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

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

This
report
analyzes
the
economic
effects
of
making
certain
modifications
to
the
Form
R
and
Form
A
reporting
forms
to
reduce
reporting
burden.
To
understand
the
effects
of
the
proposed
rule,
however,
it
is
first
necessary
to
understand
how
EPCRA
section
313
and
TRI
currently
operate.
This
chapter
provides
an
overview
of
TRI
followed
by
a
description
of
the
proposed
rule
and
organization
of
the
report.

1.1
OVERVIEW
OF
TRI
In
1986
Congress
passed
EPCRA,
which
is
also
known
as
Title
III
of
SARA.
The
law
was
passed
in
response
to
the
accidental
release
of
methyl
isocyanate
gas
in
Bhopal,
India,
in
December
1984,
and
a
number
of
chemical
accidents
in
the
U.
S.,
including
one
in
Institute,
West
Virginia.
These
accidental
releases
highlighted
the
dearth
of
information
available
to
the
public
about
toxic
chemicals
being
manufactured,
processed,
used
and
transported
within
their
communities.
EPCRA
is
based
on
the
premise
that
the
public
has
the
right
to
know
about
chemical
uses,
as
well
as
routine
and
accidental
releases.
The
broad
purposes
are
to
encourage
1­
2
planning
for
response
to
accidental
chemical
releases
as
well
as
daily
management
of
routine
releases,
and
to
provide
the
public
and
government
agencies
with
information
about
the
presence,
release,
and
management
of
toxic
chemicals.

EPCRA
contains
four
main
provisions:


Planning
for
chemical
emergencies
(
sections
301­
303),


Emergency
notification
of
chemical
accidents
and
releases
(
section
304),


Reporting
of
hazardous
chemical
inventories
(
sections
311­
312),
and

Toxic
chemical
release
reporting
(
section
313).

Because
the
rule
is
being
promulgated
under
section
313
(
and
not
the
other
sections
of
EPCRA),
the
remainder
of
this
overview
deals
only
with
section
313
(
i.
e.,
TRI).

The
regulations
implementing
EPCRA
section
313
were
promulgated
on
February
16,
1988
(
53
FR
4500),
and
are
codified
at
40
CFR
Part
372.
Under
these
regulations,
owners
or
operators
of
covered
facilities
must
complete
the
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Inventory
Reporting
Form
R,
which
includes
information
on
releases
to
air,
water
and
land,
as
well
as
on­
site
waste
treatment
and
transfers
of
the
chemical
in
or
as
waste
to
off­
site
locations.
These
reports
must
be
submitted
to
EPA
and
the
States
for
each
calendar
year,
by
July
1
of
the
following
year.

A
completed
Form
R
must
be
submitted
for
each
toxic
chemical
manufactured,
processed,
or
otherwise
used
at
each
covered
facility
as
described
in
40
CFR
Part
372.
There
are
currently
over
600
toxic
chemicals
and
chemical
compound
categories
on
the
list
of
TRI
chemicals.

A
facility
must
report
under
section
313
if
it
meets
all
three
of
the
following
criteria:

(
1)
It
is
in
a
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
code
covered
by
the
regulations;

(
2)
It
has
10
or
more
full­
time
employees
(
or
the
hourly
equivalent
of
20,000
hours);
and
(
3)
It
manufactures,
processes,
or
otherwise
uses
any
of
the
listed
toxic
chemicals
or
chemical
categories
above
the
applicable
reporting
threshold.

TRI
is
unique
among
environmental
databases
because
of
the
multimedia
data
it
collects,
and
because
it
was
designed
for
public
access.
EPCRA
requires
that
EPA
"
establish
and
maintain
in
a
computer
database
a
national
toxic
chemical
inventory
based
on
data
submitted
to
the
Administrator."
The
Administrator
shall
make
the
data
available
by
computer,
telecommunication,
and
other
means
to
any
person
on
a
cost
reimbursable
basis.
EPA
maintains
the
section
313
data
in
the
national
Toxic
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
database.
TRI
data
are
available
to
the
public
in
a
variety
of
paper
and
electronic
formats,
including
disk,
on­
line,
and
CD­
ROM.
With
its
broad
dissemination,
TRI
data
has
enjoyed
extensive
use
by
the
public.
Facilities
have
used
the
data
obtained
through
TRI
to
better
understand
their
operations,
and
make
better
use
of
pollution
prevention
opportunities.
Public­
interest
groups
have
used
the
data
1­
3
to
educate
themselves
on
the
presence
of
toxic
chemicals
in
the
environment,
and
have
used
that
increased
information
to
engage
in
meaningful,
productive
dialogue
with
industry
and
with
all
levels
of
government.
In
general,
TRI
data
has
proven
to
be
a
powerful
tool
in
environmental
decision
making.

Section
313(
h)
of
EPCRA
states
that
data
obtained
pursuant
to
section
313
are
intended
to
provide
information
to
the
public
as
well
as
to
Federal,
State,
and
local
governments.
"
These
data
shall
be
used
to
inform
the
public
about
releases
to
the
environment
of
the
listed
chemicals;
to
assist
government
agencies,
researchers,
and
other
persons
conducting
research
and
gathering
data;
to
aid
in
the
development
of
appropriate
regulations,
guidelines,
and
standards;
and
for
other
similar
purposes."

1.1.1
Pollution
Prevention
Act
In
1990
Congress
passed
the
Pollution
Prevention
Act
(
PPA),
adopting
as
national
policy
an
environmental
hierarchy
establishing
pollution
prevention
as
the
first
choice
among
waste
management
options.
For
waste
that
cannot
be
prevented
at
the
source,
recycling
is
considered
the
next
best
option.
Treatment
or
disposal
should
be
turned
to
only
after
source
reduction
and
recycling
have
been
considered.
Section
6607
of
the
PPA
augmented
the
information
available
to
the
public
under
EPCRA
section
313
by
requiring
facilities
to
report
information
on
their
pollution
prevention,
recycling,
and
other
waste
management
activities
on
Form
R.
The
data
elements
required
by
the
Pollution
Prevention
Act
are
contained
in
section
8
of
the
Form
R.

1.1.2
Changes
to
the
List
of
Chemicals
When
Congress
passed
EPCRA
it
gave
EPA
an
initial
list
of
approximately
300
chemicals
and
chemical
categories
subject
to
TRI
reporting.
The
statutory
list
was
derived
from
chemical
lists
used
in
New
Jersey
and
Maryland.
Congress
also
included
a
provision
in
EPCRA
to
amend
the
list
of
chemicals.
Under
section
313(
d),
EPA
has
the
authority
to
add
a
chemical
to
the
list
if
it
determines
that
the
chemical
can
cause
or
can
be
reasonably
anticipated
to
cause:


Adverse
acute
human
health
effects
at
concentration
levels
reasonably
likely
to
exist
beyond
facility
site
boundaries
as
a
result
of
continuous
or
frequently
recurring
releases;


Cancer
or
teratogenic
effects,
serious
or
irreversible
reproductive
dysfunctions,
neurological
disorders,
heritable
genetic
mutations,
or
other
chronic
health
effects;
or

A
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
environment.

EPA
has
also
added
chemicals
to
the
list
through
its
authority
under
section
313(
d).
Most
notably,
EPA
added
286
chemicals
and
chemical
categories
to
the
list
of
toxic
chemicals
subject
to
TRI
on
November
30,
1994
(
59
FR
61432).
The
majority
of
these
chemicals
are
pesticides.
Many
of
the
remainder
are
chemicals
regulated
or
identified
as
concerns
under
other
environmental
statutes
such
as
the
Clean
Air
Act,
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act.

EPA
may
delete
a
chemical
from
the
list
if
it
does
not
meet
any
of
the
above
criteria.
2
The
annual
reportable
amount
is
equal
to
the
combined
total
quantities
recycled,
combusted
for
energy
recovery,
treated
or
released.
It
can
be
calculated
as
the
sum
of
data
elements
8.1
through
8.7
on
Form
R.

1­
4
According
to
section
313(
e)
of
EPCRA,
any
person
may
petition
EPA
to
add
or
delete
a
chemical
from
the
list
on
the
basis
of
whether
or
not
it
meets
the
above
criteria.
All
changes
to
the
list
are
made
through
notice­
and­
comment
rulemaking.

1.1.3
Alternate
Threshold
On
November
30,
1994,
EPA
finalized
the
"
TRI
Alternate
Threshold
for
Facilities
with
Low
Annual
Reportable
Amounts"
(
59
FR
61488).
This
rule
was
intended
to
reduce
the
compliance
burden
associated
with
EPCRA
section
313.
It
established
a
streamlined
reporting
option
for
facilities
where
the
annual
reportable
amount
of
a
listed
chemical
released
or
managed
does
not
exceed
500
pounds.
2
Such
facilities
have
the
option
of
applying
an
alternate
manufacture,
process,
or
otherwise
use
threshold
of
1
million
pounds
to
that
chemical,
instead
of
the
standard
thresholds
of
10,000
or
25,000
pounds.
If
a
facility
does
not
exceed
the
1
millionpound
threshold,
then
that
facility
is
eligible
to
submit
Form
A
for
that
chemical
instead
of
Form
R.

Form
A
is
a
simplified
reporting
form
that
includes
facility
identification
information
and
the
identity
of
the
chemical
or
chemical
category
being
reported.
The
Form
must
be
submitted
on
an
annual
basis,
and
the
information
appears
in
the
TRI
data
base
in
the
same
manner
as
information
submitted
on
a
Form
R.

1.1.4
Executive
Order
12856
On
August
3,
1993,
Executive
Order
12856,
"
Federal
Compliance
with
Right­
to­
Know
Laws
and
Pollution
Prevention
Requirements"
was
signed
by
the
President
(
58
FR
41981).
The
Executive
Order
requires
federal
facilities
to
comply
with
EPCRA
requirements
beginning
with
the
1994
reporting
year.
The
Executive
Order
also
asks
all
federal
agencies
to
set
a
voluntary
goal
of
50%
reduction
from
baseline
quantities
of
their
releases
and
transfers
by
1999.

1.1.5
Changes
to
the
List
of
Industries
On
May
1,
1997,
EPA
added
facilities
in
seven
industry
groups
to
the
list
of
facilities
subject
to
the
reporting
requirements
of
section
313
(
62
FR
23833).
Prior
to
this
action,
reporting
was
limited
to
facilities
in
the
manufacturing
sector
(
SIC
codes
20­
39)
and
federal
facilities.
This
action
added
facilities
in
the
following
sectors:


metal
mining,


coal
mining,


electric
utilities,


commercial
hazardous
waste
treatment,


chemicals
and
allied
products­
wholesale,


petroleum
bulk
terminals
and
plants­
wholesale,
and
1­
5

solvent
recovery
services.

The
first
reports
from
these
facilities
were
submitted
in
1999
for
reporting
year
1998.

1.1.6
Changes
for
Certain
PBT
Chemicals
On
October
29,
1999,
EPA
lowered
reporting
thresholds
to
10
or
100
pounds
for
certain
TRI
chemicals
that
are
of
concern
because
of
their
tendency
to
persist
and
bioaccumulate
(
64
FR
58666).
EPA
added
to
TRI
certain
PBT
chemicals
that
were
not
already
listed.
The
Agency
also
made
other
concurrent
changes
in
the
program
for
PBT
chemical
reporting,
such
as
eliminating
the
de
minimis
exemption,
range
reporting,
and
Form
A
reporting.
On
January
17,
2001,
EPA
lowered
the
reporting
threshold
for
lead
and
lead
compounds
to
100
pounds.

1.2
DESCRIPTION
OF
THE
PROPOSED
RULE
As
described
above,
EPA
has
implemented
a
number
of
burden
reduction
measures.
To
build
upon
these
efforts,
EPA
conducted
a
TRI
Stakeholder
Dialogue
between
Fall
2002
and
early
2004.
During
this
dialogue,
improvements
to
the
TRI
reporting
process
were
identified
and
a
number
of
burden
reduction
options
associated
with
TRI
reporting
were
explored.
After
reviewing
these
improvements
and
reporting
options,
EPA
decided
to
initiate
two
burden
reduction
rulemakings:
1)
several
relatively
simple,
quick­
fix
solutions
for
reducing
the
time,
cost,
and
complexity
of
reporting
requirements
and
2)
a
broader
and
more
complex
set
of
regulatory
burden
reduction
alternatives.
This
economic
analysis
reflects
the
costs
and
impacts
of
the
first
burden
reduction
rulemaking.
The
following
sections
outline
the
specific
changes
that
are
proposed.

1.2.1
Removal
of
Longitude/
Latitude
Reporting
Requirement
(
Part
I,
section
4.6)

Under
the
proposed
rule
the
longitude
and
latitude
coordinates
indicating
the
geographic
location
of
each
TRI
reporting
facility
(
Part
I,
section
4.6)
will
be
removed
from
Form
R
and
Form
A.
Facility
locational
data
will
still
be
made
available
in
the
TRI
database.
Rather
than
requiring
facilities
to
determine
their
geographic
coordinates,
EPA
will
extract
the
data
from
information
that
is
already
collected,
stored
and
maintained
in
its
centrally
managed
database
called
the
Facility
Registry
System
(
FRS).
The
FRS
has
been
designated
as
the
Agency's
definitive
source
of
facility
data
and
serves
as
a
single
integrated
source
of
comprehensive
environmental
information
about
facilities,
sites
and
ecosystems.
It
provides
high­
quality,
accurate,
and
authoritative
facility
identification
records
through
rigorous
verification
and
management
procedures
that
incorporate
information
from
EPA
national
data
systems,
state
master
facility
records,
data
collected
from
EPA's
Central
Data
Exchange
registrations
and
data
management
personnel.

1.2.2
Removal
of
Reporting
Requirements
for
EPA
Program
Identity
Numbers
(
Part
I,
Sections
4.8,
4.9
and
4.10)

EPA
proposes
to
remove
three
similar
reporting
requirements
from
Form
R
and
Form
A
1­
6
that
identify
facilities
through
EPA
program
identification
numbers
(
see
Form
R,
Part
I,
sections
4.8,
4.9
and
4.10).
The
identification
numbers
include
the
number
assigned
to
facilities
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
the
permit
identification
numbers
under
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES),
and
all
permit
numbers
issued
by
EPA
or
a
state
to
facilities
with
underground
injection
wells.
FRS
integrates
into
a
single
record
all
program
identification
and
permit
information
numbers,
including
those
for
the
RCRA,
NPDES
and
Underground
Injection
programs.
Therefore,
these
identification
numbers
will
still
be
available
in
FRS.

1.2.3
Removal
of
Reporting
Requirement
for
Determining
the
Percentage
of
the
Total
Quantity
of
Toxic
Chemicals
Contributed
by
Stormwater
(
Part
II,
Section
5.3
Column
C)

Under
the
proposed
rule,
section
5.3
column
C
would
be
removed
from
Part
II
of
Form
R.
This
data
element
applies
to
discharges
to
receiving
streams
and
water
bodies.
It
requires
facilities
with
monitoring
data
on
the
amount
of
EPCRA
section
313
chemicals
that
are
released
to
stormwater
runoff
to
indicate
the
percentage
of
the
total
quantity
of
the
listed
chemicals
that
are
contributed
by
stormwater.

1.2.4
Modifications
to
the
Reporting
Requirement
for
On­
Site
Waste
Treatment
Methods
and
Efficiency
(
Part
II,
Section
7)

EPA
proposes
several
modifications
to
Part
II,
section
7
of
the
Form
R.
Under
Part
II,
section
7,
facilities
report
qualitative
information
regarding
their
on­
site
waste
treatment,
energy
recovery
and
recycling
of
listed
chemicals.
The
proposed
modifications
either
1)
eliminate
data
elements
that
EPA
believes
are
not
widely
used
by
States
and
the
public
or
2)
reduce
the
number
of
codes
a
facility
must
consider
when
reporting
in
specific
sections.
The
following
specific
modifications
are
under
consideration:

Section
7A
On­
Site
Waste
Treatment
Methods
and
Efficiency:
Columns
a,
c
and
e
EPA
proposes
eliminating
columns
a,
c,
and
e
of
Section
7A
as
this
information
does
not
appear
to
be
widely
used
by
States
and
the
public.
In
column
a,
facilities
report
a
code
corresponding
to
the
general
waste
stream
type
for
each
waste
stream
treated
by
the
facility.
Completion
of
column
c
requires
facilities
to
enter
a
numerical
code
indicating
the
concentration
range
of
the
EPCRA
section
313
chemical
as
it
enters
the
treatment
step.
Column
e
requires
facilities
to
indicate
"
Yes"
or
"
No"
as
to
whether
the
waste
treatment
efficiency
reported
in
column
d
is
based
on
actual
operating
data
such
as
the
case
where
a
facility
monitors
the
influent
and
effluent
wastes
from
this
treatment
step.

Section
7A
On­
Site
Waste
Treatment
Methods
and
Efficiency:
Column
b
EPA
proposes
simplifying
column
b
of
section
7A
by
reducing
the
number
of
reporting
codes.
There
are
currently
64
codes
describing
the
various
waste
treatment
methods
applied
to
listed
chemicals
treated
on
site
that
can
be
reported
in
column
b.
Under
the
proposed
rule,
the
64
1­
7
codes
will
be
replaced
with
five
of
the
waste
management
codes
(
i.
e.,
M
codes)
used
in
Part
II,
section
6.2
of
Form
R
where
facilities
report
quantities
of
toxic
chemicals
transferred
to
off
site
locations.

Section
7A
On­
Site
Waste
Treatment
Methods
and
Efficiency:
Column
d
Under
the
proposed
rule,
facilities
will
report
treatment
efficiency
in
column
d
as
a
range.
The
waste
treatment
efficiency
represents
the
percentage
of
the
TRI
chemical
destroyed
or
removed
(
based
on
amount
or
mass).
Currently,
facilities
must
enter
an
exact
percentage
in
this
column
of
the
form.
No
specific
ranges
are
proposed
at
this
time.
Rather,
EPA
is
soliciting
comments
on
possible
range
codes
along
with
the
rationale
for
these
ranges.

Section
7B
On­
site
Energy
Recovery
Processes
EPA
proposes
to
eliminate
the
three
codes
facilities
use
to
report
the
on­
site
energy
recovery
device
they
use
to
combust
a
toxic
chemical.
Instead,
EPA
will
require
facilities
to
simply
indicate
whether
or
not
they
perform
energy
recovery
on
site.

Section
7C
On­
Site
Recycling
Processes
Under
the
proposed
rule,
the
current
recycling
codes
(
16
in
total)
in
section
7C
will
be
eliminated.
They
will
be
replaced
with
all
but
one
of
the
recycling
codes
used
in
Part
II,
section
6.2
of
the
Form
R.

1.2.5
Removal
of
Reporting
Data
Field
for
Optional
Submission
of
Additional
Information
(
Part
II,
Section
8.11)

EPA
proposes
to
remove
question
8.11
from
Part
II
of
the
Form
R.
Additional
information
describing
the
source
reduction,
recycling,
or
pollution
control
activities
that
a
facility
has
implemented
in
the
current
or
prior
reporting
years
for
the
listed
chemical
will
still
be
collected
from
facilities
wishing
to
submit
it.
EPA
will
provide
instructions
on
how
to
submit
this
information
electronically
in
the
"
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Inventory
Reporting
Forms
and
Instructions"
and
the
"
TRI­
ME"
reporting
software.

1.3
ORGANIZATION
OF
THIS
REPORT
This
report
examines
the
potential
burden
and
cost
savings
to
industry
that
would
result
from
removing
or
modifying
the13
TRI
data
elements
described
above.
This
report
also
estimates
the
other
impacts
of
the
rule.
The
remainder
of
the
report
is
organized
as
follows:

Chapter
2
presents
the
methodology
used
to
estimate
the
data
element
specific
burden,
unit
costs,
and
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule.
Chapter
3
presents
the
total
burden
and
cost
savings
associated
with
the
proposed
rule.
Chapter
4
examines
the
impacts
of
the
final
rule.
Chapter
5
evaluates
the
"
benefits"
of
the
proposed
rule.
