of
this
information
from
other
sources,
the
commenters
were
again
divided.
There
clearly
are
areas
of
non­
coverage
by
other
data
bases,
and
at
a
minimum,
it
would
be
difficult
to
pull
the
information
together
in
one
place
to
inform
the
public
and
other
data
users.
Furthermore,
even
if
it
could
be
pulled
together
in
one
place,
there
inevitably
would
be
difficulties
introduced
by
trying
to
harmonize
TRI
and
NPDES
data
premised
on
different
assumptions
or
measurement
approaches.
Consequently,
EPA
has
decided
not
finalize
this
portion
of
the
proposal.
We
believe
the
continued
collection
of
this
data
element
best
fulfills
the
EPCRA
reporting
goals
of
the
program.

2.
Comments
opposed
to
the
proposed
change
(
3
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Commenters
opposed
to
the
removal
of
this
data
element
cited
a
number
of
reasons
for
its
retention.
Foremost
among
these
was
that
they
viewed
this
data
element
as
important
for
understanding
periodic
spikes
in
overall
water
releases
that
may
be
caused
by
stormwater
run­
off.
One
commenter
stated
that
it
is
not
uncommon
for
the
overall
water
releases
reported
in
TRI
to
rise
or
fall
because
of
a
few
facilities
with
large
releases
associated
with
stormwater.
The
commenter
contended
that
stormwater
runoff
often
dominates
such
large
releases,
and
the
inclusion
of
this
data
element
allows
users
to
better
understand
what
drives
year­
to­
year
variations
in
water
release
data,
and
to
detect
whether
increases
were
due
to
production
changes
or
rainfall.
According
to
the
commenter,
directing
data
users
to
get
this
information
from
the
NPDES
system
is
not
an
adequate
option.
Removal
of
the
data
element
would
require
data
users
to
cobble
together
information
about
the
percentage
of
stormwater
contribution
from
various
EPA
database
sources
according
to
the
commenter.
21
Another
commenter
asserted
that
phosphate
mining
stacks
may
be
an
example
of
a
sector
that
reports
significant
quantities
of
toxic
chemicals
contributed
by
stormwater,
but
is
not
part
of
the
NPDES
system.
The
commenter
requested
EPA
to
examine
whether
there
are
other
sectors
for
which
the
public
cannot
get
the
same
data
from
NPDES
before
eliminating
this
data
element.
The
commenter
also
asserted
that
integrating
facility
data
among
EPA's
databases
is
not
an
easy
task,
but
requiring
facilities
to
report
data
that
they
have
already
reported
to
EPA
is
not
a
significant
burden
for
them.

Response
In
response
to
the
concerns
of
commenters
opposing
the
change,
EPA
contacted
a
number
of
programs
within
the
Office
of
Water.
What
was
discovered
was
that
there
are
indeed
a
number
of
people
and
programs
who
make
use
of
this
information.
For
example,
the
Division
of
Engineering
and
Analysis
in
EPA's
Office
of
Water
uses
this
data
element
in
the
program's
pollution
control
activities
and
the
Agency's
biennial
report
to
Congress
under
section
304
B
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
for
just
the
reasons
cited
by
the
commenters.

Based
on
the
public
comments
received
and
additional
information
gathered
from
EPA's
Office
of
Water,
the
Agency
now
better
understands
how
this
data
element
is
used
by
EPA
program
offices,
states,
communities,
researchers
and
other
TRI
data
users.
The
Agency
has
thus
decided
not
to
remove
column
C
of
section
5.3
from
Form
R.
While
EPA
acknowledges
that
it
may
be
difficult
for
some
facilities
to
estimate
the
percentage
of
the
total
quantity
of
toxic
chemicals
contributed
by
stormwater,
EPA
believes
that
this
data
element
provides
important
information
that
helps
researchers,
communities
and
other
TRI
data
users
make
year­
to­
year
comparisons
of
discharges
of
toxic
chemicals
to
water
that
is
unavailable
elsewhere.
We
believe
the
continued
collection
of
this
data
element
best
fulfills
the
EPCRA
reporting
goals
of
the
program
and
therefore,
EPA
will
not
be
finalizing
the
proposal
to
eliminate
column
C
of
section
5.3,
part
II
of
the
Form
R.

C.
Modifications
to
parts
of
section
7
1.
Reduction
of
codes
in
section
7A,
column
B:
On­
site
waste
treatment
methods
&
efficiency
a.
Comments
in
support
of
proposed
change
(
11
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Ten
commenters
supported
EPA's
proposal
to
reduce
the
number
of
on­
site
waste
treatment
codes
and
make
them
more
consistent
with
the
reporting
codes
used
in
EPA's
Biennial
Hazardous
Waste
Report.
The
commenters
stated
that
the
proposed
change
would
reduce
the
reporting
burden
for
TRI
reporters
and
make
the
TRI
program
more
consistent
with
the
RCRA
program.
They
contended
that
the
proposal,
if
finalized,
would
make
it
easier
for
facilities
familiar
with
the
RCRA
biennial
report
to
complete
Form
R.
On
the
other
hand,
there
was
one
commenter
who
stated
that
some
TRI
reporters
were
not
familiar
with
the
RCRA
codes
and
that
learning
these
codes
would
actually
increase
burden.

One
commenter
stated
that
this
was
one
of
the
sections
of
Form
R
that
required
a
large
22
amount
of
resources
for
little
benefit
to
the
TRI
data
user
community.
On
the
other
hand,
two
commenters
voiced
opposition
to
reducing
the
number
of
treatment
codes,
with
one
emphasizing
that
they
wanted
accurate
reporting
rather
than
"
simplified"
reporting.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
who
asserted
that
this
change
will
improve
data
quality.
We
believe
that
it
will
provide
more
consistency
with
EPA's
RCRA
program
and
across
EPA
programs
and
prevent
confusion
that
can
occur
when
there
are
a
large
number
of
related
codes.

As
to
the
concerns
relating
to
familiarity
with
RCRA
codes,
we
believe
that
most
facilities
will
be
familiar
with
the
codes
in
the
RCRA
biennial
reporting
program,
partly
due
to
the
high
percentage
of
TRI
respondents
who
presently
report
RCRA
IDs.
For
those
reporters
that
exclusively
apply
air
emissions
and/
or
gas
stream
treatment
methods,
nothing
would
change;
they
would
continue
to
not
need
to
use
the
hazardous
waste
treatment
codes.
So,
it
is
not
clear
how
the
shorter
list
would
impose
any
burden
on
them.
While
there
may
be
an
initial
period
of
adjustment,
EPA
believes
that
the
longterm
burden
reduction
benefits
greatly
surpass
any
short­
term
drawbacks.

To
facilitate
a
smooth
transition,
EPA
will
include
additional
information
in
the
annual
TRI
reporting
forms
and
instructions
manual.
The
instructions
will
define
each
of
the
new
codes,
explain
the
few
minor
differences
that
exist
between
the
new
TRI
codes
and
RCRA
biennial
report
codes,
and
provide
a
map
describing
the
relationship
between
the
old
treatment
codes
and
the
new
ones.
The
map
will
serve
as
a
guidance
tool
that
expands
upon
the
written
instructions.

b.
Comments
opposed
to
the
proposed
change
(
2
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
voiced
opposition
to
reducing
the
number
of
treatment
codes,
emphasizing
that
he
or
she
wanted
accurate
reporting
rather
than
"
simplified"
reporting.
A
second
commenter
stated
general
opposition
to
this
proposed
change,
along
with
the
proposed
use
of
range
reporting
in
section
7A,
contending
that
such
changes
would
represent
a
loss
of
data.

Response
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenters.
No
specific
information
or
compelling
examples
were
provided
by
commenters
regarding
potential
data
loss
if
the
treatment
codes
in
section
7A
column
B
were
reduced
and
made
consistent
with
the
hazardous
waste
treatment
codes
used
in
the
Agency's
RCRA
biennial
report.
Rather,
EPA
believes
that
this
change
will
improve
data
quality
because
it
will
prevent
reporters
from
overspecifying
their
treatment
trains.
Consequently,
EPA
will
reduce
the
number
of
treatment
codes
used
in
section
7
column
B
to
the
18
hazardous
waste
H
treatment
codes
used
in
the
RCRA
biennial
report
and
seven
air
emissions
treatment
codes
from
the
original
64
TRI
treatment
codes.
23
c.
Retain
current
air
emissions
and
gas
stream
treatment
codes
(
9
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Nine
commenters
expressed
concerns
regarding
the
removal
of
air
emissions
treatment
codes
in
the
proposed
consolidated
treatment
codes
for
section
7A,
column
B.
Several
of
these
commenters
recommended
that
the
Agency
retain
the
seven
existing
air
emissions
treatment
codes
(
A01
to
A07).
Many
commenters
stressed
their
concern
about
the
lack
of
codes
to
cover
the
treatment
of
gas
streams,
which
one
commenter
asserted
was
the
primary
means
by
which
utilities
reduce
their
toxic
chemical
releases,
and
the
primary
waste
treatment
method
used
at
electric
power
plants.
Another
commenter
stated
that
since
the
on­
site
treatment
of
acid
aerosols
are
among
the
most
voluminous
gas
streams
reported
in
section
8.6,
it
was
especially
important
to
make
air
emissions
codes
in
section
7A,
column
B
available
to
accurately
capture
this
type
of
treatment.
Without
specific
air
emission
codes,
they
maintained
that
they
would
have
to
use
the
code
for
"
other
treatment"
(
H129)
and
that
would
not
provide
any
useful
information
to
TRI
data
users.

One
commenter
stated
that
the
current
64
treatment
codes
were
barely
enough
to
adequately
describe
their
air
pollution
control
devices.
The
commenter
went
on
to
say
that
if
the
proposed
18
codes
were
adopted,
it
would
create
a
high
degree
of
confusion
that
would
be
unwarranted
for
a
streamlining
effort.
In
such
cases,
according
to
the
commenter,
facilities
would
be
forced
to
use
the
H129­­
Other
treatment
code,
which
would
result
in
data
of
little
value,
and
it
would
thus
be
better
to
remove
the
data
element
entirely.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
it
is
important
to
adequately
describe
the
treatment
methods
used
for
air
emissions
and
gas
streams.
Based
on
the
comments
submitted,
the
Agency
better
understands
and
appreciates
the
necessity
to
include
air
emissions
codes
in
section
7A,
column
B
of
Form
R.
While
EPA
intended
to
propose
the
complete
consolidation
of
the
treatment
codes
in
section
7A,
column
B
to
make
them
consistent
with
the
hazardous
waste
codes
used
in
the
RCRA
biennial
report,
we
inadvertently
overlooked
the
fact
that
the
RCRA
codes
fail
to
cover
air
emissions
with
an
adequate
degree
of
specificity.
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
a
substantial
amount
of
valuable
data
would
be
lost
if
the
seven
existing
codes
for
air
emissions
were
to
be
removed.
Consequently,
this
rule
retains
the
seven
existing
air
emissions
codes
used
in
section
7A,
column
B.

d.
List
should
be
even
shorter
than
proposed
­
don't
use
RCRA
codes
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
not
use
the
RCRA
H
treatment
codes
from
the
RCRA
biennial
report
for
the
hazardous
waste
treatment
codes
in
section
7A,
column
B
of
Form
R.
The
commenter
stated
a
preference
to
use
a
shorter,
more
concise
list
of
codes.
24
Response
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter
that
RCRA
H
treatment
codes
from
the
RCRA
biennial
report
should
not
be
used
in
section
7A,
column
B
of
Form
R,
and
that
a
shorter
list
of
codes
should
be
used
instead.
We
believe
that
since
the
majority
of
TRI
reporters
also
report
the
hazardous
waste
treatment
methods
they
use
in
EPA's
RCRA
biennial
reporting
process,
a
consistent
use
of
reporting
codes
will
result
in
a
larger
reduction
of
reporting
burden
than
a
shorter
version
of
the
current
list
of
TRI
codes.

e.
Treatment
code
H083
was
missing
from
the
proposed
reduced
list
of
codes
(
4
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Several
commenters
questioned
why
EPA
omitted
one
of
the
RCRA
H
treatment
codes
from
the
list
of
18
hazardous
waste
treatment
codes
proposed
for
use
in
section
7A,
column
B.
Several
of
these
commenters
requested
that
EPA
clarify
whether
this
was
an
intentional
omission.
One
commenter
asked
whether
this
omission
required
another
Federal
Register
notice
announcement
to
make
a
correction.

Response
EPA
inadvertently
omitted
treatment
code
H083
from
the
list
of
18
hazardous
waste
treatment
method
codes
that
were
proposed
to
replace
the
existing
64
treatment
codes
in
section
7A,
column
B
of
Form
R.
We
stated
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
that
we
were
proposing
to
replace
the
64
treatment
codes
with
18
hazardous
waste
treatment
codes,
demonstrating
that
we
intended
to
include
all
18
codes
despite
only
listing
17
codes.
EPA
recognizes
the
need
to
include
treatment
code
H083
to
capture
air
or
steam
stripping
treatment,
and
has
included
the
code
in
the
final
rule.
Due
to
the
fact
that
EPA
received
comments
alerting
it
to
this
mistake,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
a
supplemental
proposal
is
needed
to
correct
this
omission.

f.
Clarify
treatment
codes
H082
and
H083
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
questioned
how
the
phrase
used
in
a
parenthetical
in
the
proposed
treatment
code
H083
"(
as
the
major
component
of
treatment),"
would
apply
in
sequential
on­
site
treatment
methods
where
the
approach
is
simply
one
step
in
a
multi­
step
process.
They
noted
that
the
same
parenthetical
phrase
might
be
applied
to
treatment
code
H082
as
well
if
EPA
used
that
code
in
the
final
rule.
They
contended
that
since
several
of
the
other
treatment
codes
proposed
for
use
in
section
7A,
column
B
did
not
include
the
parenthetical
phrase
used
in
the
RCRA
biennial
report,
that
it
should
be
omitted
for
codes
H082
and
H083
as
well.

Response
EPA
had
requested
comments
on
the
proposed
reduction
of
codes
in
section
7A,
column
B,
especially
in
respect
to
the
use
of
the
data.
EPA
appreciates
receiving
the
comment
requesting
clarification
on
the
use
the
parenthetical
phrase
at
the
end
of
the
proposed
treatment
code
H083
in
section
7A,
column
B,
"(
as
the
major
component
of
treatment)."
25
Based
on
the
comment,
EPA
understands
that
the
use
of
this
parenthetical
could
cause
confusion
regarding
sequential
on­
site
treatment
methods
where
the
approach
is
simply
one
step
in
a
multi­
step
process.
Consequently,
we
have
removed
the
parenthetical
phrase
from
the
final
rule.

g.
Clarify
treatment
codes
H111
and
H112
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
requested
that
EPA
clarify
the
use
of
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
treatment
codes
H111
(
stabilization
or
chemical
fixation
prior
to
disposal
at
another
site)
and
H112
(
macro­
encapsulation
prior
to
disposal
at
another
site)
in
section
7A,
column
B.
The
commenter
noted
that
the
use
of
the
phrase
"
another
site"
would
pose
a
problem
for
TRI
reporting
facilities
with
on­
site
landfills,
as
well
as
for
facilities
that
use
stabilization
for
the
final
treatment
of
their
wastes.
The
commenter
recommended
that
the
phrase,
"
another
site"
should
be
removed
from
the
treatment
code
description
in
the
final
rule.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter
and
is
removing
the
phrase,
"
at
another
site"
from
the
parenthetical
description
for
treatment
codes
H111
and
H112.
We
agree
that
the
use
of
the
phrase
would
unnecessarily
restrict
the
use
of
these
codes,
and
believe
that
the
removal
of
this
phrase
will
avoid
confusing
reporters
who
could
otherwise
use
these
codes
to
describe
their
on­
site
treatment
methods.

h.
Clarify
treatment
code
H121
(
4
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Four
commenters
requested
clarification
of
treatment
code
H121­­
Neutralization
only.
As
they
pointed
out,
the
word,
"
only"
would
eliminate
the
use
of
this
code
by
facilities
that
use
neutralization
as
one
of
several
steps
in
a
sequence
of
waste
treatment
methods,
rather
than
as
the
single
method
of
treatment.
One
commenter
contends
that
such
a
restriction
would
force
facilities
that
use
it
as
one
of
several
waste
treatment
method
steps,
to
use
treatment
code
H129­­
Other
treatment.
Two
commenters
requested
that
EPA
consider
removing
the
word
"
only"
from
the
treatment
code
description.
Another
commenter
suggested
that
the
word,
"
only"
is
relevant
only
to
reporting
under
the
RCRA
Biennial
Report,
and
didn't
serve
the
purposes
of
TRI
reporting.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
regarding
the
use
of
the
word,
"
only"
in
the
description
of
treatment
code
H121
in
section
7A,
column
B.
We
acknowledge
that
the
word
could
restrict
the
use
of
that
code
unnecessarily
and
force
facilities
that
use
neutralization
as
one
of
several
steps
in
a
sequence
of
waste
treatment
methods
to
instead
use
treatment
code
H129­­
Other
treatment.
EPA
believes
that
more
useful
information
can
be
derived
from
the
proper
use
of
treatment
code
H121
than
H129
by
facilities
that
use
neutralization
as
either
their
only
treatment
method
or
as
one
of
several
steps
in
their
26
waste
treatment
process
instead.
The
agency
has
thus
removed
the
word,
"
only"
from
the
H121
treatment
code
description.

2.
Reduction
in
codes
in
section
7C:
On­
site
recycling
processes
(
10
comments
in
support
of
proposed
change
/
1
comment
opposed)

Summary
of
Comments
Ten
commenters
supported
the
reduction
of
on­
site
recycling
process
codes
in
section
7
C.
Several
stated
that
such
a
change
would
promote
consistency
between
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
and
TRI
reporting
programs.
One
commenter
stated
that
it
would
reduce
unnecessary
complexity.
Several
expressed
support
for
the
change
because
they
felt
that
the
three
proposed
codes
would
adequately
cover
the
range
of
recycling
activities
that
might
be
undertaken
at
a
facility.
In
addition,
the
commenters
contended
that
the
change
would
not
compromise
the
utility
of
TRI
Program
data.
One
commenter
disagreed
with
this
point
and
stated
that
the
resulting
data
loss
would
be
unacceptable.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
commenters
in
support
of
the
code
changes.
The
Agency
has
not
been
able
to
uncover
any
important
use
for
the
more
detailed
list
of
codes.

3.
Elimination
of
section
7A,
column
C:
Range
of
influent
concentration
(
12
comments
in
support
of
proposed
change
/
none
opposed)

Summary
of
Comments
Twelve
commenters
expressed
support
for
removing
the
range
of
influent
concentration
data
element
under
section
7A,
column
C.
One
commenter
asserted
that
this
change
would
provide
the
most
significant
amount
of
burden
reduction
of
the
changes
proposed
in
this
rule.
Several
commenters
stated
that
calculating
these
concentrations
for
each
chemical
(
or
chemical
category)
in
each
waste
stream
is
very
time
consuming
and
often
requires
numerous
assumptions.
They
also
contended
that
the
resulting
data
are
of
little
value
to
the
general
public.
Another
commenter
asserted
that
facilities
have
reported
spending
upwards
of
40
hours
or
more
to
report
on
this
data
element,
reflecting
the
significant
burden
associated
with
the
requirement.
Several
commenters
expressed
support
for
entirely
removing
the
data
element
or
for
making
reporting
optional,
although
there
was
a
general
recognition
that
the
latter
approach
could
create
even
more
confusion.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
removing
the
data
element
for
range
of
influent
concentration
under
section
7A,
column
C
would
reduce
a
significant
amount
of
burden
for
TRI
reporters.
We
acknowledge
that
a
large
number
of
facilities
do
not
collect
monitoring
data
and
instead,
provide
estimates
for
this
data
element
on
influent
concentration.
The
agency
also
appreciates
the
information
provided
by
commenters
regarding
the
proposal
to
allow
TRI
reporters
an
option
to
report
this
data
element.
We
agree
with
the
commenters
that
such
an
option
could
create
confusion
among
reporters,
and
due
to
the
inconsistent
amount
of
data
that
would
be
reported,
believe
that
it
would
provide
information
of
only
limited
value
to
the
public.
27
In
the
proposal,
EPA
stated
its
belief
that
this
information
was
not
widely
used
by
States
and
the
public
as
was
anticipated
when
it
was
first
included
on
Form
R.
No
comments
were
submitted
that
opposed
the
removal
of
this
data
element,
nor
were
any
comments
submitted
that
provided
any
information
as
to
the
extent
of
its
use
or
why
the
data
element
was
important
to
retain.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
that
its
original
assumptions
about
this
data
element
were
correct,
and
has
decided
to
finalize
the
removal
of
the
data
element.

No
one
opposed
based
on
potential
data
impact
removing
this
data
element
or
the
proposal
to
make
this
data
element
optional.

4.
Use
of
range
codes
instead
of
specific
percentage
number
in
section
7A,
column
D:
On­
site
waste
treatment
efficiency
estimate
a.
Comments
in
support
of
proposed
change
(
6
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Several
commenters
expressed
general
support
for
allowing
TRI
reporters
to
use
range
codes
instead
of
a
specific
percentage
number
in
section
7A,
column
D.
Two
of
the
commenters
stated
strong
support
for
this
proposed
change.
Several
commenters
stated
that
a
single
value
estimate
suggests
far
greater
certainty
about
removal
efficiencies
than
exists
in
the
real
world
and
that
it
is
difficult
to
estimate
a
precise
percentage
representing
the
treatment
efficiency
of
the
method.
One
commenter
said
that
even
when
more
precise
data
are
available,
it
generally
varies
over
the
course
of
the
year.
The
commenter
contended
that
the
use
of
ranges
is
a
more
reasonable
approach,
and
covers
any
variance
in
the
treatment
efficiencies
based
on
analysis.
The
commenter
went
on
to
say
that
the
use
of
ranges
would
avoid
the
appearance
of
a
precise
estimate
when
the
estimate
was
actually
based
on
professional
judgment.

Another
commenter
stated
that
since
electric
utility
power
plants
operate
in
a
variety
of
different
ways
over
the
course
of
a
year
and
fossil
fuels
are
heterogeneous,
and
thus
the
levels
of
trace
substance
in
the
fuel
can
vary
even
if
the
source
of
the
fuel
remains
the
same,
a
single
reported
treatment
efficiency
value
is
nothing
more
than
a
long­
term
average
value.

Several
commenters
also
asserted
that
this
change
would
reduce
burden
without
sacrificing
the
overall
quality
of
the
data.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
allowing
ranges
to
be
reported
in
section
7A,
column
D
would
provide
a
more
realistic
estimate
of
on­
site
waste
treatment
efficiency.
We
believe
that
the
use
of
ranges
will
provide
burden
relief
to
facilities
that
currently
find
it
difficult
to
estimate
an
exact
percentage
amount
due
to
the
several
of
reasons
that
the
commenters
pointed
out
about
how
their
facilities
operate.
EPA
has
finalized
this
change
in
the
final
rule.
We
do
not
believe
that
this
change
will
result
in
a
loss
of
data
since
the
data
element
will
still
consist
of
an
estimate
of
the
percentage
of
treatment
efficiency
28
typically
achieved
by
the
waste
treatment
or
disposal
methods
employed
for
each
waste
stream.
We
believe
it
will
instead
more
accurately
reflect
the
treatment
efficiency
variances
that
occur
over
the
course
of
a
facility's
yearly
operation.

b.
Proposed
change
would
provide
minimal
burden
reduction
(
2
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
asserted
that
the
use
of
range
codes
for
treatment
efficiencies
would
not
be
a
labor
saver
since
its
emissions­
estimating­
software
already
calculates
the
overall
treatment
efficiencies.
A
second
commenter
stated
that
in
order
to
report
within
one
of
the
ranges
proposed
by
EPA,
a
facility
must
still
undergo
the
analysis
to
get
an
exact
percentage.
The
commenter
noted
that
this
is
particularly
true
in
the
higher
ranges,
where
most
reported
efficiencies
fall.
The
commenter
concluded
that
no
burden
reduction
would
result
from
this
change.

Response
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenters
that
little
or
no
burden
would
be
reduced
as
a
result
of
this
change.
Comments
were
received
from
several
commenters
supported
this
change,
asserting
that
it
was
difficult
to
derive
an
exact
treatment
efficiency
percentage
estimate
for
this
data
element.
Not
all
facilities
have
access
to
sophisticated
emissionsestimating
software
that
can
quickly
calculate
such
a
specific
estimate.
In
addition,
as
several
commenters
stated,
using
a
range
of
removal
efficiencies
would
better
reflect
reality.
The
Agency
has
decided
to
finalize
this
section
of
the
proposal.

c.
Either
provide
an
option
to
report
exact
percentage
­
or
­
add
several
high­
end
ranges
to
make
distinctions
differentiating
high
efficiency
level
reporting
requirements
for
incinerators
(
2
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Two
commenters
support
the
proposed
change
but
voiced
concern
about
the
limited
number
of
ranges
provided
in
the
high­
end
of
the
proposed
ranges.
They
preferred
that
EPA
either
allow
TRI
reporters,
particularly
incinerators,
to
report
a
specific
on­
site
waste
treatment
efficiency
percentage
estimate,
or
to
provide
additional
efficiency
percentage
range
categories
at
the
upper
end
of
the
range
scale.
They
claimed
that
this
was
necessary
to
distinguish
unpermitted
incinerators
that
do
not
meet
RCRA
mandated
treatment
efficiencies
for
some
chemical
wastes
from
those
that
do.
They
stated
that
to
do
otherwise
would
result
in
accurate
but
misleading
information
that
would
be
contrary
to
the
goals
of
the
Community
Right
to
Know
Act
and
arguably
the
Data
Quality
Act.
They
said
it
would
also
contradict
the
Agency's
attempt
to
meet
the
Pollution
Prevention
Act's
goal
of
allowing
the
public
to
understand
the
ultimate
destruction
of
toxic
chemicals.

Both
commenters
recommend
that
if
upper
ranges
were
to
be
used
instead
of
allowing
reporters
to
use
specific
percentages,
they
should
be
changed
to
the
following:
greater
than
99.9%
to
99.99%,
greater
than
99.99%
to
99.9999%,
and
greater
than
99.9999%.
29
Response
EPA
appreciates
receiving
specific
recommendations
and
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
some
adjustments
should
be
made
to
the
proposed
upper
ranges
of
treatment
efficiency
estimates
in
section
7A,
column
D.
We
have
used
similar,
although
not
exactly
the
same
treatment
efficiency
ranges
as
those
proposed
by
the
commenters.
The
upper­
level
ranges
that
EPA
used
in
the
final
rule
include
the
following:
greater
than
99%
to
99.99%,
greater
than
99.99%
to
99.9999%,
and
greater
than
99.9999%.
These
ranges
were
selected
in
order
to
ensure
an
equal
distribution
of
the
range
categories,
and
to
allow
data
users
to
continue
to
distinguish
the
performance
of
combustion
devices
in
excess
of
RCRA
hazardous
waste
and
TSCA
PCB
incinerator
standards.
EPA
believes
that
these
revised
range
categories
will
provide
a
means
for
those
TRI
reporters
who
are
achieving
high
degree
of
treatment
efficiency
to
communicate
that
desirable
outcome
to
the
public.
EPA
is
not
going
to
allow
TRI
reporters
to
report
a
specific
percentage
amount
in
section
7A,
column
D
since
it
could
result
in
two
sets
of
confusing
data
that
would
be
impossible
to
combine
for
any
meaningful
assessment.

d.
Reduce
the
number
of
ranges
­
use
a
broader
mid­
range
(
change
from
using
two
separate
ranges,
90­
95%
and
95­
99.9%
­
to
one
range,
90­
99.9%)
(
4
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Four
commenters
support
the
proposed
change
but
recommend
reducing
the
total
number
of
ranges
used
in
section
7A,
column
D.
They
all
favor
reducing
the
number
of
ranges
in
the
mid­
range.
Three
of
the
commenters
proposed
combining
proposed
ranges
E2
(
greater
than
95%
to
99.9%)
and
E3
(
greater
than
90%
to
95%),
so
that
there
would
be
one
category
that
covers
greater
than
90%
to
99.9%.
One
commenter
recommended
changing
the
proposed
to
0
to
50%,
greater
than
50%
to
90%,
greater
than
90%
to
99%,
and
greater
than
99%.

Response
EPA
appreciates
receiving
specific
recommendations
on
the
ranges
that
would
be
most
useful
and
relevant
to
use.
In
response
to
the
comments
EPA
has
reduced
the
number
of
reporting
ranges
for
the
lower
and
mid­
ranges
from
four
categories
to
two
(
greater
than
0%
to
50%
and
greater
than
50%
to
95%)
in
the
final
rule.
However,
the
Agency
cannot
agree
to
consolidate
the
upper
range
codes.
If,
as
the
commenters
suggested,
the
Agency
consolidated
greater
than
90%
to
99.9%
into
one
range,
over
half
of
all
respondents
would
be
in
that
category,
which
would
span
a
hundred
fold
variation
in
influent
concentration.
By
dividing
the
ranges
into
greater
than
0%
to
50%,
greater
than
50%
to
95%,
and
greater
than
95%
to
99%,
the
new
categories
will
represent
18%,
20%
and
29%
respectively
of
all
responses.
Even
the
smallest
of
these
intervals
(
greater
than
0%
to
50%)
allows
a
two
fold
variation
in
removal
efficiency
which
should
provide
an
adequate
estimating
margin
for
realizing
burden
reduction,
while
simultaneously
distinguishing
major
differences
in
treatment
performance.

e.
The
use
of
range
codes
in
this
data
element
would
create
problems
for
reporting
in
other
sections
of
Form
R
(
1
comment)
30
Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
asserted
the
proposed
change
in
section
7A,
column
D
could
create
problems
with
reporting
in
other
sections
of
Form
R.
The
commenter
used
an
example
of
how
the
use
of
range
codes
can
create
problems
for
reporting
data
in
other
data
elements.
They
cited
problems
in
using
values
in
sections
5
and
6
of
Form
R
when
compared
against
those
reported
in
section
8.
They
said
that
in
such
cases,
the
values
typically
do
not
balance,
e.
g.,
often
the
use
of
range
codes
will
result
in
a
"
NOTE"
error
on
the
Facility
Data
Profile,
because
the
software
evidently
uses
the
midpoint
of
the
range.

Response
EPA
disagrees
with
this
comment.
We
do
not
believe
that
the
use
of
range
codes
in
section
7A,
column
D
will
affect
reporting
in
other
sections
of
the
form,
such
as
sections
5,
6
or
8.
We
will
review
the
TRI­
ME
and
data
quality
software
to
ensure
the
change
does
not
create
errors
in
data
processing.

f.
The
use
of
range
codes
in
this
data
element
would
result
in
loss
of
data
and
set
a
bad
precedent
for
employing
range
reporting
in
other
parts
of
Form
R
(
2
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Two
commenters
opposed
the
proposed
change
due
to
concerns
about
the
use
of
range
codes
in
general.
One
of
these
commenters
stated
that
the
use
of
range
codes
in
section
7A,
column
D
would
represent
a
loss
of
data.
The
commenter
said
that
it
would
also
limit
information
without
reducing
the
amount
of
time
and
resources
a
facility
would
need
to
estimate
its
efficiency.
The
second
commenter
stated
that
it
would
set
a
bad
precedent
of
employing
range
reporting
and
found
it
hard
to
understand
how
it
would
reduce
burden
since
the
facilities
would
still
need
to
calculate
the
general
efficiency
percentage
in
order
to
determine
the
appropriate
range
to
use.

Response
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenters
regarding
this
data
element.
Range
reporting
is
already
used
in
a
variety
of
Form
R
data
elements
and
we
do
not
believe
that
applying
range
code
reporting
to
this
data
element
will
set
any
kind
of
precedent
that
would
degrade
the
quality
of
TRI
data.
As
many
commenters
noted,
the
data
reported
in
section
7A,
column
D
are
generally
based
upon
an
estimate,
rather
than
specific
monitoring
data.
We
believe
that
the
range
codes
that
have
been
selected
for
use
in
this
data
element
will
more
accurately
reflect
an
estimated
value
without
sacrificing
data
quality.

5.
Removal
of
section
7A,
column
E:
Check
box
indicating
whether
waste
treatment
efficiency
estimate
is
based
on
operating
data
(
4
comments
in
support
of
proposed
change
/
none
opposed)

Summary
of
Comments
Several
commenters
supported
the
removal
of
section
7A,
column
E,
which
currently
requires
facilities
to
indicate
"
yes"
or
"
no"
as
to
whether
the
waste
treatment
efficiency
reported
in
section
7A,
column
D
is
based
on
operating
data.
Two
commenters
stated
that
if
the
proposed
changes
to
section
7A,
columns
C
and
D
were
finalized
in
this
rule,
31
that
data
in
column
E
would
not
provide
meaningful
data
to
the
public.
Another
commenter
asserted
that
most
of
their
treatment
efficiencies
are
based
on
companyderived
estimated
efficiencies
rather
than
on
monitoring
data.
No
one
opposed
this
proposed
change.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
section
7A,
column
E
would
not
provide
meaningful
information
to
the
public
without
specific
percentage
estimates
in
section
7A,
column
D.
Since
that
section
of
Form
R
will
be
finalized
and
since
no
commenters
provided
any
information
regarding
the
usefulness
of
such
data,
we
have
finalized
the
removal
of
this
data
element
from
Form
R.

D.
Substitution
of
section
8.11
yes/
no
question
with
optional
text
box
for
additional
information
on
source
reduction,
recycling
or
pollution
control
activities
1.
Comments
in
support
of
proposed
change
(
6
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Several
commenters
supported
the
removal
of
the
current
"
yes/
no"
question
in
section
8.11
of
Form
R,
and
the
addition
of
an
optional
text
box
feature
in
EPA's
TRI­
ME
reporting
software.
As
one
commenter
stated,
TRI
reporters
have
up
until
now
been
forced
to
submit
additional
information
about
their
source
reduction,
recycling,
and
other
pollution
prevention
techniques
separately
on
paper,
rather
than
electronically.
Another
commenter
remarked
that
such
additional
information
was
not
readily
accessible
in
the
past
since
it
was
only
available
on
paper.
One
commenter
stated
that
they
had
not
previously
submitted
supplemental
information
and
that
the
addition
of
an
electronic
text
box
would
allow
them
to
more
easily
submit
such
information.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
the
removal
of
the
current
question
in
section
8.11
and
replacement
of
it
with
an
optional
electronic
text
box
for
reporting
additional
information
about
source
reduction,
recycling,
and
other
pollution
prevention
techniques,
will
increase
the
accessibility
and
usefulness
of
such
information.
We
also
believe
that
it
will
increase
the
likelihood
that
reporters
will
submit
such
information
since
it
will
be
easier
to
do
so.
EPA
has
finalized
this
section
of
the
proposal.

2.
Comments
opposed
to
the
proposed
change
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
opposed
the
proposed
change,
stating
that
while
the
proposed
text
box
feature
would
be
optional,
many
reporters
would
feel
compelled
to
enter
information.
The
commenter
contended
that
compliance
issues
could
arise
if
the
information
submitted
was
not
completely
accurate
or
precise.
The
commenter
expressed
concern
that
this
could
result
in
discouraging
submission
of
such
information.

Response
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter.
As
stated
previously,
reporters
have
never
been
32
required
to
include
additional
information
in
section
8.11,
nor
would
they
be
required
to
do
so
under
the
proposed
change.
In
fact,
under
the
proposed
change,
section
8.11
would
be
entirely
optional
since
those
who
do
not
wish
to
include
additional
information
would
no
longer
need
to
check
the
"
no"
box.

3.
Proposed
change
would
provide
minimal
burden
reduction
(
2
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Two
commenters
supported
the
proposed
change
but
contended
that
it
would
provide
only
negligible
burden
reduction.

Response
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
this
proposed
change
would
not
provide
any
significant
burden
reduction.
Since
section
8.11
does
not
require
TRI
reporters
to
include
additional
information,
and
no
additional
requirement
would
be
imposed
with
the
proposed
change,
because
this
data
element
is
optional,
EPA
did
not
estimate
any
additional
burden
reduction
for
this
data
element
in
the
economic
analysis
that
accompanied
the
proposal.

4.
Additional
information
should
be
included
in
section
8.10
instead
of
in
section
8.11
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
supported
the
removal
of
the
"
yes/
no"
question
in
section
8.11,
but
recommended
that
additional
information
submitted
about
source
reduction,
recycling,
or
pollution
prevention
activities
be
included
in
section
8.10
instead
of
in
a
new
text
box
feature
for
section
8.11.

Response
EPA
appreciates
receiving
the
recommendation
to
use
section
8.10
rather
than
an
additional
section
8.11
for
including
additional
information
on
source
reduction,
recycling,
or
pollution
prevention
activities.
However,
EPA
believes
it
would
be
best
to
add
the
text
box
feature
to
section
8.11.
Section
8.10
collects
information
required
under
the
PPA
indicating
whether
facilities
are
engaged
in
any
source
reduction
activities
for
the
chemical
in
question,
whereas
section
8.11
provides
an
option
for
reporters
to
include
additional
information
about
several
types
of
activities
­­
source
reduction,
recycling,
and
pollution
control
activities
­­
not
just
those
related
to
source
reduction
in
8.10.

5.
Make
the
additional
information
available
in
TRI
explorer
and
Envirofacts
(
2
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Two
commenters
supported
this
proposed
change
and
added
that
the
additional
information
submitted
in
section
8.11
should
be
made
available
through
both
TRI
Explorer
and
Envirofacts.
33
Response
The
purpose
of
the
proposed
change
is
to
increase
availability
of
additional
information
about
source
reduction,
recycling
and
pollution
control
activities
reported
optionally
by
TRI
reporters.
The
Agency
will
make
this
information
available
through
the
Agency's
Envirofacts
database
system.
TRI
Explorer
primarily
provides
quantitative
data
on
release
and
other
waste
management
activities
as
reported
by
TRI
facilities,
and
does
not
provide
the
type
of
facility­
specific
data
included
in
section
8.11.

E.
Technical
modifications
to
40
CFR
372.85
1.
Comments
in
support
of
proposed
change
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
stated
that
they
not
object
to
the
two
technical
amendments
concerning
the
1991
rule.

Response
EPA
appreciates
receiving
the
comment
and
has
finalized
this
section
of
the
rule.

2.
Clarify
that
reporters
can
submit
reports
in
various
formats
(
See
comment
for
specific
recommended
text)
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
EPA
received
one
comment
on
this
section
of
the
proposal.
The
commenter
expressed
concern
that
the
proposed
change
could
be
misread
to
imply
that
web­
based
reporting
is
the
only
available
reporting
option.
The
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
modify
the
proposed
wording
of
section
372.85(
a)
to
make
it
clear
that
various
allowable
reporting
formats
(
e.
g.,
hard
copy,
computer
disk
or
tape,
or
web­
based)
are
available
via
the
web
site.
To
augment
the
changes
in
section
372.85(
a),
the
commenter
also
recommended
that
section
372.30(
a)
be
modified
to
clarify
that
reporting
facilities
have
the
option
of
reporting
in
several
different
formats,
as
further
described
in
Subpart
E.
The
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
modify
section
372.30(
a)
in
the
following
manner:
a)
For
each
toxic
chemical
known
by
the
owner
or
operator
to
be
manufactured
(
including
imported),
processed,
or
otherwise
used
in
excess
of
an
applicable
threshold
quantity
in
section
372.25,
section
372.27,
or
section
372.28
at
its
covered
facility
described
in
section
372.22
for
a
calendar
year,
the
owner
or
operator
must
submit
to
EPA
and
to
the
State
in
which
the
facility
is
located
a
completed
EPA
Form
R
(
EPA
Form
9350­
1)
in
a
format
permitted
by
and
in
accordance
with
the
instructions
referred
to
in
subpart
E
of
this
part.

Response
The
subject
modifications
should
not
be
construed
to
imply
that
web­
based
reporting
will
be
the
only
reporting
option.
Web
based
reporting
can
have
huge
potential
advantages
for
both
respondents
and
the
Agency,
allowing
respondents
to
receive
pre­
populated
forms
and
the
Agency
to
reduce
processing
costs
by
over
90%.
Nevertheless,
web­
based
reporting
is
not
being
required
in
recognition
that
there
may
be
respondents
who
do
not
yet
have
suitable
Internet
connectivity.
The
modified
text
of
372.85(
a)
simply
provides
two
sources
where
reporting
materials
will
be
located.
EPA
believes
that
the
wording
as
34
proposed
does
not
limit
the
method
of
reporting
available
and
therefore
has
finalized
the
change.

V.
ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
A.
Analysis
doesn't
consider
increased
burden
created
by
rule
(
4
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Several
commenters
contended
that
EPA
should
acknowledge
and
account
for
the
initial
costs
of
the
proposal
to
industry.
One
commenter
stated
that
EPA's
economic
analysis
failed
to
consider
the
burden
imposed
by
the
proposed
changes,
and
was
thus
flawed
and
incomplete.
The
commenter
stated
that
much
of
this
increased
burden
was
tied
to
the
need
to
gain
familiarity
with
the
new
reporting
forms
and
instructions.
While
the
commenter
acknowledged
that
the
proposed
changes
were
fairly
minor,
they
contended
that
the
changes
would
still
require
reporters
to
compare
changes
between
the
new
reporting
forms
and
the
past
reporting
year's
form.
They
stated
that
EPA's
burden
estimate
should
account
for
the
costs
associated
with
retraining
staff
and
modifying
internal
tracking
and
reporting
systems.
In
addition,
according
to
the
commenter,
EPA
failed
to
consider
the
burden
imposed
through
frequent
changes
in
the
TRI
reporting
form.

Another
commenter
asserted
that
facilities
using
contractor
software
also
incur
annual
maintenance
charges
to
cover
the
contractor's
cost
of
making
needed
changes
to
its
software.
According
to
the
commenter,
anytime
EPA
changes
Form
R,
there
are
initial
costs
associated
with
ensuring
proper
communication,
training
and
compliance
with
those
changes.

Another
commenter
stated
that
burden
would
increase
for
those
facilities
that
do
not
file
RCRA
Biennial
Reports.
They
contended
that
reporters
who
are
unfamiliar
with
the
RCRA
codes
would
have
to
familiarize
themselves
with
the
new
codes
and
revise
their
TRI
analysis
accordingly.
They
asserted
that
even
those
familiar
with
the
RCRA
codes
would
have
to
make
initial
adjustments
to
TRI
analysis
mechanisms
already
in
place.

Response
The
Agency
acknowledges
that
there
is
a
one­
time
rule
familiarization
burden
associated
with
this
rule.
The
Agency
believes
that
given
the
prior
familiarity
that
subsequent
year
Form
R
respondents
have
with
Form
R
data
elements,
the
limited
number
of
changes
to
Forms
R
and
A,
and
simplicity
of
the
changes
themselves
(
i.
e.,
deleting
and
modifying
Form
R
data
elements),
that
this
rule
familiarization
burden
will
be
small.
This
small,
one­
time
burden
is
addressed
qualitatively
in
the
final
rule.
For
more
detailed
information,
see
the
full
economic
analysis
that
accompanies
today's
final
rule.
It
is
available
in
the
Agency's
regulatory
docket,
no.
TRI­
2004­
0001.

The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
comment
that
modification
of
company
software
is
a
burden
associated
with
this
rulemaking.
Such
costs
and
burden
are
not
legally
compelled
by
the
rule
and
result
from
business
decisions
to
use
privately­
developed
software
rather
than
a
legal
requirement
arising
from
today's
rulemaking.
35
B.
Burden
estimates
for
the
proposal
are
overstated
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
stated
that
while
they
welcomed
the
proposed
changes,
their
member
companies
estimated
a
minimal
amount
of
"
cost
savings,"
on
the
order
of
approximately
5%.

Response
The
Agency
acknowledges
that
individual
respondents
may
realize
different
burden
savings
depending
on
the
number
of
Form
Rs
filed,
the
baseline
burden
incurred,
the
industry
the
reporting
facility
is
in,
and
the
experience
of
the
technical
contact
completing
the
form(
s).
The
Agency's
economic
analysis
is
not
facility­
specific
and
is
based
on
a
typical
TRI
reporting
facility.

C.
Burden
estimates
should
not
differ
for
PBT
versus
non­
PBT
reports
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
The
commenter
stated
that
EPA's
burden
analysis
for
this
rulemaking
was
not
appropriately
derived.
The
commenter
asserted
that
while
there
were
clear
and
logical
reasons
why
one
might
expect
different
burden
reduction
estimates
for
first­
year
and
subsequent­
year
reporters,
as
well
as
for
Form
R
versus
Form
A
reporters,
there
was
no
reason
to
expect
a
difference
between
PBT
and
non­
PBT
reporters.
They
contended
that
the
PBT
designation
should
not
affect
the
changes
in
reporting
requirements
proposed
in
this
rule.
The
commenter
cited
EPA's
November
2004
"
Economic
Analysis
of
the
Proposed
Rule
to
Modify
or
Remove
Certain
Data
Elements
from
Form
A",
prepared
by
the
EPA
Analytic
Support
Branch
of
OEI,
indicating
that
these
disparities
are
due
to
EPA
efforts
to
scale
"
realistic
burden
estimates"
to
"
OMB
approved
form
completion
times"
for
PBT
and
non­
PBT
forms.
They
compared
the
burden
estimates
regarding
proposed
changes
to
the
reporting
forms'
Latitude/
Longitude
data
element
and
stated
that
it
was
unclear
why
scaling
of
"
realistic
burden
estimates"
was
necessary.
The
commenter
concluded
that
the
realistic
burden
estimate
for
this
data
element,
as
well
as
others
in
the
proposal,
appeared
to
equal
the
actual
burden
reduction.

Response
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter
that
the
burden
estimate
for
this
rulemaking
was
not
appropriately
derived.
The
burden
estimates
used
in
the
economic
analysis
for
this
rulemaking
are
consistent
with
differences
for
total
subsequent
year
form
completion
and
calculation
burden
for
PBT
and
non­
PBT
chemicals
as
set
forth
in
the
most
recent
ICR
renewal
approved
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget.
Those
totals
were
47.1
hours
for
Form
R/
PBT
chemical,
and
25.2
hours
for
a
Form
R/
non­
PBT
chemical
and
are
based
on
total
estimated
completion
time
of
a
Form
R
for
each
type
of
chemical.
They
were
derived
from
surveys
of
TRI
respondents.

The
changes
being
finalized
today,
on
the
other
hand,
are
specific
to
individual
items
on
the
form.
To
develop
the
item­
specific
response
time
estimates
required
by
this
36
rulemaking,
the
Agency
assembled
a
team
of
experts
in
responding
to
the
TRI
Form
who
then
applied
their
best
professional
judgment.
This
report
was
internally
vetted
through
Agency
TRI
program
personnel
in
the
Regions
and
at
Headquarters.
The
estimates
are
assembled
and
described
in
a
July
16,
2004
memorandum
entitled
TRI
Reporting
Burden
Estimates
from
Hilary
Eustace,
David
Cooper,
and
Susan
Day
of
Abt
Associates
to
Paul
Borst,
EPA,
which
is
contained
in
the
docket
for
this
rulemaking.

The
burden
estimates
derived
from
the
engineering
analyses
for
PBT
and
non­
PBT
chemicals
are
substantially
lower
than
the
current
burden
estimates
in
the
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
supporting
statement
for
Form
R.
For
example,
under
the
current
ICR,
the
subsequent
year
Form
R
burden
estimates
for
PBT
and
non­
PBT
chemicals
for
form
completion
and
calculation
are
47.1
and
25.2
hours
respectively.
Under
the
Agency's
new
engineering
estimates,
this
burden
is
approximately
6
to
7
hours.
The
Agency
has
conducted
external
peer
review
of
this
engineering
analysis
to
get
independent
review
of
the
reasonableness
and
accuracy
of
the
new
engineering
burden
estimates.
Those
peer
reviewers
suggest
that
the
six
to
seven
hour
estimate
are
an
underestimation.
Because
the
Agency
did
not
have
sufficient
time
to
incorporate
the
external
peer
review
of
this
study
prior
to
the
development
of
this
rulemaking,
scaling
factors
were
developed
for
cumulative
form
completion
times
to
adjust
them
to
the
estimates
in
the
most
recently
approved
ICR.
When
the
peer
review
results
have
been
fully
incorporated,
the
Agency
believes
both
total
burden
and
burden
savings
will
actually
be
reduced.
However,
the
relative
portion
of
burden
reduction
should
remain
unchanged.
The
Agency
believes
this
approach
is
the
best
one
to
provide
commenters
a
reasonable
basis
for
assessing
the
consequences
of
today's
action.
The
Agency
also
notes
that
the
commenter
does
not
recommend
a
specific
adjustment
to
the
estimated
total
or
a
revised
method
to
determine
per
field
burden.

D.
Baseline
estimates
conflict
with
October
2003
ICR
burden
estimates
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
expressed
concerns
about
the
lack
of
clarity
surrounding
the
proposal's
burden
estimates.
The
commenter
asserted
that
EPA
does
not
provide
clear,
understandable
baseline
estimates
of
burden
hours
in
the
proposed
rule.
They
cited
a
statement
made
by
an
EPA
employee
at
EPA's
TRI
Burden
Reduction
Stakeholder
Meeting
in
October
2004.
According
to
the
commenter,
the
EPA
employee
stated
publicly
at
the
meeting
that
EPA
was
using
a
2002
baseline
burden
of
approximately
4.1
million
hours
for
its
baseline
estimates,
but
reported
significantly
different
burden
estimates
in
its
TRI
reporting
forms
Information
Collection
Requests
(
ICRs)
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
October
31,
2003.
In
those
ICR
burden
estimates,
according
to
the
commenter,
EPA
reported
a
significant
increase
in
burden
reduction
due
to
the
increased
use
of
the
Agency's
TRI­
ME
reporting
software.
The
commenter
questioned
why
EPA
is
considering
making
massive
additional
changes
to
TRI
reporting
in
a
subsequent
burden
reduction
rule
when
the
Agency
just
posted
significant
reductions
in
2003.
The
commenter
contended
that
it
would
be
irresponsible
and
misleading
for
EPA
to
use
baseline
burden
numbers
for
this
rulemaking
that
did
not
take
into
account
the
reductions
reported
in
the
October
2003
ICR
burden
estimates.
The
commenter
went
on
37
to
state
that
if
the
Agency
has
already
adjusted
for
the
reduced
burden
estimates
it
documented
in
the
ICR
documents,
then
the
agency
should
explain
its
rational
for
pursuing
additional
drastic
burden
reduction
measures
after
achieving
the
significant
reductions
documented
in
the
2003
ICR.
In
addition,
they
stated
that
EPA
should
fully
disclose
all
of
its
burden
estimates
for
the
past
several
years.

Response
The
Agency
agrees
that
the
burden
totals
used
in
its
economic
analysis
do
not
match
the
burden
estimates
in
the
October
2003
ICR
supporting
statement
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
The
burden
estimates
in
the
ICR
supporting
statement
did
not
receive
final
OMB­
approval.
This
rule's
baseline
burden
estimates,
upon
which
the
economic
analysis
relied,
represent
the
final
OMB­
approved
respondent
burden
estimate.
Further
information
on
past
burden
estimates
may
be
found
by
examining
the
docket
for
past
ICR
renewals.

As
stated
in
the
preamble
of
today's
action,
EPA
is
committed
to
making
TRI
reporting
as
burden­
free
as
possible
without
sacrificing
data
quality.
We
believe
that
this
rule
builds
upon
the
Agency's
previous
burden
reduction
efforts
related
to
the
TRI­
ME
reporting
process,
and
it
provides
important
additional
reporting
burden
relief
measures.

Information
is
available
about
all
of
EPA's
recent
ICR
documents
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
To
access
information
about
the
Agency's
most
recent
TRI
reporting
forms
ICR
renewal
(
No.
1363­
14­
OMB
Control
No.
2070­
0093),
click
on
"
Quick
Search"
on
the
side
bar
and
enter
"
OEI­
2004­
0006"
on
the
search
line.

VI.
ADDITIONAL
BURDEN
REDUCTION
ALTERNATIVES
THAT
SHOULD
BE
CONSIDERED
A.
Requests
for
changes
to
Forms
R
and
A
that
were
not
proposed
1.
Evaluate
non­
statutorily
required
data
elements
in
Form
R
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
stated
that
they
identified
thirteen
non­
statutorily
required
data
elements
on
Form
R
in
a
previously
released
burden
reduction
options
paper.
The
commenter
requested
that
EPA
evaluate
whether
those
non­
statutory
data
elements
are
necessary
for
an
effective
TRI
database
and
then
to
evaluate
what
steps
could
be
taken
to
ease
the
burden
of
collecting
such
data.
The
commenter
asserted
that
any
non­
statutory
data
elements
that
have
not
contributed
significantly
to
how
the
TRI
data
has
been
used
should
be
eliminated
unless
there
is
a
cost/
benefit
analysis
that
demonstrates
that
their
continued
collection
is
clearly
justified.

Response
In
response
to
this
commenter's
previously­
submitted
comments,
EPA
conducted
an
evaluation
of
all
TRI
reporting
form
data
elements
as
part
of
the
development
of
options
to
proposed
for
this
rulemaking.
This
evaluation
determined
that
elements
that
were
not
included
in
this
rulemaking
were
either
statutorily­
required
or
contributed
significantly
to
how
the
TRI
data
has
been
used.
38
2.
EPA
should
provide
information
about
its
review
of
listed
toxic
chemicals
(
2
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Two
commenters
requested
that
EPA
supply
information
about
an
Agency
review
of
the
TRI
list
of
toxic
chemicals
and
all
appropriate
statutory
requirements.
One
commenter
stated
that
it
was
not
clear
whether
such
a
review
had
been
completed,
and
that
in
the
meantime,
it
appeared
that
EPA
had
taken
the
position
that
no
chemical
should
be
removed
from
the
list
until
the
entire
review
was
completed.
The
commenter
further
stated
that
completion
of
the
review
might
avoid
the
need
to
employ
a
threshold
listing
of
section
313
chemicals.
The
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
complete
the
review
quickly
and
remove
those
chemicals
"
for
which
reviews
against
the
statutory
criteria
have
been
completed,
and
accelerate
its
review
of
the
remaining
chemicals."
Another
commenter
stated
that
EPA
had
cited
the
review
of
TRI
chemicals
at
the
Agency's
October
19,
2004
TRI
Burden
Reduction
Stakeholder
meeting,
and
the
Agency
had
stated
that
all
chemicals
evaluated
prior
to
the
meeting
had
met
the
criteria
for
listing.
The
commenter
requested
that
EPA
provide
more
information
about
this
effort,
including
"
how
EPA
made
this
evaluation
and
what
chemicals
were
evaluated."

Response
EPA
conducted
an
initial
screening­
level
evaluation
of
the
original
list
of
chemicals
and
did
not
identify
any
chemicals
to
remove
from
the
list.
EPA
has
not
made
more
indepth
evaluation
a
priority
because
it
would
not
likely
result
in
substantial
burden
reduction
for
the
reporting
community.
Instead
of
continuing
with
this
extremely
resource
intensive
task,
EPA
is
focusing
its
resources
on
identifying
other
more
promising
opportunities
for
burden
reduction,
such
as
this
rule,
without
compromising
the
utility
of
the
data.

3.
Additional
changes
to
section
7
a.
Remove
section
7
(
2
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Two
commenters
stated
their
support
for
removing
Part
II,
section
7
entirely.
One
commenter
asserted
that
this
was
justified
since
section
7
is
one
of
the
most
time
consuming
parts
of
the
form
to
complete,
and
according
to
the
commenter,
it
has
no
apparent
use.
The
second
commenter
expressed
support
for
removing
this
data
element
if
EPA
determined
that
these
data
elements
are
not
widely
used,
or
do
not
provide
meaningful
data.

Response
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenters.
Even
within
the
Agency,
a
number
of
program
offices
utilize
information
in
section
7
to
prepare
analyses
in
support
of
their
statutorily­
mandated
activities
(
e.
g.,
previously
mentioned
biennial
report
under
304b
of
the
Clean
Water
Act)
and
in
prioritizing
Government
Performance
and
Results
Act
(
GPRA)
and
related
activities.
In
addition,
section
313(
g)(
1)(
C)(
iii)
of
EPCRA
requires
39
TRI
reporting
forms
to
collect
information
"[
f]
or
each
wastestream,
the
waste
treatment
or
disposal
methods
employed,
and
an
estimate
of
the
treatment
efficiency
typically
achieved
by
such
methods
for
that
wastestream."
42
U.
S.
C.
11023(
g)(
1)(
C)(
iii).

b.
Confusion
regarding
the
relationship
between
sections
7A
and
8.6
(
3
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Three
commenters
expressed
concerns
about
the
relationship
between
sections
7A
and
section
8.6
of
Form
R,
Part
II.
One
commenter
asserted
that
the
difference
in
how
treatment
efficiencies
are
calculated
in
section
7A
for
individual
waste
streams
and
how
the
total
quantity
treated
on­
site
in
section
8.6
is
calculated
is
a
continuing
source
of
confusion.
The
commenter
cited
an
example
in
which
complete
transfer
of
a
chemical
from
an
air
waste
stream
to
a
liquid
waste
stream
would
be
reported
as
100%
treatment
efficiency
in
section
7A
for
the
air
waste
stream.
However,
according
to
the
commenter,
unless
the
liquid
waste
stream
is
treated
such
that
the
chemical
is
actually
destroyed,
the
quantity
treated
in
section
8.6
would
be
zero.
The
commenter
contended
that
the
section
8.6
data
in
the
example
is
more
relevant
from
an
environmental
viewpoint
and
the
conflicting
section
7A
treatment
efficiency
data
only
adds
confusion.
They
asserted
that
allowing
ranges
to
be
reported
in
section
7A
for
treatment
efficiencies
would
not
change
this
situation.
They
concluded
that
EPA
should
either
make
the
two
sections
consistent
or
eliminate
the
treatment
efficiency
portion
of
section
7A.

Another
commenter
suggested
that
section
7A,
column
D
be
renamed
"
waste
removal
efficiency",
instead
of
"
waste
treatment
efficiency"
in
order
to
clarify
that
section
7A
is
focused
on
waste
removal,
to
distinguish
it
from
section
8.6,
and
to
create
a
clear
link
between
the
TRI
instructions
booklet
and
Form
R.

A
third
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
provide
clearer
guidance
on
the
subtle
distinction
between
the
types
of
treatment
reported
in
sections
7A
and
8.6.
The
commenter
asserted
that
this
is
a
continuing
source
of
confusion
for
TRI
reporters
and
that
this
rulemaking
provided
EPA
with
an
opportunity
to
improve
reporting
quality
through
additional
guidance.
They
contended
that
section
7A
addresses
all
types
of
treatment
(
chemical;
physical
and
biological)
without
regard
to
whether
the
treatment
ultimately
results
in
the
"
destruction"
of
the
TRI
chemical,
and
that
TRI
reporters
often
equate
treatment
in
section
7A
with
the
need
to
report
these
quantities
in
section
8.6.
The
commenter
stated
that
EPA
needs
to
do
a
better
job
of
explaining
the
important
differences
between
these
two
sections
of
Form
R
and
recommended
that
EPA
include
examples
in
guidance
and
instructions
of
exactly
how
these
"
treatment"
terms
differ.

Response
These
comments
are
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
However,
information
is
available
describing
how
the
term,
"
treatment"
should
be
used
in
both
sections
7A
and
8.6
in
EPA's
annual
TRI
Reporting
Forms
and
Instructions
booklet.
See
page
53
of
the
2004
booklet,
under
(
d)
of
the
unit
on
section
7A,
and
page
62
for
the
unit
on
sections
8.6
and
8.7.
40
c.
Reporting
treatment
methods
that
have
no
effect
on
the
TRI
chemical
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
stated
that
EPA
needs
to
address
the
reporting
of
waste
treatment
methods
that
have
no
effect
on
the
chemical
in
a
particular
waste
stream.
The
commenter
asserted
that
this
is
one
of
the
major
flaws
in
section
7A,
and
while
making
other
changes
to
section
7A
would
be
helpful,
they
will
do
little
to
relieve
burden
unless
this
issue
is
addressed.
The
commenter
provided
the
following
example
to
illustrate
the
problem:
if
the
flue
gas
from
a
solid
fuel
boiler
is
sent
through
mechanical
collectors
and
an
electrostatic
precipitator
to
remove
fly
ash,
these
devices
have
no
effect
on
a
gaseous
chemical
such
as
formaldehyde.
According
to
the
commenter,
in
this
case
there
would
be
no
discernable
value
to
report
a
zero
amount
of
treatment
efficiency
for
an
air
waste
stream
in
section
7A.
The
commenter
contended
that
the
data
in
section
7A
would
be
of
even
less
value
if
the
current
waste
treatment
methods
in
section
7A,
column
B
were
replaced
with
the
RCRA
treatment
codes,
since
the
RCRA
code
for
particulate
control
devices
such
as
electrostatic
precipitators
and
mechanical
collectors
would
be
H129
("
other
treatment").
According
to
the
commenter,
in
such
a
case,
it
would
not
be
apparent
why
the
"
treatment"
failed
to
result
in
no
removal.

Response
Section
313(
g)(
1)(
C)(
iii)
of
EPCRA
requires
TRI
reporting
forms
to
collect
information
"[
f]
or
each
wastestream,
the
waste
treatment
or
disposal
methods
employed,
and
an
estimate
of
the
treatment
efficiency
typically
achieved
by
such
methods
for
that
wastestream."
42
U.
S.
C.
11023(
g)(
1)(
C)(
iii).
EPA
has
interpreted
that
requirement
to
apply
even
if
a
chemical
goes
through
a
treatment
process
with
no
effect.
As
stated
in
the
2004
TRI
Reporting
Forms
and
Instructions
booklet,
"
an
efficiency
of
zero
must
be
reported
for
any
waste
treatment
method(
s)
that
does
not
destroy
chemically
convert
or
physically
remove
the
EPCRA
section
313
chemical
from
the
waste
stream."
EPA
believes
that
this
requirement
is
useful
to
identify
chemicals
that
are
not
being
treated,
and
to
identify
facilities
that
could
make
improvements
to
their
waste
treatment
efficiency
processes.

In
addition,
this
rule
retains
the
TRI
treatment
codes
for
air
emissions.
Particulate
control
devices
such
as
electrostatic
precipitators
and
mechanical
collectors
will
continue
to
be
reported
under
the
same
codes
they
have
been
reported
under
in
the
past.

4.
Changes
to
section
8
a.
Allow
Range
reporting
for
section
8
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
asserted
that
in
order
to
achieve
consistency,
EPA
should
harmonize
its
range
reporting.
Thus,
if
range
reporting
is
used
in
part
II,
sections
5
and
6
of
Form
R,
the
commenter
stated
that
it
should
also
be
used
in
section
8.
The
commenter
further
contended
that
there
is
currently
no
benefit
to
using
range
reporting
in
sections
5
and
6,
because
reporters
must
still
use
specific
numbers
in
section
8.
41
Response
This
comment
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
As
explained
in
both
the
proposal
and
final
version
of
this
rule,
EPA
expects
to
propose
a
more
extensive
burden
reduction
rule
this
fall.
The
commenter
will
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
range
reporting
in
section
8
in
response
to
the
upcoming
proposal.

B.
Other
burden
reduction­
related
comments
1.
Impact
of
TRI
program
upon
small
businesses
(
5
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
A
number
of
comments
were
received
relating
to
the
magnitude
of
TRI
burden
on
small
businesses,
the
value
of
such
information,
and
requesting
the
consideration
of
additional
opportunities
for
burden
relief.

Response
EPA
is
especially
concerned
about
the
reporting
burdens
placed
upon
small
businesses.
However,
these
comments
are
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
As
explained
in
both
the
proposal
and
final
version
of
this
rule,
EPA
expects
to
propose
a
more
extensive
burden
reduction
rule
this
fall.
The
commenters
will
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
upcoming
proposal.

2.
Increase
reporting
thresholds
a.
Increase
reporting
thresholds
for
certain
classes
of
chemicals
or
facilities
with
low
reported
releases
(
7
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Seven
commenters
expressed
support
for
establishing
a
higher
threshold
for
a
category
of
facilities
or
a
class
of
chemicals
with
small
reportable
amounts.
Many
of
the
commenters
asserted
that
this
was
one
of
several
more
valuable
burden
reduction
approaches
that
should
be
addressed
in
the
Agency's
forthcoming
more
expansive
TRI
burden
reduction
rule.
Several
of
the
commenters
cited
discussions
during
EPA's
TRI
Burden
Reduction
Stakeholder
Dialogue
between
November
2002
and
February
2004,
in
which
this
topic
was
raised.
Many
of
the
commenters
also
mentioned
that
they
had
submitted
comments
regarding
this
issue.
One
commenter
cited
petroleum
bulk
stations
in
particular
as
deserving
a
close
examination
in
order
to
determine
if
they
should
be
excluded
entirely,
should
have
higher
reporting
threshold
or
limited
reporting
requirements
for
only
those
terminals
with
more
than
20
full­
time
employees.
(
See
also
the
section
of
this
Response
to
Comments
document
titled,
"
Increase
reporting
threshold
for
petroleum
bulk
stations
and
terminals".)

Response
These
comments
are
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
As
explained
in
both
the
proposal
and
final
version
of
this
rule,
EPA
expects
to
propose
a
more
extensive
burden
reduction
rule
this
fall.
The
commenters
will
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
upcoming
proposal.
42
b.
Increase
threshold
for
facilities
that
do
not
have
large
releases
or
waste
management
quantities
by
raising
the
threshold
for
manufacture,
process
and
otherwise
use
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
One
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
should
consider
exempting
facilities
that
have
had
zero/
low
releases
for
a
given
period
of
time
and
no
significant
manufacture,
process
and
otherwise
use
(
MPOU)
changes
within
the
last
year
(
based
on
process
knowledge).
According
to
the
commenter,
this
approach
would
have
the
effect
of
exempting
particular
facilities
from
a
TRI
reporting
obligation
until
such
time
as
MPOU
changes
create
the
potential
for
meeting
the
reporting
threshold.

Response
This
comment
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
As
explained
in
both
the
proposal
and
final
version
of
this
rule,
EPA
expects
to
propose
a
more
extensive
burden
reduction
rule
this
fall.
The
commenter
will
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
upcoming
proposal.

c.
Increase
reporting
threshold
for
small
businesses
(
2
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
Two
commenters
expressed
support
for
increasing
the
reporting
thresholds
for
small
businesses.
One
of
the
commenters
stated
that
small
facilities
in
general
need
relief,
whether
or
not
they
are
part
of
a
larger
parent
company.
The
commenter
said
that
EPA
may
be
under
the
impression
that
small
facilities
in
larger
parent
companies
do
not
have
the
responsibility
for
data
collection
and
analysis.
The
commenter
elaborated
by
saying
that
even
small
facilities
in
larger
organizations
must
use
their
own
limited
resources
to
collect
data
and
report
under
the
TRI
program
 
and
it
is
in
data
collection
and
assessment
that
the
greater
part
of
the
TRI
burden
lies.
Moreover,
according
to
the
commenter,
facilities
otherwise
qualified
as
small
businesses
can
nevertheless
have
significant
releases
or
other
waste
management
quantities
compared
to
facilities
belonging
to
large
companies.
The
commenter
asserted
that
this
and
other
burden
reduction
approaches
should
be
targeted
at
the
facilities
that
do
not
make
a
significant
contribution
to
reported
TRI
releases.

Response
These
comments
are
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
As
explained
in
both
the
proposal
and
final
version
of
this
rule,
EPA
expects
to
propose
a
more
extensive
burden
reduction
rule
this
fall.
The
commenters
will
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
upcoming
proposal.

3.
Lower
reporting
threshold
(
1
comment)

Summary
of
Comments
43
One
commenter
stated
that
"
one
millions
pounds
is
alot
of
poison
and
full
reporting
should
and
must
take
place.
500
lbs.
should
be
lowered
to
50
lbs."

Response
This
comment
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
As
explained
in
both
the
proposal
and
final
version
of
this
rule,
EPA
expects
to
propose
a
more
extensive
burden
reduction
rule
this
fall.
The
commenter
will
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
upcoming
proposal.

VII.
GENERAL
COMMENTS
RELATED
TO
ADDITIONAL
TRI
BURDEN
REDUCTION
(
24
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
A
number
of
comments
were
received
relating
to
additional
changes
to
Forms
R
and
A,
as
well
as
how
the
Agency
should
structure
a
No
Significant
Change
(
NSC)
burden
reduction
option,
one
for
zero
releasers,
or
other
items
brought
up
during
the
October
2004
and
earlier
TRI
burden
reduction
stakeholder
dialogues.

Response
These
comments
are
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
As
explained
in
both
the
proposal
and
final
version
of
this
rule,
EPA
expects
to
propose
a
more
extensive
burden
reduction
rule
this
fall.
The
commenters
will
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
upcoming
proposal.

VIII.
COMMENTS
UNRELATED
TO
BURDEN
REDUCTION
(
7
comments)

Summary
of
Comments
and
Response
Comments
were
also
received
relating
to
the
timeliness
of
the
TRI
data
release,
the
need
to
improve
the
context
of
TRI
data,
and
other
general
concerns
with
current
implementation
of
the
TRI
program.
These
comments
are
outside
the
scope
of
the
rulemaking.