Another potential partial solution to the data compatibility problem, once it is fully implemented, is the Great Lakes Regional Air Toxics Emissions Inventory, which is maintained using the Regional Air Pollutant Inventory Development System ( RAPIDS).

As the principle component of the Great Lakes Regional Air Toxic Emissions Inventory project, the Regional Air Pollutant Inventory Development System ( RAPIDS) is the first ever multi jurisdictional pollutant emissions inventory software that has been developed. This software is an important product of the binational steering committee effort to design and implement a regional inventory containing sources of toxic air contaminants. RAPIDS was originally tested by Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin in their joint development of the Southwest Lake Michigan Pilot Study. The focus of the study was on the Commission defined list of 49 toxic pollutants in addition to several other important nontoxic compounds. Now, RAPIDS is used by each Great Lakes state and Province of Ontario. The eight Great Lakes states and Ontario province working together through the Great Lakes Commission are currently in the process of developing a regional emission inventory for airborne toxic pollutants. This regional emission inventory is focused on 49 toxic air pollutants which have been identified as significant contributors to the contamination of the Great Lakes. The development of the regional emission inventory has included the development of technical specifications for a regional air toxic database ( Phase I); the development of an automated Regional Air Pollutant Inventory Development System ( RAPIDS), an emission factor database, and an emission inventory protocol for inventorying hazardous air pollutants ( Phase II); and the full implementation of the protocol and emission inventory software to complete an eight state point and area source toxic air emission October, 2005 44 inventory ( Phase III). To date, this inventory system has been developed to estimate emissions from point and area sources only. RAPIDS, a state of the art client/ server software for the estimation of emissions from point and area sources is designed to run on a personal computer. Each State will create its own statewide inventory that will be uploaded to the regional RAPIDS repository, an Oracle database, at the USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office ( GLNPO). RAPIDS uses the Great Lakes State approved USEPA emission factor database, the Factor Information Retrieval System ( FIRE) to estimate emissions, and also accepts source specific emissions data. The RAPIDS design has focused on flexibility and versatility, and is built upon an innovative data model.

The latest release of RAPIDS ( Version 2.1) has been updated to include, among other things, the ability to export emissions data in a format compatible with the U. S. EPA's National Emissions Inventory ( NEI). For the 1999 national inventory, all states were required to submit emissions data in this format, which makes RAPIDS one of the most progressive emissions inventory systems available. According to the Great Lakes Commission, RAPIDS is the " first ever multistate pollutant emissions estimation software," and handles sophisticated relational data management as well as emissions estimations.

Title V Part 70 Operating Permits Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments ( CAAA), facilities designated as " major sources" and facilities otherwise subject to Section 112 and Title IV must apply for a Title V Part 70 Operating Permit. Although a facility can meet the criteria for a major source in any of several ways, particularly relevant are those facilities which attain major source status by emitting 10 tons per year ( tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 tpy total combined HAPs. As part of the application for a Title V permit, some facilities may have to report emissions of air toxics ( see discussion on chemical coverage below). There is significant overlap between the 189 HAPs regulated under the CAA and the 650+ chemicals in TRI. Compared to TRI, however, the information provided in the permit applications has very different characteristics in terms of chemical coverage, completeness, and accessibility.

Chemical coverage: Title V requires that all permit applicants provide qualitative descriptions of their emissions, including all criteria pollutants and all 189 toxic pollutants. Quantitative emissions estimates are usually required by the permitting authorities only when more information is needed to resolve a dispute over applicable requirements, such as whether or not the facility should be classified as a major source. In the event that there is no dispute, no emissions estimates are required. In situations where estimates are required, facilities are allowed to use " available information," which includes EPA emission factors documents, " reasonable engineering projections," as well as test data. EPA's policy, as outlined in the " White Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit Applications," is to request just enough information to convince the permitting authorities that the facility meets all emissions requirements. According to the White Paper, " emissions information for these purposes does not always need to be detailed or October, 2005 45 precise." ( U. S. EPA, 1995c) For most pollutants, it is not likely that Title V Part 70 emissions data could substitute for TRI release reporting.

Industry/ facility coverage: There are no SIC or industry limitations for major facilities. For non major sources, decisions on permit applicability are made on a source category by source category basis. Decisions are currently being made on Title V Part 70 permit requirements for non major sources as to which source categories will be exempted, deferred, or required to obtain permits ( Seitz, 1995). However, as stated above in the chemical coverage discussion, actual emissions estimates are required only when attempting to settle a dispute over facility status or other applicable requirements. Therefore, the majority of Title V permit applicants are not required to furnish any quantitative data. Title V's facility coverage is likely to be different from TRI's facility coverage, due to the differences in applicability criteria between the two systems. While TRI has a manufacture, process, or use threshold for toxic chemicals, Title V has applicability criteria based on HAPs emissions ( see above).

Release statistics/ reporting frequency: Emissions information is required at the time of permit application, renewal, and modification. Since permits are typically renewed every five years, most facilities will report their information every five years ( Swanson, 1995). Other possible situations for emissions information updates include new applicable requirements not requiring permit modifications, and changed compliance status of facilities. Even if the information was as complete as TRI, the duration between reports is much longer than the one year timespan between TRI reports.

Accessibility: The U. S. EPA does not maintain a central inventory of the emissions data contained in the permit applications ( Southerland, 1995). This information is kept at the state and regional levels, making it difficult to access, especially in comparison to TRI.

Summary of Availability of Fugitive/ Non Point and Stack/ Point Air Emissions Data None of the data sources described above can be used in place of TRI fugitive or stack emissions data. Although AFS provides good data on criteria pollutants, only one criteria pollutant ( lead) is reportable as a discrete chemical substance on both AFS and TRI. Further, AFS HAP release information is not a good substitute for TRI because data for EPCRA Section 313 toxic chemicals are generally unavailable, and speciation cannot reliably generate accurate facility specific HAP emissions estimates. In addition, fugitive emissions are not specifically flagged within AFS. Some state air emissions inventories such as California's may collect air emissions information that is as complete or even more detailed than TRI. However, not all states maintain inventories, and there are still many unresolved data compatibility and accessibility issues. The Great Lakes inventory is limited in its geographic coverage as well as the number of chemicals it contains, uses different data collection techniques than TRI, and relies on state generated estimates in lieu of facility reported release data. Emissions information on air toxics contained within Title V Permit October, 2005 46 documents also are not a substitute for TRI emissions in terms of chemical coverage, frequency of reporting, or accessibility.

Direct Discharges to Receiving Streams or Water Bodies Form R requires that facilities report total direct discharges to receiving streams or water bodies. Releases are reported in pounds per year and include the name of the receiving stream or water body. The following section compares and contrasts the Permit Compliance System ( PCS) with TRI to determine whether it could be used as a substitute for TRI chemical release data. In comparing and contrasting PCS with TRI, several variables are considered. Key criteria include: chemical coverage, industry and facility coverage, release statistics, reporting frequency, and accessibility.

The Permit Compliance System ( PCS) tracks permit compliance and enforcement status of facilities regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) under the Clean Water Act ( CWA) and is managed by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ( OECA). PCS tracks all point source discharges to surface waters, but does not include indirect releases such as discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works ( POTWs). Permits are classified as major or minor based on facility discharge characteristics such as toxic pollutant potential and flow volume. Facilities are classified as " major" based upon a scoring system which considers toxic pollutant potential, flow/ streamflow volume, conventional pollutant loading, public health impacts, water quality factors, and proximity to near coastal waters.

Major dischargers report compliance with their NPDES permit limits through Discharge Monitoring Reports ( DMRs). DMRs are generally submitted on a monthly basis to state and regional EPA, providing detailed information on reported measurement values for those chemicals regulated within their NPDES permit. Data collected via DMRs are entered into PCS, including: concentration and quantity values for regulated pollutants, and the type of permit violation ( if any). EPA uses PCS to produce the Quarterly Non Compliance Report ( QNCR), a public document listing NPDES permit violations. EPA requires monitoring data only for those permits classified as major. For minor facilities the database contains only general facility level information. It is important to note, however, that all NPDES permittees ( both major and minor) are required to file DMRs with their State or Regional NPDES authorities. Therefore, monitoring data for minor facilities are available from the files of these permitting authorities, which are open to the public. Data for minor facilities are not maintained through the national database.

There are several differences between TRI and PCS stemming primarily from the divergent purposes of the two systems. Unlike TRI, PCS is a permit tracking system rather than a toxic pollutant loadings system. The differing data needs of these two types of systems make it problematic to transfer information from one to the other. For example, although EPA requires the reporting of PCS data in mass units but allows reporting in concentration if it is impracticable to do so, the fact that PCS monitoring data can be reported in either mass units or as October, 2005 47 concentrations can make comparing the releases of two facilities a complicated issue. Data in units of concentration data can be converted to mass units only if flow data also exist.

Chemical coverage: A facility's permit record may not include all pollutants actually being discharged by the facility. The monitoring data available through PCS for major dischargers include only those chemicals for which a monitoring requirement has been set in the permit. Federal effluent guidelines exist for many major industries and determine chemicals for which monitoring is required. However, the guidelines may not consider the same chemicals across industries. Therefore, two facilities in different industries with similar chemical releases may not necessarily both report the same set of chemicals to PCS. Also, for facilities not covered by a Federal effluent guideline, it is left to the discretion of the permit writers to decide which pollutants will be included in the permit, how often monitoring must occur, and which parameters and units of measure are to be used.

Because NPDES permit discharge limits are written in terms of PCS pollutant parameters, and not CAS numbers, much of the data contained within PCS is not chemical specific. An example of a non chemical specific PCS parameter is parameter 00535, Suspended Volatile Solids. It may be difficult to determine the mix of specific chemicals when data are reported using non chemicalspecific parameters. In addition, in many cases, multiple parameters are reported for the same chemical, representing different measures of the same chemical. For example, PCS parameter numbers 01049, 01050, and 01051 represent dissolved, suspended, and total lead, respectively. Because there may be several parameters for a single chemical, it becomes difficult to aggregate their masses. Chemical Abstract Service ( CAS) registry numbers are not reported for chemical parameters; however, parameters can sometimes be linked to a specific CAS number using an EPA database called SUPERCAS. SUPERCAS is an edited and augmented version of the CAS matching file contained in STORET, an EPA water monitoring data system. All PCS parameters are contained within SUPERCAS, and although SUPERCAS is not updated regularly, the addition of new parameters to PCS is a relatively infrequent event.

Industry/ facility coverage: EPA requires monitoring data only from those facilities classified as major dischargers. For minor facilities, the database contains only general facility level information. While the database tracks about 65,000 active permits, only about ten percent of these are classified as major. A state may choose to submit monitoring data for minor facilities but generally such data are unavailable. Unlike TRI, PCS does not limit reporting requirements to specific industry groups or exempt facilities with less than the equivalent of ten employees.

Release statistics: The release statistics reported for PCS parameters depend on the permit specifications. Often, releases are reported as concentrations in parts per million ( ppm) or milligrams per liter ( mg/ L), as opposed to units of mass such as pounds per year ( lb/ yr) or kilograms per year ( kg/ yr) ( Rubin, 1995). If discharges are reported in mass units, a maximum daily discharge also is reported. The basis for these reported data varies among facilities. For example, a facility may sample its effluent only once per month and still report a monthly October, 2005 48 maximum discharge. If discharges are reported as concentrations, a minimum, maximum, and average value may be reported, although a significant percentage of dischargers report only a maximum concentration ( Rubin, 1995). In general, flow rates are available for converting concentration units to units of mass ( i. e., kg/ year can be calculated by multiplying mg/ L by the annual flow rate), although in some cases the flow rates are not provided.

A complex algorithm is required to estimate annual loadings from PCS data. The algorithm must first identify facilities reporting quantities in pounds or kilograms, favoring mean values over maximum or minimum values. For facilities with no loadings data, monthly concentration data must be linked and multiplied by each month's corresponding flow data, again favoring mean values over maximum and minimum values. Additionally, the algorithm must convert the results to a single unit of measure. PCS facilities report at least 26 different units of measure and 15 units of flow ( e. g., gallons, thousands of gallons, and millions of gallons in terms of minutes, hours, days, and years). This step is repeated for each month and summed to produce an annual loadings estimate. If twelve months of data are not available, an average value can be used to produce an annual estimate.

Facility releases may be overestimated for several reasons: 1) facilities that release chemicals below their detection limit ( e. g., between 0 6 ppm) will sometimes report releases at the detection limit ( e. g., 6 ppm) in order to indicate the likely presence of a chemical; 2) facilities with episodic releases may be required to report releases at their peak level and not an average annual quantity; and 3) Facilities might have multiple monitoring points along the same outfall route, resulting in double counting. Such reporting specifications may be appropriate given the purpose of the NPDES permit; however, PCS data will not always be appropriate for estimating annual pollutant loadings.

Reporting frequency: Discharge Monitoring Reports are generally submitted monthly to State or Regional EPA; therefore, reporting frequency is not a limitation when compared to TRI.

Accessibility: PCS data are accessible through the EPA Mainframe, the ENVIROFACTS database, as well as RTK NET. The EPA Mainframe is not accessible to the general public.

Conclusion of Availability of Data on Direct Discharges to Water Because PCS is a permit tracking system, and not a pollutant loadings system, it cannot provide a suitable substitute for TRI release data. Within PCS, release data are only available for major facilities, and are reported in terms of PCS parameters, not specific chemicals. These chemical parameters cannot always be easily converted into CAS numbers. In addition, only those chemical parameters actually specified in the facility permit have monitoring requirements. In some cases, data may be reported in units of concentration rather than units of mass. If flow rates also are reported, concentration data can be used to estimate total releases, although there are several complicating factors in producing such an estimate. October, 2005 49 Underground Injection and Land Disposal On Site Section 313 gives EPA the authority to require reporting of on site surface and subsurface ( i. e., underground injection) releases to land. On site surface releases to land include the following subcategories: RCRA subtitle C landfills, other landfills, land treatment/ application farming, RCRA subtitle C surface impoundment, other surface impoundment, and other disposal. The Biennial Reports ( part of the RCRAInfo database) require reporting of both underground injection and other on site releases to land. The following analysis compares and contrasts Biennial Reports with TRI to determine whether it can be used as a substitute for TRI underground injection and on site releases to land data.

Under Section 3002( a)( 6) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, facilities that generate an amount of hazardous waste that exceeds a defined threshold are required to submit biennial reports on that waste to EPA ( or to state agencies that run RCRA programs). These reports include information on the quantity and nature of hazardous waste, the disposition of all hazardous waste, efforts undertaken to reduce volume and toxicity of waste generated, and the changes in volume and toxicity of waste actually achieved during the year. Facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes must provide information on the methods of treatment, storage or disposal. Data are reported to the states and regions, which then provide it to EPA headquarters. Information is entered into RCRAInfo, which is maintained by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response ( OSWER).

RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments ( HSWA) of 1984. RCRAInfo replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System ( RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System ( BRS).

The RCRAInfo system allows tracking of many types of information about the regulated universe of RCRA hazardous waste handlers. RCRAInfo characterizes facility status, regulated activities, and compliance histories and captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste from large quantity generators and on waste management practices from treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.

Using cutting edge technology and a simple architecture, RCRAInfo provides a convenient user interface for the program staff and managers of the EPA and its State and Tribal partners. RCRAInfo data is made available to the public through EPA's Envirofacts Data Warehouse through monthly extracts or through the Right to Know Network.

Biennial Reports provide an overview of the progress of the RCRA program through tracking trends in hazardous waste generation and management. Large quantity generators ( LQGs) and October, 2005 50 treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs) are required to report every two years. Large quantity generators are defined as facilities that generate 2,200 pounds of total RCRA hazardous waste per month; generate 2.2 pounds of RCRA acute hazardous waste a month, or accumulate this amount during the year; or generate or accumulate more than 220 pounds annually of spill cleanup material contaminated with RCRA acute hazardous waste. Biennial Reports contain data for about 23,000 LQGs and 4,000 TSDFs.

There are several important differences between Biennial Reports and TRI. Although Biennial Reports maintain a large amount of useful data, it nevertheless cannot duplicate the information contained within TRI. Waste codes used in Biennial Reports do not necessarily map to unique chemicals, quantities of specific chemicals in a wastestream cannot be determined, and reporting is less frequent than for TRI. As detailed below, for these reasons Biennial Reports are not a reasonable substitute for TRI.

Chemical coverage: Biennial Reports contain data on hazardous wastes as defined by RCRA. RCRA hazardous waste is designated as either " listed waste" or " characteristic waste". Listed wastes have been identified as hazardous as a result of EPA investigations of particular industries or because EPA has specifically recognized a commercial chemical waste's toxicity. Listed wastes appear in 40 CFR Part 261. Characteristic wastes are determined hazardous because they exhibit one or more of the following " characteristics": ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.

The primary difficulty with waste codes is that not all waste codes used in Biennial Reports reporting map directly to a single, unique chemical. For example, waste code F004 is defined as:

The following spent non halogenated solvents: cresols, cresylic acid, and nitrobenzene; all spent solvent mixtures/ blends containing, before use, a total of ten percent or more ( by volume) of one or more of the above non halogenated solvents or those solvents listed in F001, F002, and F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures.

Listed wastes that are categorized as non specific source waste ( the F wastes, such as F004 defined above), specific source wastes ( the K wastes), and three of the characteristic waste categories ( D001, D002, and D003) cannot be matched to a specific chemical. Listed wastes categorized as commercial chemical products ( the P and U wastes), and characteristic wastes meeting the toxicity characteristic ( D004 D043) each may represent a single, unique chemical, but they also may represent a mixture of various materials of which the identified chemical is but a small proportion.

Industry/ facility coverage: Biennial Report requirements do not require that specific industries or SIC codes report; however, certain waste categories are excluded ( 40 CFR § § 261.4 and 261.3( c)( 2)( ii)). For example, the so called the Bevill exemption ( 40 CFR § 261.4( b)( 7)) classifies solid wastes resulting from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals October, 2005 51 ( including coal, phosphate rock and overburden from the mining of uranium ore) as nonhazardous solid wastes and therefore not subject to reporting a Biennial Report. 5 Extraction and beneficiation wastes, plus 20 special mineral processing wastes ( listed under 40 CFR § 261.4( b)( 7)), fall under RCRA Subtitle D classification. TRI now requires reporting from the mining industry. In addition, emission control wastes, which are prominent wastes within the electric utilities industry, are excluded from Biennial Report requirement. Electric utilities represent an industrial group being considered for addition to TRI. The full list of wastes that are excluded from Biennial Reports include the following:

5. As defined under § 261.4( b)( 7), the beneficiation of ores and minerals includes but is not limited to activities such as the following: crushing, grinding,

washing, sizing, drying, solvent extraction, and magnetic separation. For a complete list refer to § 261.4( b)( 7). Acid Agriculture, Irrigation Cement Kiln Dust Chromium, Leather Tanning Drilling Fluid Emission Control Waste Fertilizer Household Mining Mining, In situ Mining, Overburden Nuclear Petroleum contaminated Media and Debris Precipitation Runoff Pulping Liquor Sewage, Domestic Sewage, Mixture Wastewater, Point Source Discharge Wood, Wood Products Release statistics: While some of the waste codes used in Biennial Reports to identify waste streams may refer to a single, unique chemical ( i. e., a specific CAS number), others do not. In addition, a waste stream can be identified by multiple waste codes ( e. g., a waste stream can simultaneously be ignitable, contain spent halogenated solvents, contain benzene, etc.). At present, there is no mechanism to apportion the waste stream volume to particular waste codes where multiple codes are reported. October, 2005 52 The " mixture rule" and " derived from" rule were adopted by EPA in 1980 and affect the data reported to Biennial Reports. 6 The derived from rule provides that wastes derived from a listed hazardous waste ( such as the ash from incineration of a listed waste) also are deemed hazardous waste. The mixture rule provides generally that any mixture of listed hazardous and nonhazardous waste are considered hazardous waste ( although there are important exceptions). RCRA waste streams are often a mixture of one or more toxic chemicals contained at various concentrations in a non hazardous matrix ( e. g., railroad gravel or water). From the reported data, it is not possible to determine the fraction of the entire waste stream that is composed of a particular hazardous chemical. While it is evident that the chemical concentration is adequate to result in the waste stream being defined as hazardous ( e. g., the chemical concentration exceeds a certain threshold), no more detailed determination regarding the quantity of the hazardous component released can be drawn.

Reporting frequency: LQGs and TSDFs submit Biennial Reports data on a biennial basis. In contrast, TRI reporting occurs on an annual basis.

Accessibility: Biennial Reports are accessible through the EPA Mainframe, the ENVIROFACTS database, as well as RTK NET ( See Attachment B 3). The EPA Mainframe is not accessible to the general public.

Conclusion on Availability of Data on On Site Releases to Land Biennial Reports require individual reporting of underground injections on site as well as on site releases to land, as does TRI. However, only half of the waste codes used in Biennial Reports can be assumed to identify individual chemicals. In addition, the waste classification system, including the " mixture rule" and " derived from" rules, results in waste quantities being reported to Biennial Reports that do not identify quantities of the individual chemicals. The quantity reported to Biennial Reports represents the quantity of the entire waste stream, and not individual chemicals. Therefore, Biennial Reports are not a good substitute for TRI because it is not possible to reliably estimate the releases of a particular toxic chemical to underground injection on site or releases to land on site from Biennial Reports.

Discharges to a POTW Section 313 of EPCRA gives EPA the authority to require that facilities report information on annual discharges to POTWs ( Public Owned Treatment Works), including the name and location of the POTW. Although Biennial Reports require some reporting of discharges to POTWs, and PCS allows for reporting of indirect discharges to water, neither system provides information about POTW discharges at TRI's level of detail and completeness.

6. The " mixture rule" and the " derived from" rule were struck down by a 1991 D. C. Circuit Court ruling, but at the court's suggestion, EPA has temporarily reenacted the rules on an interim basis while it develops a new rule to consider them. October, 2005 53 The RCRAInfo system, which contains data from the biennial reports of large quantity generators ( LQGs) and treatment, storage and disposal facilities ( TSDFs), also requires reporting of some discharges to POTWs. Several limitations associated with Biennial Reports data, however, are described above. In addition, hazardous waste, once mixed with domestic sewage and sent to a POTW for treatment, is no longer considered a hazardous waste and is therefore not reported to RCRAInfo.

Section 1004( 27) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) provides that once hazardous waste is discharged directly or indirectly to surface waters, the waste is not subject to Biennial Report requirements. Hazardous waste must be reported only if it receives on site treatment or is stored in a RCRA permitted unit prior to discharge. If it receives treatment or is stored in an exempt unit ( e. g., tanks or totally enclosed treatment units), the waste is reported only if the generator qualifies as a large quantity generator, although the exempt waste is not counted when determining whether a facility is a Large Quantity Generator. TRI provides no exemption for discharges to POTWs which receive no prior treatment.

Although the Permit Compliance System ( PCS) includes indirect discharge data elements, PCS does not require reporting of indirect discharges ( i. e., discharges that pass through a POTW before entering a waterbody, in contrast to waste discharged directly to a waterbody). States have the option of including indirect discharge data, although very few require that this data be reported ( Rubin, 1995).

Transfers to Other Off Site Locations EPCRA Section 313 gives EPA the authority to require that facilities reporting to TRI report transfers to off site locations, including the name, location, and RCRA ID number of the off site location. The Biennial Reports, which contain hazardous waste data from large quantity generators ( LQGs) and treatment, storage and disposal facilities ( TSDFs), also require reporting of off site transfers on its Form GM. Information requested by RCRAInfo includes the EPA ID of the facility to which the waste was shipped, the processes used to treat, recycle, or dispose of the waste at the off site facility, the off site availability code, and the total quantity of waste shipped during the report year ( see discussion above of underground injection and land disposal for a more complete description of Biennial Reports). Biennial Reports also provide data on the volume of hazardous waste shipped off site for land disposal, a release end point of relevance to TRI.

There are several difficulties associated with comparing Biennial Reports data to TRI data, which are described above in the section covering on site releases to land. October, 2005 54 Review of State Right to Know Programs Under the TRI program, data is submitted to both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and to the state or tribal entity in whose jurisdiction the reporting facility is located. With the advent of the federally mandated TRI reporting requirements and the influx of this new information, states with release and transfer reporting requirements of their own changed their programs to minimize program costs to industry and government. In New Jersey, for example, where TRI overlapped with state toxics reporting requirements under the New Jersey Right To Know ( RTK) program, the RTK reporting requirements were removed to minimize reporting overlap. For more information on state expanded TRI reporting, a detailed discussion is presented in the " Status of State TRI Programs" section of the TRI Public Data Release, State Fact Sheets. ( U. S. EPA, 1999g) This section of the Public Data Release contains a survey administered by the National Conference of State Legislatures to all states on their TRI data use and expansion activities.

As of 1994, only Arizona, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin required or were planning to require expanded state TRI reporting to include non manufacturing facilities ( NCSL, 1995). Under the expanded state requirements, non manufacturing facilities are required to file Form Rs with the state, but are not required to file with the federal EPA. In addition, some states require facilities to report release information beyond that required by the federal TRI program. Overall, however, the additional data collected by states are far less complete and uniform than would be available under an expanded federal TRI program. Descriptions of how state programs differ from federal TRI requirements are given below.

Massachusetts The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act of 1989 ( TURA) requires companies to report on their toxic chemical use, while TRI requires companies to report their toxic chemical releases. TURA covers facilities in the following SIC codes: October, 2005 55 mining ( SIC codes 10 14) manufacturing ( SIC codes 20 39), transportation, communications, utilities ( SIC 40, 44 49), wholesale trade ( SIC 50 and 51), personal services ( SIC 72), business services ( SIC 73), automotive repair, services, and parking ( SIC 75), and miscellaneous repair services ( SIC 76).

Initially, TURA covered the same facilities and chemicals as the federal TRI program. As of 1995, TURA requirements expanded to include facilities under the above SIC codes which use chemicals that are listed as hazardous substances under § 101( 14) and § 102 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( CERCLA). ( These chemicals are listed at 40 CFR § 302.4). Also, substances found on the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation Liability Act ( CERCLA) list are subject to TURA reporting and planning, except for chemicals that are delisted. There are over 1400 chemicals that are subject to reporting, although only about 250 have been used and reported in Massachusetts. Massachusetts otherwise uses the same employee and manufacture/ process/ use thresholds and chemical list as the federal TRI program ( TURI, 1994). Federal facilities are exempt from TURA reporting Facilities covered under TURA must file an annual report called a Form S ( similar to Form R) which identifies the listed chemicals used during the year in each production process, the percentage reduction of toxic by products and toxic emissions compared to a defined base year, and the toxic use reduction techniques used to reduce the wastes. Data from the Form Ss are entered into the state Toxics Use Reduction Inventory. In addition, as of 1995, facilities are required to prepare a detailed toxic use reduction plan every two years ( MA DEP, 1993).

Wisconsin In 1996, Wisconsin required mining operations ( SIC codes 10 through 13) to file Form Rs to the state. In addition, public agencies, public and private educational facilities, and public and private research facilities in Wisconsin are subject to federal TRI reporting requirements. Aside from the additional SIC codes, Wisconsin's Right To Know reporting requirements are identical to those of the federal TRI program ( NCSL, 1995; BNA, 1995; Dunst, 1995)

Conclusion of Availability of TRI like Data at the State Level Although some states have built on the foundation of TRI data with additional state reporting requirements, their data do not have major redundancies with, and therefore are not substitutes for, the current TRI or the proposal to expand TRI. The advent of federally mandated TRI reporting has resulted in many states adopting Form R for their state reporting, and provided a strong impetus for states to remove redundancies in their own reporting in order to minimize October, 2005 56 costs to facilities in their jurisdictions. Information collected by states above and beyond federal reporting requirements may be available in piecemeal fashion.

Inventory Data For each listed toxic chemical, a regulated facility must complete data element 4.1 of Part II of Form R, which asks for the " Maximum Amount of the Toxic Chemical On Site at Any Time During the Calendar Year." Maximum amounts ( in pounds) are reported in ranges that increase by powers of ten. Alternative sources of " maximum amount on site" chemical inventory data include EPCRA Section 312 Tier I and II reports.

Section 311 and 312 of EPCRA require that states establish plans for local chemical emergency preparedness and that inventory information on hazardous chemicals be reported by facilities to state and local authorities. " Hazardous chemicals" are defined under the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration's ( OSHA) requirements  essentially any chemical that poses physical or health hazards. The relevant regulations are detailed in 40 CFR section 370. Data elements similar to both TRI and Tier I/ II reports make EPCRA Tier I/ II the best candidate for an alternative source of TRI " maximum amount on site" inventory information.

EPCRA Section 312 outlines a " two tier" approach for annual inventory reporting. All facilities that store hazardous or extremely hazardous substances must submit at least a Tier I and often a Tier II form as well. Tier I requires reporting on broad categories of physical hazards such as fire, sudden release of pressure, and reactivity, as well as acute and chronic health hazards. Upon request by a Local Emergency Planning Committee ( LEPC), State Emergency Response Commission ( SERC), or fire department, a facility may be required to submit the more detailed Tier II form ( which may be submitted instead of the Tier I form). Tier II requires chemical specific information by CAS number. For example, a Tier I report might state that a facility stores 3,000 pounds of chemicals that pose chronic health hazards, while a Tier II form for the same facility would report 1,000 pounds of toluene and 2,000 pounds of benzene on site. Approximately 33 states require regulated facilities to submit Tier II forms, and most of the remaining states recommend that facilities submit Tier II forms.

A regulated facility is required to submit this information to each of the following groups: LEPCs, SERCs, and the local fire department with jurisdiction over the facility. A facility must submit an annual report for every chemical which requires an MSDS and which exceeds certain reporting thresholds for the amount of chemical stored on site at any one time. The reporting threshold for chemicals listed under EPCRA section 302 as Extremely Hazardous Substances ( EHSs) is the threshold planning quantity ( TPQ), or 500 pounds, whichever is lower. 7 For all other chemicals with MSDSs, the threshold is 10,000 pounds. In general terms, the inventories contain information about the maximum quantity stored, the average quantity on site at any given time, the location of the chemicals at the facility, and the number of days on site.

7 The Extremely Hazardous Substances and their TPQs are listed in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendices A and B. October, 2005 57 Chemical coverage: The chemicals covered under Section 312 are all those defined as hazardous or extremely hazardous substances in Section 311 ( essentially any substance that poses a health or physical hazard). All of these substances, for which facilities must submit MSDSs, are covered under OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard regulations. OSHA's definition of " hazardous chemical" not only includes toxic chemicals but also chemicals which are considered health hazards, irritants, sensitizers, corrosive, fire hazards, explosive, as well as reactive. Consequently, many more chemicals are included under OSHA's rule than under TRI.

Industry/ facility coverage: Facilities that are required to submit MSDSs to the state authorities for hazardous chemicals on site also must submit Tier I and/ or Tier II forms. While there are no SIC exemptions for facilities that are covered under the reporting threshold requirements, facilities not included under OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard ( e. g., mines) do not have to file reports. Because the Section 312 thresholds cannot be used to determine whether a facility covered under Section 312 also would be covered under Section 313 ( e. g., whether a facility which stores 10,000 lbs. of a toxic chemical listed under TRI also meets Section 313 thresholds), the extent to which facilities potentially subject to TRI reporting would be captured by Section 312 is unknown.

Release statistics/ reporting frequency: Facilities covered under EPCRA Section 312 must submit their Tier I and/ or Tier II reports containing data with respect to the preceding calendar year to their respective states annually on or before March 1.

When completing a Tier II form, a covered facility must report the following information:

The chemical name or the common name of the chemical and the CAS registry number ( as it appears on the MSDS);

Indication of whether the hazardous chemical is an extremely hazardous substance;

Indication of whether the hazardous chemical is present at the facility in its pure state or in a mixture, and whether it is a solid, liquid, or gas;

The applicable health and physical hazard categories;

An estimate ( in ranges) of the maximum amount of the hazardous chemical present at the facility at any time during the preceding calendar year ( e. g., 10,000 to 99,999 pounds);

An estimate ( in ranges) of the average daily amount of the hazardous chemical present at the facility at any time during the preceding calendar year;

The number of days the hazardous chemical was found on site at the facility;

A brief description of the manner of storage of the hazardous chemical at the facility; October, 2005 58

A brief description of the precise location of the hazardous chemical at the facility, and

An indication of whether the owner or operator of the facility elects to withhold location information on a specific hazardous chemical from disclosure to the public.

Facilities that choose to withhold from the public certain data on hazardous chemicals must nevertheless provide the information to the relevant authorities via the Tier II Confidential Location Information Sheet. The information contained on these sheets is not made available to the public.

Accessibility: The general public may access Tier I and Tier II information on a facility by facility basis by forwarding a written request to either the SERC or the LEPC. Tier II information on facilities which do not meet the reporting threshold requirements also may be obtained from the SERC or the LEPC if a " general need" can be demonstrated on the part of the requester. In these cases, the relevant authorities will request that the relevant facility or facilities fill out Tier II forms.

The ability to access state EPCRA data at a higher level of aggregation depends partly on the information technology resources of the state authority responsible for maintaining the data. Approximately one half of all the states have some type of computerized database, and of those, five states ( Arkansas, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island) store full Tier II data in a modem accessible format. However, because these databases were created using different software and possess different database structures, it is a considerable challenge to aggregate the data contained within them.

In some states that do not yet maintain computerized databases of Tier I and Tier II information, the parties requesting information are required to cover the copying and administrative costs of the data retrieval. Because some EPCRA reporting programs are unfunded, fees charged for this service range from low to substantial. In other states, the requesting parties must go to the office and perform the copying themselves ( ICF, 1996).

Conclusion on the Availability of Inventory Data Tier I forms only request information based on possible health and physical hazards, and do not ask for chemical specific data. The level of detail and the number of chemicals covered in Tier II " maximum amount on site" inventory data surpasses the chemical inventory data requested on TRI Form R. Not all states, however, require submission of Tier II forms. Therefore, some of the facilities that are covered under TRI do not have to report as detailed inventory information under EPCRA Section 312. October, 2005 59 There also are significant difficulties with respect to public access of Tier I and Tier II data. All information is reported to state authorities; there is no national integrated database. In addition, because not all states have set up computerized databases to manage this information, extensive data retrieval and analysis is often both cumbersome and expensive.

Pollution Prevention Data ( P2)

Form R requires that facilities report a variety of information that can be used for pollution prevention analyses, including non quantitative reporting of pollution prevention activities, production ratios, and chemical specific amounts of materials treated, recycled, released ( onetime and for the entire year), and shipped off site in wastes.

EPA Databases with Pollution Prevention Data Besides TRI, waste prevention and management data are collected at the federal level through RCRA Biennial reports. RCRA biennial report data are compiled in the RCRAInfo database, as discussed below. The level of chemical specificity and flowthrough estimates for waste prevention and management information in RCRAInfo and TRI are not available in other federal data sources.

Biennial Reports contains pollution prevention information on hazardous waste large quantity generators and treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. Data are collected primarily by states, and are collated by EPA into the RCRAInfo database system. States are not required to use official Biennial Reports forms for the submission of data; EPA transfers data on state forms into the RCRAInfo system as necessary ( ICF, 1993).

All large quantity generators must submit the following facility specific information to RCRAInfo:

whether any source reduction or recycling activities took place during the reporting year, and

limiting factors that have affected source reduction and/ or recycling activities.

In addition, for each hazardous waste generated, a generator must specify the following pollution prevention related data:

RCRA waste code and hazardous waste quantity generated;

efforts to reduce the volume and toxicity of wastes, and

reductions in volume and toxicity actually achieved compared with those achieved in previous years. October, 2005 60 If a hazardous waste has been minimized as the result of new activities implemented in the reporting year, the generator also must report the following pollution prevention related information:

quantity of waste recycled;

source reduction quantity; and

waste minimization activity implemented ( e. g., waste segregation, inventory control).

RCRA Biennial reports provide some qualitative and quantitative pollution prevention information, but, at a systems level, do not have the same facility or chemical coverage as TRI. The Biennial Reports system is not a substitute for TRI pollution prevention data. RCRA Biennial reports only include hazardous wastes; pollution prevention data contained in TRI includes information on wastes or process by products in all production phases and media. In addition, the chemical reporting universe is different between the two systems. The universe of toxic chemicals regulated under TRI differs from the universe of listed hazardous wastes or chemicals with hazardous waste characteristics regulated by RCRA.

Also, the facility universes captured by the two systems are not the same. RCRA Biennial reports are only completed by RCRA large quantity generators, while TRI reports are required by facilities in manufacturing industries that exceed employee as well as chemical manufacturing, process, and use thresholds. The Biennial Reports facility universe is also different due to RCRA waste exclusions and exemptions. For example, wastes mixed with domestic sewage that are excluded from Biennial Report requirements can be an indirect water discharge that may be covered under TRI reporting.

The pollution prevention reporting in Biennial Reports contains information on hazardous waste minimization and recycling efforts. Where this information does overlap with TRI pollution prevention reporting, it does not contain the same level of detail. For example, in some cases Biennial Reports pollution prevention information applies to wastestreams consisting of chemical mixtures, while TRI pollution prevention data are chemical specific. Since Biennial Report waste codes are more general in nature than CAS numbers, a facility's waste mixture could change from year to year, and yet it might report the same waste code. Lack of precision in reporting of waste contents also could result in a situation where a facility reduces the aqueous quantity of its wastes, and thus appear to be preventing pollution. However, by changing its waste mixture, the facility might even increase the amount of toxic material entering the wastestream without modifying its Biennial Report. That the exact contents of a facility's waste mixture cannot always be determined may make it difficult to extract chemicalspecific data from Biennial Reports.

State Environmental Agency Databases As required by section 313 ( a) of EPCRA, facilities send copies of all TRI reports to both state and federal agencies. Many states currently rely on the pollution prevention data received from TRI for planning and targeting purposes ( U. S. EPA, 1993), and do not require additional October, 2005 61 reporting. However, two states, New Jersey and Massachusetts, have passed laws to collect materials accounting pollution prevention data that exceeds that found in Section 8 of Form R. Twelve other states have pollution prevention planning requirements in place, but only Massachusetts and New Jersey currently have mandatory materials accounting. 8 Massachusetts Pollution Prevention Reporting: The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act ( TURA) has required firms to report on toxic use for individual " production units" at their facilities since July of 1991. Facilities submit annual Toxics Use Reports ( Form S) to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ( MDEP) as a supplement to the TRI Form R. With the exception of qualitative source reduction pollution prevention reporting requirements and production ratios, TURA pollution prevention reporting requirements are additional to those collected by TRI.

Form S records information on the quantity of the toxic substance used on a facility wide and production unit basis. Form S is divided into two parts: 1) cover sheet and 2) chemical reports. The cover sheet contains general facility information, a certification statement, and an identification of production units at the facility. Form S chemical reports must be filed on each listed toxic chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at greater than 10,000 pounds per year ( ICF, 1993). The form contains the following information on chemical use and pollution prevention: facility wide and production unit data for each chemical, year to year reporting changes, and production unit reports.

New Jersey Pollution Prevention Reporting: New Jersey has collected toxic chemical release and pollution prevention data longer than the TRI program has been in existence. Since 1979, New Jersey has collected toxic chemical release and pollution prevention data through a variety of separate programs and activities, gradually narrowing down the scope of these reporting requirements as TRI was introduced and expanded to include pollution prevention. In fact, the results of an Industrial Survey, which collected release and throughput data from 15,000 New Jersey facilities, were used to develop the list of SARA Title III chemicals ( U. S. EPA, 1995d). For these reasons, New Jersey data, unlike data collected in Massachusetts, still overlaps somewhat with data collected on TRI Form R. New Jersey pollution prevention data also contain detailed throughput information which exceeds that currently contained in TRI. These throughput data require facilities to account for all amounts of the chemical brought or produced on site, shipped off site in products, destroyed on site through treatment, recycled on site, and released to the environment or shipped off site in wastes.

8. For a detailed comparison of materials accounting data elements reported to TRI, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, see ( U. S. EPA, 1995d). October, 2005 62 New Jersey's additional reporting requirements apply to all TRI chemicals and all facilities covered by TRI ( SIC codes 20 39). Originally, New Jersey required facilities manufacturing, processing, or using an Environmentally Hazardous Substance ( EHS) to report toxic chemical release information ( U. S. EPA, 1995d). The original EHS list was comparable to the list of chemicals generated by the Industrial Survey mentioned above, and therefore similar to the original SARA Title III list. The list of chemicals for which New Jersey now collects toxic chemical release and pollution prevention information has been expanded to contain those in the national TRI listing. October, 2005 63 Alternative Sources of Emergency Release Data TRI Form R requires that facilities report the quantity of TRI listed chemicals released to the environment as a result of remedial actions, catastrophic events, or one time events not associated with production processes. Accidental release data reported to TRI also are potentially reported to the National Response Center ( NRC). However, as discussed below, the NRC is a database of initial notifications, made during or immediately after a release occurs. For this reason, data within NRC may be incomplete or inaccurate and will not substitute for TRI emergency release data.

Emergency Response Notification System ( ERNS)

The Emergency Response Notification System ( ERNS) is a computer database containing information on release notifications of oil and hazardous substances that have occurred throughout the United States and have been reported to the National Response Center ( NRC) and or one of the 10 EPA Regions. Initial notifications, which comprise most of the information in ERNS, supply preliminary information on a release and are cited as unverified data. Depending on the severity of the release and any response actions taken, the EPA or Coast Guard On scene Coordinator ( OSC) may obtain further information at the site of the release or through discussions with state and local officials. Data has been collected into ERNS since 1987.

ERNS contains many types of information on specific notifications of releases of oil and hazardous substances, including the following: discharger information, date of release, material released, cause of release, damage/ injuries/ deaths, amount released, source of release, incident location, response actions taken, authorities notified, and environmental medium into which the release occurred.

ERNS serves as a mechanism to document and verify incident location information as initially reported and is utilized as a direct source of easily accessible data needed for analyzing releases of oil and hazardous substances. ERNS information is used for guidance and regulatory development, Congressional inquiries, response preparedness, compliance and enforcement support, statistical and trend analyses, program planning and management, and responses to requests for information from the public.

ERNS supports the release notification requirements of section 103( a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( CERCLA), as amended; section 311( j) of the Clean Water Act; and sections 300.300 and 300.405 of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan, which begins at 40 CFR Part 300.

ERNS is a database of initial notifications, made during or immediately after a release occurs. Because the data are reported at such an early stage, the exact details of the release are often unknown and are therefore not reported. It is estimated that two thirds of the 193 data fields in October, 2005 64 ERNS are not completed for most release notifications. In addition, duplicate reports may appear in the database because of follow up calls that are not identified as such or observers reporting a release that has already been reported. Approximately five percent of ERNS records are estimated to be duplicates. ( U. S. EPA, 1995e)

Integrated Management Information System ( IMIS)

IMIS is an OSHA database that contains records of workplace inspections conducted by OSHA industrial hygienists. Two general types of inspections are conducted by OSHA: 1) Scheduled or planned inspections which are on site enforcement inspections to verify compliance with OSHA standards, and 2) Unplanned inspections which are investigations of workplace incidents where there is one fatality or three or more worker hospitalizations ( five or more worker hospitalizations were required to trigger an inspection before 1993). Inspection data are input and stored within IMIS, providing a record of OSHA activities at each workplace that has been inspected.

OSHA is estimated to add more than 120,000 inspection records per year, of which 4,000 5,000 are related to accidents. Accident inspections include a short description of the incident, information regarding each worker that is injured, and any hazardous substances that may be involved. It is estimated that 100 incidents reported each year involve hazardous substances. A four digit hazardous substance code is entered into IMIS rather than a CAS number. The quantity of hazardous material released is not entered. In addition, it can not be assumed that the reported death or injury was a result of an accidental release even in cases where a hazardous substance was involved. For example, if a maintenance person cleans the inside of a storage tank and is asphyxiated by the nitrogen rich environment, the death is not the result of an " accidental release." ( U. S. EPA, 1995e)

Summary on Availability of Pollution Prevention and Accidental Release Data The data systems discussed above cannot replace TRI's pollution prevention and accidental release data. Difficulties exist in chemical and facility coverage, reporting frequency, and the level of data detail. Specifically, RCRA Biennial reports cannot easily be used as a substitute for TRI pollution prevention data. While Biennial Reports provides some qualitative and quantitative pollution prevention information, it does not have the same facility or chemical coverage as TRI. Biennial Reports only include hazardous wastes, while TRI pollution prevention data includes information on wastes or process by products in all production phases and media. Because Biennial Reports collect data organized by Biennial Reports waste codes, they also lacks the chemical specific detail that TRI contains. In addition, the facility and chemical reporting universes are different between the two systems.

Overlap of State pollution prevention data with that found in TRI is minimal; state data could not be used to replace current TRI pollution prevention reporting requirements. As required by section 313 ( a) of EPCRA, facilities send copies of all TRI reports to both state and federal October, 2005 65 agencies. Many states have come to rely on this easily available source of pollution prevention data. As Massachusetts and New Jersey demonstrate, even those states that had taken a proactive role in collecting toxics release and pollution prevention data scaled back their programs with the introduction of mandatory TRI reporting. No state program collects all of the pollution prevention data currently contained in Form R, though some states ( e. g., New Jersey and Massachusetts) augment TRI pollution prevention data with requirements additional to those contained in Section 8 of Form R. These data, such as materials accounting data, are used at the state level for a variety of purposes, including benchmarking of facility pollution prevention efforts and the determination of toxic material flows in production processes.

In addition, accidental release data reported to ERNS does not substitute for TRI accidental release data. ERNS is a database of initial notifications, made during or immediately after a release occurs. For this reason, data within ERNS may be incomplete or inaccurate.

Value Added from the TRI Reporting System In addition to containing data not available through other sources, TRI enhances the usefulness and functionality of the data by allowing public access to the data, linking release data across media ( e. g., water, air, land), and providing definitional consistency for the units of measurement. These features give TRI additional advantages over any emissions data system that might be assembled from non TRI sources.

Perhaps the most important advantage TRI possesses over non TRI sources is the information that can only be found in TRI. As described, data unique to TRI include chemical specific multimedia release information as well as important pollution prevention information. For example, AFS currently only tracks a limited amount of HAP emissions, and Biennial Reports do not track hazardous waste treatment, transfer, or disposal at a chemical specific level. TRI can provide this as well as other types of information not available elsewhere.

Because an important part of TRI's mission is to provide emissions data to the public, many different methods of access to TRI have been implemented. Data analysis difficulties aside, access issues make it very difficult for the general public to assemble non TRI data into a TRIlike form. Current methods of accessing TRI include on line resources such as EPA's Envirofacts, TRI Explorer, the National Library of Medicine's TOXNET, RTK NET, electronic media such as CD ROM, and printed media. TRI places all of the information in one location, and providing many avenues of access to that data.

The lack of definitional consistency also can result in difficulties in understanding information aggregated across non TRI databases. A substantial amount of effort would be required to overcome discrepancies in units of measure, chemical coverage, reporting thresholds, reporting exemptions, and reporting frequencies in the various databases. TRI overcomes many of these problems by allowing the user to view cross media data using a single set of reporting definitions and requirements. October, 2005 66 The different units and data aggregation methodologies used by various non TRI sources can lead to data incompatibilities. For example, because PCS data are reported in terms of PCS parameters ( usually chemical concentrations as opposed to units of mass), some fairly involved calculations must take place before that data can be converted into TRI like units. For Biennial Reports, facilities report their hazardous waste throughput in terms of aggregated waste codes, which cannot always be easily broken down to specific chemicals. Discrepancies between the way chemical information is reported to the various non TRI databases can make it difficult or even impossible to accurately sum totals of pollutants across databases. Because all TRI release and transfer data are reported in a uniform fashion, no such difficulty exists in TRI.

Databases often also have different reporting frequencies, which can make it difficult to assemble high quality historical data at the facility level. Biennial Reports require facilities to report data every two years, whereas AFS requires but does not enforce annual reporting. Because TRI requires annual reporting from all covered facilities, TRI effectively overcomes this problem.

In summary, the value which TRI alone adds to the community at large is significant. The many technical, access related, and data coverage problems associated with attempting to use non TRI sources for TRI data makes impractical the substitution of these sources for TRI.

5( b) Consultations EPA has consulted with a large number of individuals and organizations throughout all segments of the public in the development and continued implementation of the TRI program. Since the initial development of the program, feedback through EPA's outreach efforts have been received from various organizations, including environmental and public interest groups, trade associations, and individual representatives. This feedback is continually sought and incorporated in the ongoing evolution of the 313 program.

During the initial development of the TRI program, EPA consulted with a large number of individuals and organizations throughout all segments of the public in developing the rule, form, and instructions. This consultation has continued throughout the operation of the program, and has been expanded due to the proposed expansion of TRI to include additional industry groups. Among the industry oriented organizations that are or have been involved with the TRI program are:

American Association of Exporters and Importers American Chemistry Council American Chemical Society American Coke and Coal Chemical Institute American Gas Association American Iron and Steel Institute October, 2005 67 American Petroleum Institute American Pharmaceutical American Public Power Association American Textile Manufacturers Institute American Trucking Association American Warehouse Association Air Transport Association American Wood Preservers Institute Associated Gas Distributors Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition Chemical Manufacturers Association Chemical Producers and Distributors Association Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association Chem Tex Solvents Corporation Chlorine Institute Domestic Petroleum Council Dry Color Manufacturers Association Edison Electric Institute Electric Power Institute Environmental Industries Association Environmental Technology Council Fertilizer Institute Hazardous Material Advisory Council Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association Independent Liquid Terminals Association Independent Petroleum Association of America International Precious Metals Institute Interstate Mining Compact Commission Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission Lead Industries Association Metal Powder Industries Federation National Agricultural Chemicals Association National Air Transport Association National Association of Chemical Distributors National Association of Chemical Recyclers National Association of Manufacturers National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers, Inc. National Electrical Manufacturers Association National Food Processors Association National Mining Association National Rural Electric Cooperative Association National Screw Machine Products Association National Solid Waste Management Association Petroleum Marketers Association of America October, 2005 68 Silver and Gold Institute Small Business Administration Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Solid Waste Association of North America Steel Service Centers Institute Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. U. S. Chamber of Commerce With the addition of Federal facilities to TRI in 1993 ( Executive Order 12856), other Federal agencies such as the Department of Defense and Department of Energy now play an active role in TRI, including as participants in Interagency Workgroups. In addition to the industry oriented groups, EPA has also worked with public interest groups in the development of the TRI program. Environmental and public interest groups assisted in the development of the Form R, testing of the NLM database, and have provided feedback on a wide range of public access issues. Among the environmental and public interest organizations that have been, or are, involved with TRI are:

AFL CIO American Library Association Environmental Defense Fund Environmental Law Institute INFORM Information Industry Association Mineral Policy Center National Wildlife Association Natural Resources Defense Council OMB Watch Sierra Club U. S. Public Interest Research Group Working Group on Community Right to Know Discussions with all of the above groups have resulted in changes to the program which have had beneficial effects, including burden reduction.

Over the course of the past decade, EPA has used the regularly held public meetings of the Forum on State and Tribal Toxics Action ( FOSTTA), which represents state environmental agencies, and the National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology ( NACEPT), which includes representatives from industry, environmental organizations, states, and academia, as public venues to consult on TRI and related issues. Major issues discussed through these groups include the expansion of TRI to include both additional chemicals and facilities; implementation of PPA requirements; redesign of the Form R; and development of the Alternate Reporting Threshold Modification. EPA officials routinely meet with representatives October, 2005 69 from industries, states, local governments, environmental organizations, and community groups on specific issues related to TRI, as the need for consultation arises.

EPA also makes a concerted effort to receive input from small businesses. Many trade associations and other industry organizations with which EPA has held discussions include small businesses as members or participants. These groups have represented the interests of some small businesses to EPA, and have helped to inform businesses about TRI. In addition, EPA has addressed forums such as the Small Business Roundtable regarding its initiatives, and has briefed officials of the Small Business Administration as well as EPA's Small Business Omsbudsman and Regional Small Business Liaisons.

EPA has conducted a series of Stakeholder meetings over time, with the most recent being in October of 2004 to address issues concerning reporting requirements and possible changes to the Form R. Specific issues discussed at these meetings included ways of improving the TRI program, ways of reducing the burden of TRI reporting, and possible improvements to the TRI reporting form. These meetings have resulted in a series of separate rulemakings to address burden that are currently under development. October, 2005 70 5( c) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Section 313 requires annual reporting. Section 313( i) permits EPA to modify the reporting frequency by rulemaking, however, EPA must first notify Congress and then wait to initiate the rulemaking to propose the modification for at least 12 months. In addition, EPA must find:

( A) ... that the modification is consistent with the provisions of subsection ( h) of [ section 313] based on  ( i) experience from previously submitted toxic chemical release forms, ( ii) determinations made under paragraph ( 3).]

Paragraph ( 3), in turn, provides that EPA must determine ( A) The extent to which information relating to the proposed modification provided on the toxic chemical release forms has been used by the Administrator or other agencies of the Federal government, States, local governments, health professionals and the public.

( B) The extent to which information is ( i) readily available to potential users from other sources, such as State reporting programs, and ( ii) provided to the Administrator under another Federal law or through as State program.

( C) The extent to which the modification would impose additional and unreasonable burdens on facilities subject to the reporting requirements under this section.

However, EPA may not permit less frequent reporting unless it can find that such modification is consistent with the purposes of the Act, as determined by previously submitted Form Rs. Since TRI represents the best available database tracking toxic chemical releases in the U. S., changes in reporting frequencies would have profound impacts on the quality and value of these data for purposes of planning and establishing baselines in both government and industry.

Less frequent reporting would also significantly delay the availability of the data to the public. Form Rs are required to be submitted on or before July 1 following the year in which the reported releases and transfers occur, and then national data are available from EPA within a year after that. Public access to the most current toxic chemical release data and other waste management information possible could then be severely limited if reporting were to occur less frequently.

5( d) General Guidelines This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended, OMB's implementing regulations, and all applicable OMB guidance. October, 2005 71 Although reporting facilities are required to identify the chemical for which reports are submitted, they can claim the chemical identity as a trade secret. A generic name must be provided as part of the information made available to the public. EPA securely stores and maintains the true identity of the chemical. This is further discussed in 5( e)( i).

EPA is actively encouraging the use of automated techniques, most notably PC based report generating programs produced both by the Agency and by the private sector and other submissions on magnetic media. EPA recognizes that not all reporting facilities are able to or are interested in investing the time and funds necessary to employ such automated techniques. The final decision on how to report is ultimately the reporting facility's.

Small facilities ( less than 10 full time employees or equivalent) are exempt from reporting under section 313. An optional range reporting provision and an alternate threshold have been promulgated that afford burden reduction to all facilities but are particularly beneficial to smaller facilities with small releases and wastes.

5( e) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions ( i) Confidentiality Respondents may designate the specific chemical identity of a substance as a trade secret. Procedures for submission and review of trade secret claims under section 313 are set forth in 40 CFR 350. This rule implements the general trade secret provisions of EPCRA. When a respondent claims the chemical identity to be a trade secret, EPA, upon substantiation of the claim, will not disclose the identity of the chemical to the public. EPA securely stores forms with trade secret information and allows access to those documents only to persons with Trade Secret clearance. Data made available to the public through any means does not include trade secret information.

( ii) Sensitive Questions This collection does not request any sensitive information.

6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden This section presents the burden of this information collection activity to respondents in terms of the time required for facility personnel to perform the activities outlined in Section 3 of this document. These burden estimates are based on previous ICRs and economic analyses, October, 2005 72 respondent experience as reflected in comments to EPA and other parties, best professional judgement and information acquired through site visits and telephone interviews.

The burden to respondents is estimated for Form R requirements ( including compliance determination and supplier notification) and petitions. Burden estimates are developed for the compliance activities and then multiplied by the number of facilities or reports ( as appropriate) to estimate the total burden to respondents. The burden estimates used by EPA are national average values. As with any average, some facilities will be above the average, and others will be below it. Large, complex facilities may require more than the average time to comply. However, there are many other facilities subject to the rule that are not large or complex. Therefore, EPA believes that its burden estimates represent reasonable national averages.

Form R Requirements The tasks associated with TRI reporting during the period of this ICR include the following:

° Compliance Determination: Facility staff must determine whether they meet the criteria for Section 313 reporting. This task includes the time required to become familiar with the definitions, exemptions, and threshold requirements under the TRI program, to review the list of TRI chemicals, and to conduct preliminary threshold determinations to determine if the facility is required to report.

° Rule Familiarization: Facility staff that are reporting under section 313 for the first time must read the reporting package and become familiar with the reporting requirements. This includes the time needed to review instructions, and the time needed to train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

° Calculations and Report Completion: Facility staff must gather data and perform calculations to provide the information required on the form. This task includes the time required to search data sources and the time to complete and review the information.

° Recordkeeping and Submission: Facility staff must maintain recordkeeping systems and mail the report to EPA and the State in which the facility the facility is located. This task includes the time required to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

° Supplier Notification: Certain suppliers of mixtures or trade name products containing reportable substances must annually notify their customers of the product's composition, if the customer is subject to Section 313 reporting. This task includes the time required to inform customers, either by letter or through the materials safety data sheet ( MSDS) for the product.

This ICR reflects one change from the last TRI Form R ICR. Due to the TRI Reporting Forms Modification Rule, both first and subsequent form completion time is slightly reduced. Previously, EPA estimated that form completion would require 69 hours in the first year for October, 2005 73 PBT and Non PBT chemicals. In subsequent years, form completion would require 47.1 hours for PBT chemicals and 25.2 hours for Non PBT chemicals. Currently, EPA estimates that form completion will require 66.8 hours for PBT chemicals and 67.6 hours for Non PBT chemicals in the first year and 46.3 hours for PBT chemicals and 24.6 hours for Non PBT chemicals in subsequent years.

The remainder of this section discusses the unit burden hour estimates for each specific industry activity. Activities are organized into two categories: those performed at the facility level and those that must be performed for each Form R submitted. The estimated hours required to complete each activity are summarized in Table 1 by labor category. Table 2 presents the annual estimated burden hours according to type of facility for facilities that submit 3 Form Rs each. 9 This represents the burden on a " typical" facility, although many facilities file fewer Form Rs and some file more. The total annual burden to all facilities is discussed in Section 6( d). Note that the total annual burden estimate is based on unit reporting burdens multiplied by the total number of facilities or forms ( as appropriate); it is not based on the " typical" facility burdens shown in Table 2.

Table 1 Average Annual Burden Hour Estimate by Activity Category Activity Management Technical Clerical Total Hours Compliance Determination  all facilities 1 3 0 4 Rule Familiarization  first time filers 12 22.5 0 34.5 Facility Level Supplier Notification 0 7 17 24 Calculations and Report Completion  first time filers  PBTs 20.3 43.9 2.7 66.8 Calculations and Report Completion  first time filers  Non PBTs 20.5 44.4 2.8 67.6 Calculations and Report Completion  subsequent year filers  PBTs 14.1 30.4 1.9 46.3 Calculations and Report Completion  subsequent year filers  Non PBTs 7.5 16.1 1.0 24.6 Per Form R Recordkeeping/ Submission  all filers 0 4 1 5 9. Approximately 70 percent of affected facilities file 3 or fewer Form Rs in reporting year 2002. The most common number of reports filed is 1. October, 2005 74 Table 2 Average Annual Burden Hour Estimate per Facility in Each Subsequent Year Average Annual Hours Burden Type of Facility Management Technical Clerical Total Hours Compliance Determination Only 1 3 0 4 Compliance Determination and 3 PBT Form Rs 43.3 106.1 8.6 157.9 Compliance Determination and 3 Non PBT Form Rs 23.6 63.2 6.1 92.9 Compliance Determination, 3 PBT Form Rs, and Supplier Notification 43.3 113.1 25.6 181.9 Compliance Determination, 3 Non PBT Form Rs, and Supplier Notification 23.6 70.2 23.1 116.9 Activities Performed at the Facility Level Compliance Determination  A facility must report under Section 313 if it: ( 1) is within an SIC code or industry group covered by the TRI program; ( 2) has ten or more full time equivalent ( FTE) employees; and ( 3) manufactures, processes or otherwise uses any of the listed chemicals above the threshold quantities. All facilities must determine if they meet these criteria. Most facilities incur little burden to make determinations regarding the first two criteria. Many facilities require time for the management and technical staff to determine the types of chemicals used at the facility and whether these chemicals are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above threshold levels, in order to make the determination under the third criterion.

To make the determination, a facility will typically review whether it manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses any of the chemicals in any quantity, and then determine whether it exceeds a threshold quantity. In many cases, particularly at facilities that do not manufacture, process or otherwise use any listed chemicals, this first activity should be completed within a relatively short period of time. The second activity may involve a more detailed set of calculations.

The average burden for compliance determination is estimated to be 4 hours per facility per year. This average reflects the time requirements of facilities that do not have listed chemicals on site, have very large or small quantities of listed chemicals ( i. e., are significantly above or below the thresholds and thus do not require a significant amount of time to make the determination), or have not had significant changes from the prior year, as well as facilities that have more complex and time consuming compliance determination requirements. October, 2005 75 Rule Familiarization  If a facility will be reporting under the section 313 requirements for the first time, facility staff must review and comprehend the reporting requirements. At a minimum, this effort will involve reading the instructions to the Toxic Release Inventory Reporting Form R, however, it may also involve consulting EPA guidance documents, attending a training course, and/ or calling the EPCRA technical hotline. The cost associated with rule familiarization occurs only in the first year that a facility becomes subject to reporting. In subsequent years, staff are assumed to be familiar with the requirements that apply to their facility. Thus, the facility would no longer bear this cost. Similarly, facilities that already report on one or more existing TRI chemicals will not incur a rule familiarization cost.

It is estimated that facilities reporting under section 313 for the first time will need to make a one time expenditure of 34.5 hours for rule familiarization. This burden estimate is comprised of 12 hours of management time and 22.5 hours of technical time.

Supplier Notification  Certain suppliers of mixtures or trade name products containing reportable substances must annually notify their customers of the product's composition if the customer is subject to Section 313 reporting or sells the product to another company that is subject to reporting. Facilities may be subject to the supplier notification requirements even if they are not covered by the Section 313 reporting requirements. For example, a facility with less than ten full time employees or that does not meet reporting thresholds may still be required to notify certain customers. Supplier notification is required so that customers can make threshold determinations and complete reports for their own facilities. The notification can be provided by a letter identifying the chemical by name and CAS number and indicating its percentage by weight in the formulation. It can also be provided on the materials safety data sheet ( MSDS) for the product. On average, approximately 24 hours per facility are estimated for compliance with this requirement.

Activities Specific to Completing the Form R Calculations and Report Completion  Facilities that determine they must report under Section 313 will incur additional burden to retrieve, process, review, and transcribe information to complete each report. Most of the time required for form completion is to calculate releases, transfers, and other waste management practices; relatively little time is required to copy information to the form. The facility must complete one Form R for each listed chemical it is reporting to TRI.

The burden is estimated to average 46.3 hours per PBT Form R and 24.6 hours per Non PBT Form R for on going, annual reporting. This estimate is based on the most recent estimate of reporting burden negotiated by EPA and OMB. 10 It has also been adjusted downward to reflect burden savings associated with the recently promulgated TRI Reporting Forms Modification Rule. To complete the Form R, facilities will need to verify and update data, review previous 10 USEPA/ OEI, Terms of Clearance for TRI ICR Renewal, January 20, 2004. Memo from Cody Rice OPPT/ EETD/ EPAB to Amy Newman OEI/ OIAA/ EAD/ ASB. October, 2005 76 calculations, and modify the information reported on the previous year's Form R. For a facility completing 3 forms in subsequent years, this results in an average estimated burden of 138.9 hours per PBT Form R and 73.8 hours per Non PBT Form R. The estimate for first year calculations and report completion is 66.8 hours per Form R for a PBT chemical and 67.6 hours per Form R for a Non PBT chemical.

Recordkeeping and Submission  After a facility has completed the form, it incurs additional burden for recordkeeping and submission associated with filing a Form R report. Recordkeeping allows a facility to use the information in making calculations in subsequent years and as documentation in the event it receives a compliance audit. Facilities must maintain records used to provide the information required on the Form R; those records may include estimation methodology and calculations, engineering reports, inventory, incident and operating logs, and other supporting materials. Recordkeeping and submission are estimated to take an average of 5 hours per Form R, which works out to 15 hours for a facility filing 3 Form Rs.

Average Burden per Respondent The estimated burden per respondent depends on the type of respondent and the number of reports submitted. For example, the burden for facilities that only perform compliance determination is estimated to average 4 hours per facility. For facilities required to file 3 Form Rs, but not required to comply with supplier notification, the burden is estimated to be 157.9 hours if all 3 reports are for PBT chemicals and 92.9 hours if all 3 reports are for Non PBT chemicals. For facilities submitting 3 Form Rs that are also required to comply with supplier notification, the average burden is estimated at 181.9 and 116.9 hours per facility for PBT chemicals and Non PBT chemicals, respectively.

Petitions The activities required to prepare and file a petition are listed below. Included is a discussion of the burden associated with each activity. The time needed to complete these activities is presented in Table 3. The total annual burden for all petitions is estimated in Section 6( d). October, 2005 77 Table 3 Average Burden Hour Estimate per Petition Average Annual Hours Burden Activity Management Technical Clerical Total Hours Burden 1. Read EPA Policy and Guidance 4 0 0 4 2. Plan Activities 2 1 0 3 3. Prepare Literature Search 2 7 0 9 4. Conduct Literature Search 0 48 0 48 5. Process, Review, and Focus Information 12 74 0 86 6. Write Petition 4 8 6 18 7. Review and Edit petition 4 8 2 14 8. Submit to EPA and File 0 0 3 3 Total Hours per Petition 28 146 11 185 These estimates assume prior knowledge by the respondent of the issues prompting the listing of specific chemicals. An additional assumption was made that the petitioners had no inhouse library facilities and, consequently, that they would have to use a university library or similar facility. Based upon the experience of the previous reporting years, fewer than 5 petitions per year are expected. Following are specific descriptions of the activities associated with preparing and filing a petition for chemical listing or de listing.

Read EPA guidance document and consult with EPA. The reading and interpretation of EPA policy and guidance notice is conducted by management and involves four hours per petition.

Plan activities. The planning activities are conducted jointly by management and technical personnel. Three hours per petition are required to complete these activities.

Prepare literature search. This activity would be conducted by both management and technical personnel, involving about nine hours.

Conduct literature search. The technical staff member conducts this activity, which requires about 48 hours per petition.

Process, review, and focus information. This activity would be completed by both technical and management personnel, involving a total of 86 hours per petition. October, 2005 78 Write petition. This activity would be completed by a combination of technical, management, and clerical personnel. About 18 hours are required per petition to complete the writing. Review and edit petition. A combination of management, technical, and clerical personnel would be involved in this activity, requiring a total of 14 hours per petition.

Submit petition to EPA and file. These activities would be done by the clerical personnel, requiring approximately three hours per petition.

Total respondent burden. The total burden of submitting a petition is estimated to average 185 hours.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs The cost to respondents is based on the time needed to complete the tasks listed in Section 6( a) and the hourly cost of labor at appropriate levels ( loaded labor rates). There are no specific capital costs associated directly with this information collection activity. There may be some small additional costs for mailing and supplies. Total annual costs for all facilities are discussed in Section 6( d).

Form R Requirements To determine the per facility costs for typical respondents, the unit burden hour estimates for compliance activities are multiplied by fully loaded hourly rates for the appropriate categories of labor conducting these activities. 11 Loaded hourly rates are the product of wages, benefits, and overhead. Hourly wage rates are divided into three categories: managerial, technical, and clerical. Average wage and salary data for these categories are obtained from the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation ( ECEC) report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) for all goods producing, private industries. The additional cost of benefits, such as paid leave and insurance, is also derived from information provided in the ECEC report. Loading factors for benefits are calculated separately for managerial, technical, and clerical labor by dividing the benefits percentage of total compensation by the wage percentage of total compensation. Based on information provided by the chemical industry and chemical industry trade associations, an additional loading factor of 17 percent is applied for general overhead. This loading factor is added to the benefits loading factor, then applied to the base wage. The new wage rates are calculated using current data on salaries and benefits for these three labor categories. The fully loaded 2004 hourly wage rates are shown in Table 4.

11 USEPA/ OEI, Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program, June 10, 2002. The wage rates used in this supporting statement have been updated to 2004 dollars. October, 2005 79 Table 4 Loaded Hourly Wage Rates by Labor Category 2004 Labor Category Average Hourly Wage Benefit (% wages) Overhead (% wages) Loaded Hourly Rate Managerial $ 33.61 40.85% 17% $ 53.05 Technical $ 28.52 40.06% 17% $ 44.79 Clerical $ 14.70 43.68% 17% $ 23.62 Average costs are summarized by activity in Table 5 and per facility in Table 6. The average cost per facility for those completing only compliance determination is $ 187. Based on the burden hour estimates in Table 1 and the loaded hourly rates in Table 4, the average subsequent year cost for a facility performing compliance determination and submitting 3 PBT forms is $ 7,251. The average subsequent year cost for a facility submitting 3 Non PBT forms is $ 4,229. For facilities that must also comply with supplier notification, the average subsequent year cost increases to $ 7,966 for PBT reports and $ 4,944 for Non PBT reports.

Table 5 Average Annual Cost Estimate by Activity Category Activity Management Technical Clerical Total Cost Compliance Determination  all facilities $ 53 $ 134 $ 0 $ 187 Rule Familiarization  first time filers $ 637 $ 1,008 $ 0 $ 1,644 Facility Level Supplier Notification $ 0 $ 314 $ 402 $ 715 Calculations and Report Completion  firsttime filers  PBTs $ 1,076 $ 1,965 $ 63 $ 3,104 Calculations and Report Completion  firsttime filers Non PBTs $ 1,088 $ 1,986 $ 66 $ 3,140 Calculations and Report Completion  subsequent year filers  PBTs $ 748 $ 1,360 $ 44 $ 2,152 Calculations and Report Completion  subsequent year filers  Non PBTs $ 400 $ 720 $ 24 $ 1,144 Per Form R Recordkeeping/ Submission  all filers $ 0 $ 179 $ 24 $ 203 October, 2005 80 Table 6 Average Annual Cost Estimate per Facility in Each Subsequent Year Type of Facility Management Technical Clerical Total Cost Compliance Determination Only $ 53 $ 134 $ 0 $ 187 Compliance Determination and 3 Form Rs  PBTs $ 2,297 $ 4,752 $ 202 $ 7,251 Compliance Determination and 3 Form Rs  Non PBTs $ 1,254 $ 2,832 $ 143 $ 4,229 Compliance Determination, 3 Form Rs and Supplier Notification  PBTs $ 2,297 $ 5,066 $ 604 $ 7,966 Compliance Determination, 3 Form Rs and Supplier Notification  Non PBTs $ 1,254 $ 3,145 $ 545 $ 4,944 Petitions The primary cost to respondents for developing and submitting petitions under Section 313( e) will be the labor costs associated with the activities outlined in Section 6( a) of this document. These costs are the product of the labor hours expended to prepare the average petition, the wage rates for the employees involved in preparing the petitions, and the average number of petitions submitted annually. Based on the burden hour estimates in Table 3 and the loaded hourly rates in Table 4, the cost estimate for the preparation of a petition is presented in Table 7.

Table 7 Average Cost per Petition Activity Management Technical Clerical Total Cost 1. Read EPA Policy and Guidance $ 212 $ 0 $ 0 $ 212 2. Plan Activities $ 106 $ 45 $ 0 $ 151 3. Prepare Literature Search $ 106 $ 314 $ 0 $ 420 4. Conduct Literature Search $ 0 $ 2,150 $ 0 $ 2,150 5. Process, Review, and Focus Information $ 637 $ 3,314 $ 0 $ 3,951 6. Write Petition $ 212 $ 358 $ 142 $ 712 7. Review and Edit petition $ 212 $ 358 $ 47 $ 618 8. Submit to EPA and File $ 0 $ 0 $ 71 $ 71 Total Cost per Petition $ 1,485 $ 6,539 $ 260 $ 8,285 October, 2005 81 Based upon prior years of implementation of EPCRA Section 313, it is assumed that fewer than 5 petitions will continue to be submitted annually ( in recent years, only 1 or 2 petitions have been submitted each year). The total average unit cost to prepare a petition is estimated to be $ 8,285.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost This section estimates the burden and costs to EPA to process Form R reports based on information characterizing the resources used in previous years. Burden and costs are incurred by EPA for five categories of activities: data processing, outreach and training, information dissemination, policy and petitions, and compliance and enforcement. These activities are described in detail in Table 8.

Table 8 EPA Activities for Form R Category Description Data Processing Data entry   entering the information into the database, microfilming or microfiching the reports, and filing all reports;

Data quality   reviewing reports for completeness, errors, and inconsistencies; making inquiries to resolve discrepancies; and reentering corrected data;

Magnetic media support   distributing computer program for electronic submissions; creation and updating of intelligent reporting software;

Programming and operating the EPA mainframe and local area network;

Data analysis   developing tools to use TRI data, analyzing data to support EPA needs, and preparing data for use by others; and EPCRA Reporting Center fixed costs   rent and form storage.

Outreach and Training Providing EPCRA technical hotline, technical guidance, industry outreach, and regional, state, and public training; and Responding to requests for information through TRI User Support.

Information Dissemination Public data release, Internet, data access tools.

Policy and Petitions Analysis to support petitions, list revisions, trade secret claims, and rulemakings.

Compliance and Enforcement Technical assistance, compliance outreach, facility inspections, issuance of cases and creation of Supplemental Environmental Projects ( SEPs). October, 2005 82 To estimate EPA burden and cost, EPA employees ( as measured by full time equivalents, or FTEs) and extramural costs are separated into a fixed component and a variable component. Activities and expenses that are not greatly affected by marginal changes in numbers of reports are treated as fixed. These include rent for the EPCRA reporting center, development costs for data access tools, compliance assistance measures, and other activities and expenses. The variable component is the amount that varies depending on the number of forms. The variable component reflects total extramural data processing costs divided by the total number of reports processed in the 2003 reporting year. $ 0.8 million in fixed costs and 26.3 FTEs are required to conduct the EPA activities described above plus an additional $ 35 in variable costs for each form processed.

As discussed in the following section, approximately 82,000 Form R reports are expected to be filed per year. Thus, the total annual burden to EPA is estimated to be $ 2.88 million in variable costs, along with the $ 0.8 million in fixed costs and 26.3 FTEs ( or 55,000 hours at $ 3.2 million in loaded labor costs). The analysis assumes that half of the fixed FTE requirement is met by EPA employees at the general pay scale grade GS 12, step 5 ( at a loaded salary of $ 99,776) and half by employees at grade GS 13, step 5 ( at a loaded salary of $ 118,651), using a loading factor of 1.4 that includes wages and benefits but not overhead which is included in the fixed costs portion of the Agency burden estimate.

6( d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Estimated Total Annual Burden for All Respondents This section presents the total annual burden hours for all respondents including both those complying with Section 313 and submitting petitions. The total burden hours for all respondents to comply with Section 313 is estimated by multiplying the unit burden estimate for each compliance activity by the relevant units: facilities or reports. It is estimated that 201,785 facilities must determine compliance each year, of which approximately 22,000 facilities are expected to also perform the report completion and recordkeeping activities for 82,000 Form Rs. 12 As a result, 179,785 facilities are estimated to complete only the compliance determination procedure. An additional 22,000 facilities are expected to complete compliance determination, form completion and recordkeeping, and of these, 3,734 facilities are expected to also conduct supplier notification. Of the 22,000 facilities that file Form Rs, it is expected that 1,031 facilities will be reporting to TRI for the first time as they exceed applicable thresholds, and that these 12 The Bureau of Census's County Business Patterns  1997 indicates that there are 191,745 facilities with 10 or more employees in SIC codes 20 to 39. There are an additional 10,040 facilities in the seven non manufacturing industries that are estimated to perform compliance determination, for a total of 201,785 facilities performing compliance determination. For the 2002 reporting year, 21,941 facilities submitted 81,429 Form Rs. The number of facilities and forms has been rounded up to the nearest thousand for this ICR. October, 2005 83 facilities will file 1,629 of the Form Rs. 13 Table 9 presents the total annual burden hours based on these estimates.

Table 9 Total Annual Burden Hour Estimate For Form R Activity Hours Number of Facilities Number of Reports Total Burden Compliance Determination  all facilities subject to EPCRA 313 4 201,785 N/ A 807,140 Rule Familiarization  first time filers only 34.5 1,031 N/ A 35,570 Form R Completion  reports from first time filers  PBTs 66.8 N/ A 311 20,779 Form R Completion  reports from first time filers  Non PBTs 67.6 N/ A 1,318 89,144 Form R Completion  reports from subsequent year filers  PBTs 46.3 N/ A 15,232 705,477 Form R Completion  reports from subsequent year filers  Non PBTs 24.6 N/ A 64,568 1,590,794 Recordkeeping/ Submission  all reports 5 N/ A 81,429 407,145 Supplier Notification 24 3,734 N/ A 89,616 Total 3,745,665 The annual hours burden for all petitions is calculated by multiplying the per petition burden estimate for each activity by the expected number of petitions per year. A total of 5 petitions are estimated to be filed annually. Table 10 presents the total annual hours burden for all petitions. The total annual hours burden for all petitions submitted is expected to be 925 hours.

13 Between RY1994 and RY2001, there have been three reporting years with no major programmatic changes. Based on reporting for 1996, 1997, and 1999 the average rate of facilities that file using new TRI Facility IDs is 4.7%. These facilities filed an average of 2% of the Form Rs. For the purposes of this ICR, these facilities represent " first time filers." October, 2005 84 Table 10 Total Annual Burden Hour Estimate For All Petitions ( 5 petitions per year)

Annual Hours Burden Activity Management Technical Clerical Total Hours 1. Read EPA Policy and Guidance 20 0 0 20 2. Plan Activities 10 5 0 15 3. Prepare Literature Search 10 35 0 45 4. Conduct Literature Search 0 240 0 240 5. Process, Review, and Focus Information 60 370 0 430 6. Write Petition 20 40 30 90 7. Review and Edit petition 20 40 10 70 8. Submit to EPA and File 0 0 15 15 Total Annual Hours Burden 140 730 55 925 Estimated Total Annual Cost for All Respondents The total annual reporting cost for all respondent facilities is determined by multiplying the unit cost estimates by the relevant units ( facilities or reports) for each compliance activity. Table 11 presents the annual reporting cost for Form R. October, 2005 85 Table 11 Total Annual Cost Estimate For Form R ( 2004 dollars)

Activity Cost Number of Facilities Number of Reports Total Cost Compliance Determination  all facilities subject to EPCRA 313 $ 187.42 201,785 N/ A $ 37,818,545 Rule Familiarization  first time filers $ 1,644.38 1,031 N/ A $ 1,695,351 Form R Completion  reports from firsttime filers  PBTs $ 3,103.82 N/ A 311 $ 965,102 Form R Completion  reports from firsttime filers  Non PBTs $ 3,139.76 N/ A 1,318 $ 4,138,389 Form R Completion  reports from subsequent year filers  PBTs $ 2,151.72 N/ A 15,232 $ 32,775,139 Form R Completion  reports from subsequent year filers  Non PBTs $ 1,144.29 N/ A 64,568 $ 73,884,580 Recordkeeping/ Submission  all reports $ 202.78 N/ A 81,429 $ 16,512,173 Supplier Notification $ 715.07 3,734 N/ A $ 2,670,071 Annual Total $ 170,459,349 The annual cost for all petitions is calculated by multiplying the per petition cost for each activity by the expected number of petitions per year. A total of 5 petitions are assumed to be filed annually. The total annual cost for all petitions submitted is shown in Table 12. October, 2005 86 Table 12 Total Annual Cost Estimate for All Petitions ( 2004 dollars)

Activity Management Technical Clerical Total Cost 1. Read EPA Policy and Guidance $ 1,061 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,061 2. Plan Activities $ 531 $ 224 $ 0 $ 754 3. Prepare Literature Search $ 531 $ 1,568 $ 0 $ 2,098 4. Conduct Literature Search $ 0 $ 10,750 $ 0 $ 10,750 5. Process, Review, and Focus Information $ 3,183 $ 16,572 $ 0 $ 19,755 6. Write Petition $ 1,061 $ 1,792 $ 709 $ 3,561 7. Review and Edit petition $ 1,061 $ 1,792 $ 236 $ 3,089 8. Submit to EPA and File $ 0 $ 0 $ 354 $ 354 Total Cost per Petition $ 7,427 $ 32,697 $ 1,299 $ 41,423 The previous tables have detailed the total burden and cost for complying with Section 313 and for submitting a petition independently. Table 13 presents the total burden and cost for both activities.

Table 13 Total Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Activity Annual Burden Hours Annual Costs ( millions of 2004 dollars)

Form Rs 3,745,665 $ 170.46 Petitions 925 $ 0.04 Total 3,746,590 $ 170.50 6( e) Reasons for Change in Burden As a result of OMB's October, 2003 approval of the last ICR renewal, OMB's inventory reflects 84,000 responses and 3,888,752 hours for this information collection. This ICR supporting statement is for 82,000 responses and 3,746,590 hours. The reduction in the estimate of total burden of approximately 142 thousand hours is due to 1) the fact that approximately 2,000 fewer forms were filed in RY2002 than in RY2001 and 2) Form R has been modified to eliminate certain data elements and to simplify others. Table 14 summarizes the major program changes and adjustments that have been made over the last several years. October, 2005 87 TABLE 14 Recent Changes in TRI Form R Burden TRI Form R ICR ( EPA # 1363, OMB # 2070 0093)

Change Total Activity  Explanation # Responses Burden Hours Total Responses Total Burden Hours 1997 Baseline     90,362 5,538,727 1997 Program Change  Industry Expansion: This rule added 7 new industries to the list of industries subject to TRI reporting beginning in RY98. 39,033 2,467,463 129,395 8,006,190 1999 Adjustment  Form R Correction Worksheet: This adjustment revised the number of responses to be more consistent with actual reporting levels.

However, it did not correct for overestimation of expected reporting from the Industry Expansion rule. ( 13,226) ( 665,666) 116,169 7,340,524 1999 Program Change  PBT Rule: This rule lowered reporting thresholds for certain PBT chemicals, and added other PBT chemicals at lower thresholds beginning in RY00. 19,990 1,485,411 136,159 8,825,935 2000 Program Change  Lead Rule: This rule lowered reporting thresholds for lead and lead compounds beginning in RY01. 9,813 786,169 145,972 9,612,104 January 2003 Form R ICR Renewal: This request incorporated accounting adjustments to reflect actual number of responses. ( 57,855) ( 4,045,540) 88,117 5,566,564 October 2003 Form R ICR Renewal: This request reflects actual number of responses and accounts for a lower subsequent year reporting burden for non

PBT chemicals. ( 4,117) ( 1,677,812) 84,000 3,888,752 May 2005 Form R ICR Renewal: This request reflects actual number of responses. ( 2,000) ( 91,413) 82,000 3,797,339 2005 Program Change  TRI Reporting Forms Modification Rule: This rule eliminates certain data elements and simplifies others beginning in RY2005.   ( 50,749) 82,000 3,746,590 CURRENT TOTALS     82,000 3,746,590 October, 2005 88 6( f) Burden Statement ( To appear on Collection Instrument)

The annual public burden related to the Form R for form completion and recordkeeping, which is approved under OMB Control No. 2070 0093, is estimated to average 51.3 hours per response for PBT chemicals and 29.6 for Non PBT chemicals. There is additional burden associated with rule familiarization, compliance determination and supplier notification as described in Table 9.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OEI 2004 0006, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. OEI 2004 0006 and OMB control number 2070 0093 in any correspondence.

The completed forms should be submitted in accordance with the instructions accompanying the form, or as specified in the corresponding regulation. October, 2005 89 REFERENCES Certain references cited are available in EPA docket # OPPTS 400104; other references are readily available.

Arbuckle, J. Gordon, et al., 1993. Environmental Law Handbook, Twelfth Edition. Government Institutes, Inc., Rockland MD.

Bureau of National Affairs, 1995. " State Pollution Prevention Laws & Programs and Document Submissions Chart."

Burke, Lauretta M., 1993. Environmental Equity in Los Angeles ( Santa Barbara: University of California Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, July).

California Air Resources Board, Technical Support Division, 1993. Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Regulation Pursuant to the Air Toxics " Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987 ( as amended June 1990, September 1990, June 1991, and June 1993).

California Air Resources Board, undated. " Overview of the Air Toxics ` Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act."

Chikkala, John, 1995. Minnesota Department of Public Safety Emergency Response Commission. Conversation with Abt Associates. November 13.

Chines, Peter ( 1994). Investor Responsibility Research Center, Inc. Letter to Samuel Sasnett, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, April 21, 1994; and attachment, " How to Read IRRC's Corporate Environmental Profiles," pp. 18 19.

Citizens Fund, 1993. Poisons in Our Neighborhoods: Toxic Pollution in the United States ( Washington, DC: Citizens Fund, November).

Citizens Fund, 1992. Manufacturing Pollution ( Washington, DC: Citizens Fund, August).

Cummens, Pat, 1993. Untitled presentation, in Proceedings: Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) Data Use Conference ( Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, July).

Doer, Lisa, 1995. " How TRI Can Drive Pollution Prevention," in Proceedings: Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) Data Use Conference: Building TRI and Pollution Prevention Partnerships ( Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, March). October, 2005 90 Donaghue, Bob, 1995. " Prioritizing Pollution Prevention Assistance Needs Using the 1992 Toxic Release Inventory," in Proceedings: Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) Data Use Conference: Building TRI and Pollution Prevention Partnerships ( Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, March).

Dunst, Russ, 1995. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Conversation with Abt Associates. November 14.

Goodenow, Dennis California Air Resources Board ( CARB), 1995. Personal communication with Abt Associates, August 29, 1995.

Great Lakes Information Network, 1996. " Regional Air Pollutant Inventory Development System," Information from Great Lakes Information Network World Wide Web site: http:// www. glc. org/ projects/ air/ rapids/ rapids. html http:// www. glc. org Greene, Terry, 1995. " JSI Community Outreach Project," in Proceedings: Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) Data Use Conference: Building TRI and Pollution Prevention Partnerships ( Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, March).

Hartmann, Carolyn, 1993. Troubled Waters: Major Sources of Toxic Water Pollution ( Washington, DC: U. S. Public Interest Research Group, June).

Hausman, Rick, 1993. " Environmental Investing: Dollars and Change," Online: The RTK NET Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 2 ( Fall).

Herring, Jeff, OAQPS, 1995. Personal communication with Abt Associates, August 21, 1995.

ICF Incorporated, 1996. Fax transmission from Maravene Edelstein to John Ferris dated 5/ 8/ 96, with table containing information of Tier II ( EPCRA Section 312) data availability by state.

ICF Incorporated, 1993. Data Gaps and Redundancies in Pollution Prevention Reporting; A Compendium of Memoranda. Prepared for U. S. EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxics, Pollution Prevention Division.

Kleeman, Jane, AFS Emissions Coordinator, 1995 Personal communication with Abt Associates, September 5, 1995.

Kolwey, Neil and Margery Lynch, 1994. Pollution Prevention Priorities: A Study of Priorities for Pollution Prevention Activities in Colorado ( Colorado Pollution Prevention Advisory Board, May). October, 2005 91 MacLean, Alair and Paul Orum, 1992. Progress Report: Community Right to Know ( Washington, DC: OMB Watch and Working Group on Community Right to Know, July).

MacLean, Alair and Rich Puchalsky, 1994. Where the Wastes Are: Highlights from the Records of the More Than 5,000 Facilities that Receive Transfers of TRI Chemicals ( Washington, DC: OMB Watch and Unison Institute, April).

Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute, 1994. Toxics Use Reduction: Fact Sheet 1. Lowell, MA: University of Massachusetts Lowell. February.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 1993. An Overview of the Toxics Use Reduction Act. Prepared by Manik Roy. February.

McLure, Pam, 1994. " Georgia on My Mind", Online: The RTK NET Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 1 ( Summer).

Memorandum from J. Karnes to Brian Muehling ( EPA/ OTS) on Updating of Unit Labor Costs to Reflect Inflation and Industry Comments for CAIR, Centaur Associates Inc. May 28, 1987.

National Conference of State Legislatures ( NCSL), 1995. " 1995 State TRI Program Assessment."

" Notes from the Field: Students Use SARA Title III Data to Conduct Local Toxic Waste Audits," Hazardous Materials Dialogue, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1992.

Orum, Paul and Beth Wohlberg, 1994. " Reports Using Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) Data," Working Notes on Community Right to Know, July August.

Pope, Anne, OAQPS, 1995. Personal communication with Abt Associates, September 6, 1995.

Quinn, Bill. 1995. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Conversation with Abt Associates. November 14.

Radian Corporation, 1993. Volatile Organic Compound ( VOC)/ Particulate Matter ( PM) Speciation Data System ( SPECIATE) User's Manual Version 1.5 Final Report, February 1993.

Ratza, Carol, Great Lakes Information Network ( GLIN) Director, 1995. Email communication with Abt Associates, August 30, 1995.

Recer, Gregg, and Thomas Johnson, 1995. " Risk Screening in New York State Using Toxic Release Inventory Data," in Proceedings: Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) Data Use Conference: Building TRI and Pollution Prevention Partnerships ( Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, March). October, 2005 92 Rice, Faye, 1993. " Who Scores Best on the Environment," Fortune, Vol. 128, No. 2 ( July 26, 1993).

Rubin, Steve, Data Management Branch OECA, 1995. Personal communication with Abt Associates, November 3, 1995.

Seitz, John S., Director OAQPS, 1995. Memorandum: " Title V Permitting for Non major Sources in Recent Section 112 Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) Standards," May 16, 1995.

Settina, Nita and Paul Orum, 1991. Making the Difference, Part II: More Uses of Right to Know in the Fight Against Toxics ( Washington, DC: Center for Policy Alternatives and Working Group on Community Right to Know, October).

Smith, Ted, 1992. Untitled presentation, in Proceedings: Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) Data Use and Pollution Prevention Conference ( Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, June).

Southerland, Jim, OAQPS, 1995. Personal communication with Abt Associates, August 29, 1995.

Swanson, Joanna, OAQPS, 1995. Personal communication with Abt Associates, August 21, 1995.

Templet, Paul H., 1993. " The Emissions to Jobs Ratio," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 27, No. 5 ( May).

Texas Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, 1993. Toxics in Texas and their Impact on Communities of Color ( Austin, TX: Texas Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, March).

Tryens, Jeffrey, Richard Schrader, and Paul Orum, undated. Making the Difference: Using the Right to Know in the Fight Against Toxics ( Washington, DC: Center for Policy Alternatives and Working Group on Community Right to Know).

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. County Business Patterns  1997. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1999.

U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation   March 1997. U. S. Department of Labor, Washington, D. C. 1997.

U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. USDL News Release: 97 371, Table 11, U. S. Department of Labor, Washington D. C., October 21, 1997. October, 2005 93 U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index   March 1998. U. S. Department of Labor, Washington D. C. 1998.

U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. USDL News Release 98 170, Table 6. U. S. Department of Labor, Washington D. C., April 30, 1998.

U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Compensation Survey, National Summary 1996. U. S. Department of Labor, Washington, D. C., 1996.

U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Compensation Survey, National Summary 1996 ( 1998). U. S. Department of Labor, Washington, D. C., March. Bulletin 2497, Tables A 1, D 1 and D 3, 1998.

U. S. EPA, 1991. 1991 Hazardous Waste Report: Instructions and Forms. EPA Form 8700 13A/ B ( 5 80) revised 8 91.

U. S. EPA, 1993. " Proceedings: Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) Data Use Conference." July 1993.

U. S. EPA, 1993b. State Directory: 33/ 50 and Voluntary Pollution Prevention Programs, 1993. ( Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, October).

U. S. EPA, 1994. " National Analysis: The Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report ( Based on 1991 Data)." September 1994.

U. S. EPA, 1995a. Information from the AIRS AFS Home Page on the U. S. EPA World Wide Web site: ( http:// www. epa. gov/ docs/ airs/ afs. html).

U. S. EPA, 1995b. " Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources," Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS), January 1995.

U. S. EPA, 1995c. " White Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit Applications," Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS), July 10, 1995.

U. S. EPA, 1995d. " Report to President Clinton: Expansion of Community Right to Know Reporting to Include Chemical Use Data: Phase III of the Toxics Release Inventory."

U. S. EPA, 1995e. " User's Guide to Federal Accidental Release Databases," Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, September 1995.

U. S. EPA, 1995f. Information from the ENVIROFACTS database on the U. S. EPA World Wide Web site http:// intranet. epa. gov/ enviro/ html/ tris/ tris_ query. html. October, 2005 94 U. S. EPA, 1999g. " 1997 Toxics Release Inventory Public Data Release: State Fact Sheets, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, EPA 745 F 99 001, March 1995.

U. S. EPA 1995h. " An Overview of the Toxics Release Inventory Data in the U. S.," Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, June, 1995.

U. S. EPA, 1996. SPEC. TXT, document on CHIEF ( Clearing House for Inventories and Emissions Factors) BBS on the Technology Transfer Network ( TTN) BBS. Dialup ( 919 541 5742) or ftp ( ttnftp. rtpnc. epa. gov).

U. S. EPA, 1999. " Economic Analysis of the Final Rule to Modify Reporting of Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals Under EPCRA Section 313". Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. October 1999. Wakefield, Mary Jean, AFS Helpline 1 800 367 1044, 1995. Conversation with Abt Associates. November 28, 1995.

U. S. EPA, . Toxic Release Inventory Chemicals Reported to Non TRI Databases. U. S. EPA World Wide Web site http:// www. epa. gov/ tri/ chemical/ index. htm.

U. S. EPA, 1986. Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986, Section 313 ( 42 U. S. C. A. Section 1023. U. S. EPA World Wide Web site http:// www. epa. gov/ tri/ lawsandregs/ index. htm.

U. S. EPA, 1990. Pollution Prevention Act ( 42 U. S. C. A. Sections 13101 13109. U. S. EPA World Wide Web site http:// www. epa. gov/ tri/ lawsandregs/ index. htm.

U. S. EPA, . 40 CFR Part 372 Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Community Right to Know. U. S. EPA World Wide Web site http:// www. epa. gov/ tri/ lawsandregs/ index. htm.