April, 2005 TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE INVENTORY TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE REPORTING INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT OMB CONTROL NO. 2070 0093 EPA ICR # 1363.14 April, 2005 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1( a) Title of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1( b) Short Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2( b) Use/ Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4( a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4( b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . 35 5( a) Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5( b) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 5( c) Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5( d) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5( e) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 April, 2005 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 6( d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 6( e) Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 6( f) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 April, 2005 3 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection TITLE: Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, Recordkeeping, Supplier Notification and Petitions under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act EPA ICR No.: 1363.14 OMB Control No.:

1( b) Short Characterization This Information Collection Request ( ICR) is for the information collection requirements for toxic chemical release reporting under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Rightto Know Act ( EPCRA) ( 42 U. S. C. 11001 et seq.) and the information collection in section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act ( PPA) ( 42 U. S. C. 11071 to 11079). In short, EPCRA § 313 requires certain owners or operators of certain facilities ( i. e., currently manufacturing facilities in Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes 20 through 39, and facilities in SIC codes 10 ( except 1011, 1081, and 1094), 12 ( except 1241), 4911, 4931, 4939 ( limited to facilities that combust coal and / or oil for the purpose of generating power, 4953 ( limited to facilities regulated under the Resources Conservation Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U. S. C. section 6921 et. seq.), 5169, 5171, 7389 ( limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis) manufacturing, processing, or otherwise using any of over 600 listed toxic chemicals and chemical categories ( hereafter " toxic chemicals") in excess of the applicable threshold quantities to report on their environmental releases and transfers of and waste management activities for such chemicals annually. Under section 6607 of the PPA, facilities must provide information on the quantities of the toxic chemicals in waste streams and the efforts made to reduce or eliminate those quantities.

Currently, facilities subject to the Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) reporting requirements may either use the EPA Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Form R ( EPA Form # 9350 1), or the EPA Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Form A Certification Statement ( EPA Form # 9350 2), which is approved under OMB Number 2070 0093. The Form R must be completed if a facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses any listed chemical above threshold quantities. For the Form A Certification Statement, EPA established an alternate threshold for those facilities with low annual reportable amounts of a listed toxic chemical. A facility that meets the appropriate reporting thresholds, but estimates that the total annual reportable amount of the chemical does not exceed 500 pounds per year, can take advantage of an alternate manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1 million pounds per year for that chemical, provided that April, 2005 4 certain conditions are met, and submit the Form A Certification Statement instead of the Form R. Facilities may submit information on multiple chemicals on a single Form A Certification Statement.

Pursuant to EPCRA section 313 ( and PPA section 6607 because of its linkage to EPCRA), EPA's Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) collects, processes, and makes available to the public all of the information collected. The information gathered under these authorities is stored in a database maintained at EPA and is available through the Internet. The TRI is used extensively by EPA, other federal, state and local government agencies, industry, and the public. Program offices within EPA and other government agencies have used the TRI, along with other sources of data, to establish priorities, evaluate potential exposure scenarios, and for enforcement activities. Industries use TRI data to identify pollution prevention opportunities, and set goals for emissions reductions. Environmental and public interest groups use TRI data to make the public more aware of releases of chemicals in their communities, and to initiate direct negotiation and risk reduction with facilities.

EPA has developed EPA Information Quality Guidelines to ensure the utility, objectivity and integrity of information that is disseminated by the Agency. The information supporting this ICR is consistent with all appropriate EPA policies, including EPA's Information Quality Guidelines. In particular, the EPA Agency wide Quality System helps ensure that EPA organizations maximize the quality of information disseminated by the Agency. The Quality System is documented in EPA Order 5360.1 A2, Policy and Program Requirements for the Mandatory Agency wide Quality System and the EPA Quality Manual for Environmental Programs 5360 A1, May 2000. The information supporting this action is also consistent with EPA's Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, revised 2/ 99. It is EPA's intention that collection of information under this ICR will result in information that will be collected, maintained, and used in ways consistent with both EPA's Information Quality Guidelines and the OMB Information Quality Guidelines.

With TRI, and the real gains in understanding it has produced, communities and governments know what listed toxic chemicals many industrial facilities in their area release, transfer, or otherwise manage as waste. In addition, industries have an additional tool for evaluating efficiency and progress on their pollution prevention goals.

OMB last approved this Information Collection request on October 31, 2003 with an expiration date of January 31, 2006. April, 2005 5 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection This information collection activity is a statutory requirement pursuant to sections 313 of EPCRA ( 42 U. S. C. 11001 et seq.) and section 6607 of the PPA ( 42 U. S. C. 11071 to 11079). According to EPCRA section 313( h), the data submitted in the forms are intended to " inform persons about releases of toxic chemicals to the environment; to assist governmental agencies, researchers, and other persons in the conduct of research and data gathering; to aid in the development of appropriate regulations, guidelines, and standards; and for other similar purposes."

Section 6602 of the PPA establishes a national policy that pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible. To further this goal, EPA is to establish a source reduction program which, among other responsibilities, is to collect and disseminate information. The information collected under section 6607 is intended to fulfill that responsibility in part and to provide a basis for measuring progress in pollution prevention in certain industrial groups.

Annual reporting under EPCRA section 313 of toxic chemical releases and other waste management information provides citizens with a more complete picture of the total disposition of chemicals in their communities and helps focus industries' attention on pollution prevention and source reduction opportunities. EPA believes that the public has a right to know about the disposition of chemicals within communities and the management of such chemicals by facilities in covered industries subject to EPCRA section 313 reporting.

Current TRI reporting has been successful in providing communities with important information regarding the disposition of toxic chemicals, and other waste management information on toxic chemicals from manufacturing facilities in their communities.

The information collected under EPCRA section 313, and subsequently distributed through EPA outreach and awareness programs, is provided at relatively low cost compared to the value it represents to the general public. Through mass mailings to all facilities within the manufacturing sector of the economy, work with a wide variety of trade associations representing covered industries, local and national seminars, training courses, and enforcement activities, EPA has endeavored to locate all facilities required to report under section 313 of EPCRA and inform them of their obligations. In addition, EPA has prepared various tools to assist facilities in complying with EPCRA. These materials include detailed reporting instructions, a questions and answer document, magnetic media reporting instructions, general technical guidance, and 24 industry and chemical specific guidance documents. In addition, EPA maintains a toll free hotline to answer regulatory and technical questions to assist facilities in preparing TRI reports.

Furthermore, TRI reporting does not require a rigid, one size fits all approach to estimating and reporting release information. EPA believes the submitters of the TRI data are best informed to April, 2005 6 honestly and accurately report information, within certain parameters provided by EPA. The Agency believes in the good intent of the reporters to use the most appropriate means to accurately estimate the release information. EPA does, however, also invest in enforcement and compliance efforts to insure that reporting is being done consistently and thoroughly by regulated industries.

2( b) Use/ Users of the Data According to many, the TRI program is one of the most effective environmental programs ever legislated by Congress and administered by EPA. Its success is due, in large part, to the right toknow provisions contained in the legislation itself. By requiring that the resulting data be made publicly available " by electronic and other means," Congress ensured that citizens, the media, environmental advocates, researchers, the business community, and others could influence and evaluate industry's efforts to manage toxic emissions. Consequently, data collected under EPCRA section 313 and section 6607 of the PPA is made available through EPA's Envirofacts and TRI Explorer databases. In addition, the public may also obtain TRI information through OMB Watch's Right to Know Network ( RTK NET) at http:// www. rtk. net. RTK NET provide free public access to numerous databases, text files and conferences on the environment, housing, and sustainable development.

In addition to providing information to the public via electronic means, EPA also conducts outreach activities to make key groups and the public aware of TRI. Journalists, educators, public interest, labor, and environmental groups, trade associations, and state governments continue to be key targets in these outreach efforts. In addition, libraries in communities all across the U. S. ( in particular, members of the Federal Depository Library Program), are committed to providing public access to TRI data in a variety of formats. Educators are also using the data to conduct studies and courses on the environment. Labor unions are using the TRI data to improve conditions for workers. Businesses are using the data in many ways  as a basis for reducing emissions, to cut costs, to improve operations, and for a variety of other reasons. Concerned citizens are a growing user group. These individuals, on their own and through organized groups, are using TRI to address concerns about the management and release of chemicals in their communities. Finally, states use the national data to compare chemical management and releases within industries and to set environmental priorities at the state level.

Because the value of TRI increases as more people use it, EPA encourages these organizations to acquaint new users with TRI, help people who already know about TRI to better use and understand the data, and, whenever possible, provide feedback on how to improve TRI products and services. The following are some examples of how the TRI data are used, both by EPA and others. As examples, the following information is not intended to be all inclusive.

Use Within EPA April, 2005 7 Use of the Data by the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics With the voluntary cooperation of respondent facilities, EPA established the Industrial Toxics Project, also known as the 33/ 50 Program. EPA's 33/ 50 Program targeted 17 priority TRI chemicals for emissions reductions from 1988 reported levels of 33% by 1992 and 50% by 1995. More than 1300 companies nationwide joined the program which provided recognition to participating companies, including Certificates of Appreciation to all companies upon enrollment, as well as Certificates of Environmental Achievement to a select group of facilities that achieved noteworthy reductions. Through collaborative partnerships between government, industry and the public, the program met its goals a year early and went on to exceed expectations by the end of 1995. EPA celebrated the program's success by hosting a national conference in September, 1996 and explored ways of building even more successful partnerships in the future with the use of the TRI data.

The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( OPPT) has completed development of the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators ( RSEI) model which provides comparative information regarding the risk related potential impacts of toxic chemical releases on human health and the environment. This multi media, screening level tool considers TRI release and transfer volumes, toxicity, exposure potential, and the size of receptor populations. Both generic and site specific exposure characteristics are incorporated into the Indicators model. The Indicators may be used for trends analysis, as well as targeting and prioritization of TRI releases by chemical, release medium, industrial sector, individual facilities, geographic area, or a combination of these and other variables.

OPPT's Pollution Prevention Division ( PPD) has used TRI data as a screening tool to prioritize proposed regulations and industrial source categories to promote pollution prevention in rulemaking. As a result, the Pollution Prevention Senior Policy Council identified a number of regulatory development efforts that should consider inclusion of pollution prevention measures.

OPPT uses TRI data to track environmental progress towards annual performance goals as part of GPRA. Specifically, OPPT is using RSEI data to set risk based and pollution prevention performance goals. For example, for FY05, OPPT set a goal of 12% reduction from 2001 in the production adjusted risk based score of releases and transfers of toxic chemicals. Pollution prevention goals were also determined based on TRI releases; for example, one goal for FY04 was a 32% reduction in TRI reported releases at Federal Facilities.

Use of the Data by the Office of Air and Radiation The Office of Air and Radiation ( OAR) has used the TRI data for a variety of tasks related to the implementation of the Clean Air Act ( CAA). Section 112 of the CAA, as amended in 1990, requires EPA to develop Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) standards for major April, 2005 8 sources of 189 hazardous air pollutants, all but 8 of which were on the TRI list of toxic chemicals prior to EPA's expansion of the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals. TRI was used to estimate the number of major sources ( greater than 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year of total toxics) of hazardous air pollutants in each of 700 source categories. This information helped to prioritize the source categories for regulatory development. In addition, the impacts of a potential lower major source definition for 47 highly toxic compounds were analyzed using TRI data.

TRI was used to help identify the 30 hazardous air pollutants to be included in the Urban Area Source Program mandated by Section 112( k) of the CAA. OAR also has used TRI to expand the coverage of the " Locating and Estimating" series of documents, which help State and local air agencies identify potential source categories of air toxics in their communities. Similar data have been incorporated into the Crosswalk database, which identifies which source categories emit which toxic compounds. OAR is developing a series of air quality indicators to track progress in implementing the CAA. Trends in the TRI data are envisioned to be a part of those indicators.

OAR's National Emission Inventory ( NEI) database contains information about sources that emit criteria air pollutants and their precursors, and hazardous air pollutants. Several sources, including TRI, are used to compile information on annual air pollutant emissions from point, nonpoint, and mobile sources. Data from the NEI are used for air dispersion modeling, regional strategy development, regulation setting, air toxics risk assessment, and tracking trends in emissions over time. More information about the NEI database and its sources can be found on EPA's AirData web site, at http:// www. epa. gov/ air/ data/ neidb. html.

Use of the Data in Enforcement Activities Because TRI data include detailed facility identification information, as well as releases to all media and transfers to off site locations, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ( OECA) has found that TRI is particularly well suited to multi media enforcement and compliance planning, priority setting and inspection targeting. The OECA and the Office of Research and Development ( ORD) are developing a " Multi Media Ranking System" to prioritize sites for enforcement actions and to evaluate the effectiveness of environmental laws in reducing risks from sites. The system ranks sites based on their multi media releases of pollutants, their potential risk to human health and the environment, and the history of legal violations by the facility. The system combines TRI data with data from EPA air and water databases. The Office of Regulatory Enforcement ( ORE) within OECA has also used TRI data in their National Enforcement Screening Strategy. Various data were incorporated including measures for risk associated with TRI releases. This strategy screened for large companies with compliance issues with a presence across EPA Regions that could potentially be targeted for enforcement.

OECA cross checks data collected under EPCRA and other environmental statutes to identify those facilities or types of businesses which reported for some but not all of the reporting rules. April, 2005 9 Enforcement personnel are able to identify additional facilities owned by the same corporation or by the same parent company that may be subject to liability, by using TRI data in conjunction with company tracking systems.

OECA also uses TRI data in the Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis ( IDEA) System. IDEA provides integrated data on individual facilities' compliance records for most of the statutes administered by EPA through access to over a dozen separate databases, including the Toxic Release Inventory System ( TRIS). In the near future, RSEI will also be included in IDEA to provide metrics for risk and hazard associated with TRI data. The TRI data aid OECA in developing enforcement initiatives by providing a point of departure for distinguishing between industrial sectors based on their potential for exceeding permits as indicated by the amounts of chemicals reported as managed in waste. OECA provides web access to databases in IDEA through their Online Tracking Information System ( OTIS). OTIS is open to a host of federal and state users who can use the data for targeting, cross media comparisons, and tracking enforcement targets. Users include state environmental agencies, state attorney general offices, other state agencies, local governments, and Federal government departments and agencies ( including the military).

TRI data continue to be extremely helpful in identifying pollution prevention projects. Enforcement staff use data on releases and transfers to identify ( or evaluate) projects that will significantly reduce emissions, or those that will help prevent or minimize the release of extremely hazardous substances under EPCRA section 302.

OECA places a high priority on enhancing the use of TRI data among Regional field personnel. Guidance has been provided to the field offices on the resources available to their inspectors in identifying non reporters, late reporters and data quality errors. These resources provide the inspectors with valuable information extrapolated from the TRI, such as facility reporting rates, processes, and releases. A recent OECA initiative, conducted in conjunction with the Regions, used TRI data to target facilities that submitted late reports to TRI for enforcement.

Use of the Data by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response TRI data assist in priority setting for waste minimization efforts by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response ( OSWER). Many of the 30 priority chemicals OSWER has identified as a focus for its waste minimization efforts are reported to TRI. In combination with other information OSWER collects on waste minimization, TRI data are useful in analyzing long term trends and identifying particular industry practices that warrant attention by the program, serving OSWER pollution prevention goals.

OSWER also uses TRI data to target facilities for recruitment to voluntary waste minimization programs. Facilities are selected from TRI by Region based on their releases of priority chemicals. Each Region then determines particular facilities that may be candidates for waste April, 2005 10 reduction opportunities or for participation in the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities ( NPEP), a voluntary program managed under OSWER. There are about 40 participating facilities which make commitments to reduce wastes and releases of their hazardous chemicals.

With respect to enforcement, TRI data supplement other existing data sources and can be called on to assist in the development of OSWER enforcement priorities. TRI data also are valuable as a means to assist in establishing liability under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ( CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ( RCRA) statutory authorities. TRI data are also used in OSWER's RCRA annual reports. They incorporate TRI data on releases and the nature and scope of recycling, for example, of metal recycling or solvent recycling.

Another site specific function of the TRI database relates to its role in providing emission information that can be used when developing emission inventories for the Superfund site discovery program and when undertaking Superfund preliminary assessments of sites. In the reportable quantity ( RQ) program, TRI data could be used in analyses to support future rulemaking under CERCLA ( e. g., designation of additional hazardous substances). In addition, states use TRI data in conjunction with other data obtained under EPCRA for local accident prevention planning. In conducting facility inspections, TRI data are used to provide a multimedia look at what chemicals are being released. Inspectors use this information to look for discrepancies.

Similar to other offices, OSWER uses TRI data to track progress being made toward EPA goals under GPRA to reduce the quantity of priority chemicals contained in regulated hazardous wastes. Specifically, TRI data are used in an annual Trends Report that discusses the progress being made toward meeting two GPRA goals: 1) a 2008 GPRA goal to reduce priority chemicals in regulated hazardous wastes by 10 percent, using a 2001 baseline, and 2) a 2005 GPRA goal to reduce priority chemicals in hazardous waste by 50 percent, using a 1991 baseline. The Trends Report shows trends concerning the generation and management of the priority chemicals by National, EPA Region, State, and industry sector levels. For example, TRI data indicated that facilities generating a priority chemical in both 1991 and 2001, achieved a 53% reduction in the amount of priority chemicals they generated as RCRA hazardous waste between these years, surpassing the GPRA goal of 50% reduction. TRI data show a declining trend overall in the quantity of the priority chemicals, although there have been some increases year to year. The most recent version of the Trends Report, for 1991 to 2001, can be seen at: www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ minimize/ trends. htm Use of the Data by the Office of Water The Office of Water ( OW) is using the TRI information to support the planning process required under Section 304( m) of the Clean Water Act. As part of that planning process, OW is using the April, 2005 11 TRI data as one way of evaluating the likelihood of risk to humans ( i. e., adverse human health impacts) resulting from exposure to pollutant discharges associated with a source category.

OW has used TRI data for identifying candidates for the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Chemicals were identified that had a dramatic overall increase ( doubling or more) of discharges and releases. These discharges and releases were considered to have direct potential for drinking water contamination and are good candidates for development of regulatory controls.

TRI data were used as a screening mechanism for possible sources of wellhead contamination. Using TRI and other relevant data in a Geographic Information System ( GIS), potential contamination sources have been identified. These sources may affect community ground water systems in the development and implementation of wellhead protection programs. Regions are continuing to coordinate ground water programs using GIS and TRI data as a cross program tool.

OW has also used the TRI data in the development of management plans to identify the sources of toxic discharges into selected estuaries and coastal waters. In addition, the data have been used to identify sources of toxic discharges that may contaminate sediments that are proposed for ocean dumping.

Under the Watershed Protection Approach, the Regions are using TRI data along with other data in assessing loadings to their watersheds. They are identifying multi media sources of toxic discharges to receiving waters.

TRI data serves as an input to watershed analysis software maintained by OW. BASINS ( Better Assessment Science Integrating point and Nonpoint Sources) is a multipurpose environmental analysis system designed for use by regional, state, and local agencies in performing watershed and water quality based studies. The software allows a user to analyze water quality for a selected stream site or throughout an entire watershed. Different point and nonpoint source data are modeled, including the locations of TRI facilities. The BASINS software system includes map layers showing the locations and toxic releases of TRI reporting facilities throughout the U. S.

The Office of Wastewater Management ( OWM) used TRI data to identify industrial users that contributed the greatest amount of toxic pollutants to city sewer systems. Facility names were provided to the Regions for further evaluation.

OW used TRI data to identify which pollutants are released from pesticide manufacturing facilities and the pattern of releases when developing effluent limitations guidelines and standards for an industrial category. While many pollutants and industries that will be addressed by effluent guidelines are currently reported in TRI, the Effluent Guidelines Program screens for a number of pollutants not in listed in the TRI database. April, 2005 12 OW used TRI data and other water emissions data in its National Sediment Contaminant Source Inventory, an evaluation of sources of sediment contamination in the U. S. This project identified point source pollutant discharges that may result in sediment contamination and analyzed these releases based on their potential sediment hazard. Chemical release amounts were weighted by the relative toxicity of a compound to aquatic or human health, as well as relevant fate and transport factors. The study identified chemicals, geographic areas, and industrial categories of greatest concern for sediment contamination.

OW is charged with reviewing and revising the effluent limitations guidelines established under the CWA. Guidelines have been established for 55 major industrial categories. OW identifies changes to guidelines for existing industrial categories, plus new industrial categories, if they pose a large risk from toxic discharges. As part of the review process in 2003 and 2004, OW looked at water releases reported in TRI to help them identify industries with greater risk for potential revision or implementation of effluent limitations. Some industries initially identified include organic and inorganic chemicals; nonferrous metals manufacturing; petroleum refining; petroleum storage; and timber and pulp processing. TRI data were then also used to determine which industries could achieve effluent reductions through a voluntary program rather than new regulation. Use of TRI data was helpful in identifying which industrial sectors' releases were mostly attributed to a small percentage of facilities as the releases for the sector could potentially be reduced if the largest releasers participated in voluntary pollutant reduction programs.

Use of the Data by the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation The Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation ( OPEI) launched the Sector Strategies program in 2003 as an industry EPA partnership to promote improved environmental performance. TRI data were used to measure environmental performance trends for participating industry sectors, for the first annual report released in 2004. TRI data will continue to be used to measure environmental trends in subsequent annual reports. In future years the program may also include RSEI data for each industry sector to incorporate measures of exposure and risk or specific groups of chemicals released/ managed may be used to measure environmental performance trends.

OPEI's Performance Track program rewards facilities that go beyond environmental compliance and make voluntary commitments to improve performance. Rewards include reduced regulatory burden. The program used an analysis of TRI data conducted by the Office of Water in developing water related regulatory incentives for its members. In the process of developing new effluent guidelines for selected industrial sectors, OW evaluated industrial sectors' TRI data to determine sectors where a small percentage of facilities were responsible for the majority of risk related to water discharges. If these facilities could participate in a voluntary environmental program, the sector as a whole may not require new effluent guidelines. For sectors identified by OW, Performance Track determined the top releasers and evaluated if they would be eligible for this voluntary program. If deemed eligible, current Performance Track facilities in these sectors April, 2005 13 would also benefit because they would not be subject to increased regulation. However, the analysis indicated that many of the top releasers in those sectors would probably not be eligible due to their level of compliance with environmental requirements.

Use of the Data by the National Center for Environmental Economics The National Center for Environmental Economics ( NCEE) assists EPA Program Offices, Agency economists, and regulatory policy makers with economic analyses. NCEE also conducts research projects analyzing the relationship between economic factors, environmental health, and pollution control. Some examples of their research work that have used TRI data include:

The Trade Environmental Assessment Model ( TEAM), created by NCEE, is a multimedia model that allows a user to simulate changes in environmental emissions resulting from changes in industrial activity. The model incorporates economic data in addition to multi media pollutant release data. TRI data on indirect dischargers are used as one component of modeling releases to water. The model's output measures the change in chemical emissions, by industry category, county, or chemical.

TRI data were utilized in a project examining compliance with air pollution regulations at U. S. pulp and paper mills. Several plant level characteristics were tested for their relationship to air regulation compliance, including emissions to other media, which was measured in part with TRI data. The study hypothesized that higher emissions to various media may be one factor related to lower compliance with air pollution regulations. Results indicated that TRI air and water discharges ( relative to a facility's shipments) tended not to be correlated with air regulation compliance. Although low correlation was found with environmental emissions, other plant and firm level characteristics are being evaluated, such as facility shipments, age, profitability, and compliance with other regulations.

Economists at NCEE have used TRI data in ongoing environmental justice analyses. In a study of communities in Texas, TRI locational data were used to examine relationships between various socioeconomic factors and siting of facilities. A related study used TRI emissions information to determine if there is a disproportionate burden of risk in different communities. The project incorporates data on pounds released in addition to toxicity weights for the chemicals released to look at the risk factor.

Program evaluation is another topic where NCEE has used TRI data. To assess the effectiveness of voluntary programs, NCEE is evaluating the effect of one such program, the National Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program. The program set emissions reductions goals to be met by 2001, near the programs' end. Some of these goals can be measured using TRI, for example, one goal of the program was to reduce metals air emissions from a 1992 baseline. TRI data will be used to assess the amount of reduction achieved by participating facilities and to determine what April, 2005 14 role the voluntary program played in the reduction in comparison to other factors, by looking at reductions in similar non participating facilities.

Other Government Uses Environmental Solutions Government agencies can take a variety of actions when TRI data reveal an environmental problem in a specific state or region. Some of these actions involve voluntary incentive programs for companies. Although these programs are not binding commitments, they offer good publicity for participating companies. Examples include:

Governor Frank O'Bannon of Indiana announced the Indiana Governor's Toxics Reduction Challenge in 1998. The challenge pledged to " support the state's goal to reduce toxic chemical releases to the air and water from 1995 levels: 50% by December 31, 2000, in large urban areas for carcinogens and persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals; 60% by December 31, 2002 statewide for these chemicals; and, 50% by December 31, 2002, statewide for all toxic chemicals reported in the Toxics Release Inventory." The Challenge also pledged to " energetically help the state reach these goals through efforts emphasizing pollution prevention within your organization and/ or in cooperation with other organizations." As of mid April 2000, 67 companies in Indiana had committed to the Challenge. A list of the companies and an update on their progress is available on the Indiana state website: ( http:// www. in. gov/ idem/). In addition, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management frequently uses TRI data to work with industries and suggest ways to reduce waste at the source, use less toxic alternatives, and identify opportunities to recycle and reuse materials.

The P2 Program of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment used TRI data, in combination with other data about hazardous waste and toxic chemical releases to air and water, to identify the ten industry organizations responsible for the largest quantities of hazardous waste generation or toxic chemical releases in the state. This research served as the basis for establishing priorities for P2 activities and for distribution of technical assistance grants. The report also aided in targeting large companies for participation in the " Governor's P2 Challenge Program" to reduce toxic chemical releases and hazardous waste generation.

Due to the TRI reporting requirements for dioxin, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control became aware of dioxin tainted waste at DuPont's Edge Moor, DE titanium dioxide ( TiO2) plant. Subsequently, DuPont agreed to pay an estimated $ 15 million to remediate dioxin tainted waste at this facility. DuPont discovered that the waste sludge was contaminated with dioxin while the company was preparing to comply with EPA's requirement that dioxin releases be reported under TRI. In addition, DuPont agreed with the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control to spray a 23 acre stretch along the Delaware River with a starch like coating to keep the dioxin from being stirred up by the wind or April, 2005 15 eroding into the river. DuPont used the site to store waste sludge from the Edge Moor plant. The company will also close four sludge lagoons near the plant and plans to cut dioxin formation in half by 2003 and by 90 percent by 2007.

Environmental Targeting Budgets to fund environmental programs and measures often do not increase in proportion to the need for these activities. Environmental targeting initiatives, such as those listed below, help governments and communities prioritize their needs and ensure that their resources are used most efficiently.

The P2 Division in Georgia's Department of Natural Resources used TRI data to identify the technical assistance needs of manufacturing sectors generating chemicals that pose the greatest risk to public health and the environment. The Division prioritized chemicals, examined manufacturing sectors releasing the highest priority chemicals, and identified particular subsectors for further assessment. The Division also conducted in depth manufacturing sector assessments to determine which processes produce which wastes, what multi media waste problems exist, what P2 activities were being undertaken, and what additional opportunities might exist.

The Florida Waste Reduction Assistance Program provides assistance in source reduction and waste minimization to facilities handling TRI chemicals. The Program relies on TRI and other data to target facilities for the Program.

EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ( OECA) uses TRI data within its Online Tracking Information System ( OTIS)  a collection of on line search engines that enables EPA staff, state, local, and tribal governments, and federal agencies to access a wide range of data relating to enforcement and compliance. OTIS is a web application that organizes the information to facilitate cross database analysis. OTIS can be used for many functions, including planning, targeting, analysis, data quality review, and pre inspection review. OTIS was launched for internal Agency use in November 1999. In addition to performing data base analysis, OTIS has three other additional benefits: helps the Regions and States to identify and clean up data errors; provides report information on a cross media basis, leading to improved integration and targeting; provides the basis for a public access site for enforcement and compliance data.

OTIS is currently restricted to registered users from governmental organizations. In 2004, about 340 local, state, and federal organizations were registered. Data on the OTIS site are from OECA's Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis ( IDEA) system, which extracts and integrates information from TRI as well as the following databases: AFS ( Clean Air Act  AIRS Facility Subsystem), PCS ( Clean Water Act  Permit Compliance System), RCRAInfo ( Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System), ICIS ( Integrated Compliance Information System), National Compliance Database ( NCDB), and the 2000 U. S. Census. April, 2005 16 For the purpose of targeting exposure screening for facility employees in certain geographic areas, the U. S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA) and local public health departments used TRI data to identify facilities that release specific chemicals. EPA has provided OSHA with all submitted toxics release inventory data for the 28 facilities that are subject to the OSHA special inspection program. These data provide OSHA inspection teams with valuable information, such as a list of chemicals that are used in significant quantities by each facility. EPA is also provides OSHA with information concerning accidental releases.

Legislation and Regulations TRI data often provide the impetus for legislative action from federal, state, and local governments. For over a decade, TRI data has been used to influence and change environmental standards, regulations, and legislation, as shown below:

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission set limits for 105 pollutants after a public interest organization published a report, using TRI data, on unregulated toxic chemical releases to air in the state.

In response to legislation passed in 1987 to address toxic chemical releases to the air, the Illinois EPA Bureau of Air used TRI data to determine quantities of stack and fugitive air emissions of reported substances to support continued development of regulatory proposals.

Risk Assessment As the connection between toxic chemicals and human health becomes better known, public health officials are looking for ways to assess the levels of risk in their communities. TRI data have been a crucial component in creating tools to address these assessments. Examples follow:

The New York State Department of Health developed a risk screening protocol using TRI air release data and toxicity potency data to produce relative risk scores and rankings for facilities and chemicals within the state. Results suggested the need for a more careful evaluation of health effects resulting from large releases of noncarcinogenic compounds.

Researchers from EPA's Office of Health Research published a study of national and regional differences in county level TRI chemical releases to air according to the ethnicity or race and in conjunction with the household income of these populations. Using the " Population Emissions Index," a population weighted average release for each county, the study found that all minority groups except Native Americans tend to live in counties where levels of TRI chemical releases to air are higher. The data also suggest that household incomes tend to be higher in counties with higher TRI chemical releases to air. April, 2005 17 The EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics's Risk Screening Environmental Indicators ( RSEI) model provides year to year indicators of the potential impacts of TRI chemical releases on human health and the environment. The indicators consider TRI release and transfer volumes, chronic toxicity, exposure potential, and the size of receptor populations. Both generic and sitespecific exposure characteristics can be incorporated in the model. The model allows the targeting and prioritization of chemicals, industries and geographic areas. Facility scores can also be tracked from year to year to analyze trends.

TRI is offered as 1 of 9 toxicology and hazardous chemical related databases accessible through the National Library of Medicine's TOXNET Web site. TRI data can be searched by chemical, year, facility name, geographic location, type and amount of releases. Results display facility specific information, including facility releases and management. Other databases offered include: Hazardous Substances Data Bank ( HSDB), Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS), International Toxicity Estimates for Risk ( ITER), Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Information ( CCRIS), and Genetic Toxicology ( GENE TOX), as well as literature databases for toxicity related research articles. TOXNET users cited preparation of risk assessment, improved understanding of environmental/ occupational health concerns, and use in regulatory activities as some of the top uses of their searches. The TRI TOXNET search web site is available at: http:// toxnet. nlm. nih. gov/ cgi bin/ sis/ htmlgen? TRI.

Quality Assurance and Control Some states, such as Massachusetts, that require separate reporting of toxic chemical releases for their facilities, find TRI data to be a useful measure of quality assurance and control. The Air Pollution Control Program in the Missouri Department of Natural Resources also compares fugitive and stack emissions reported to the TRI with toxic chemical release data reported on the state's Emissions Inventory Questionnaire for quality control.

Other Government Uses Additional governmental uses of TRI data can be found in agencies not immediately associated with environmental issues. The U. S. Internal Revenue Service used TRI data to identify companies releasing chlorofluorocarbons ( CFCs) to enforce a tax imposed on releases of CFCs and thus facilitate the phase out of these chemicals.

Public Use Each year, the EPA makes TRI data available to the public on two Internet sites: TRI Explorer ( www. epa. gov/ triexplorer) and Envirofacts ( www. epa. gov/ enviro). The EPA also provides a summary of national and state data in the annual publications Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release and Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release: State Fact Sheets. States also release their own reports. Community organizations, universities, workers and labor unions, local April, 2005 18 public interest organizations, and national non governmental organizations ( NGOs) also conduct analyses and risk assessments based on TRI data. Some of these organizations also make data and analyses available to the public.

Citizen Activists and Community Organizations The Oneida Environmental Resources Board in Wisconsin used TRI data to convince leaders of the Oneida Tribe to organize a conference on cleaner ways to manufacture pulp and paper. The Board used TRI data to show that the pulp and paper industry was the largest industrial source of toxic chemical releases in Wisconsin, despite industry claims that significant release reductions in the past made further improvements unnecessary. The conference improved industry awareness of more environmentally friendly practices and procedures. The Board also used TRI data to alert a local labor union about possible worker health risks. The union included requests for reductions in toxic chemical releases in its contract renewal negotiations.

California's Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition has used TRI data for over a decade. The Silicon Valley Environmental Index ( www. svep. org) shows " sustainability trends" in Santa Clara County, California. The Index provides information about, but not limited to, hazardous materials and air and water quality. At least five cities in Santa Clara County have referenced or relied on the Index as the basis for their " sustainable city" efforts or municipal environmental management system ( EMS) initiatives. Private sector companies, such as IBM and Philips Semiconductor, have also used the Index in evaluating their own EMS practices. Several universities have incorporated the Index into their environmental science course curricula. In addition, several states ( Wisconsin, South Carolina, New Jersey) and countries ( Germany and the Netherlands) have developed regional environmental indicators studies modeled after the Index.

Wilma Subra, a chemical research analyst in Louisiana, has been a vocal citizen leader and an active proponent of the TRI program for 20 years, working to change regulations and policies to improve public health and the environment at the local level. Ms. Subra has informed residents about the possible effects of toxic chemical releases and has aided their work to improve environmental conditions. The TRI data support Ms. Subra's efforts to reduce toxic chemical releases from Louisiana's industrial facilities. Ms. Subra gathers and analyzes TRI data, distributes information to the public, participates in legal and regulatory processes against industrial facilities, and sits on national and international advisory committees.

Citizens' Environmental Coalition ( CEC) ( http:// cectoxic. home. igc. org/) is a statewide grassroots organization of 110 groups and 14,000 individual members working to eliminate pollution in New York State. They also seek to empower and educate the public about environmental problems, and promote corporate accountability. CEC uses TRI as a means to " empower, educate and assist people concerned about environmental problems." They maintain a sister web site ( http:// www. ecothreatny. org/) with an interactive mapping tool for New York that allows for selection of different environmental concerns, including TRI sites, other air pollution sources, April, 2005 19 water pollution sources, and Superfund sites. It is possible to zoom in on a particular community and also obtain information on specific locations.

Ohio Citizen Action ( http:// www. ohiocitizen. org/) is Ohio's largest environmental organization. They use and promote toxic chemical right to know laws as a means for negotiating " good neighbor agreements" with industrial facilities in Ohio. For example, the group's non profit arm, Ohio Citizen Action Education Fund, examined TRI data for Sunoco's Toledo Refinery in Ohio to check the company's statement to the community regarding its annual environmental releases. The group found that the company's statement was based on its reporting to TRI rather than its total chemical releases, as reported to the City of Toledo.

National Organizations National organizations employ TRI data in many of the same ways as small community organizations, but on a larger scale. Such organizations analyze TRI data, use it to conduct risk screening and risk assessment, and often help the public interpret the data. National organizations often work with local public interest and community organizations to initiate discussions between citizens and industry. Some national organizations also use TRI data to help lobby for changes in environmental policy. Examples of the use of TRI data by national organizations include the following:

Environmental Defense ( ED) launched its Scorecard website in1998 ( http:// www. scorecard. org). The site's " polluter locator" allows users to perform a search by ZIP code on a database containing information on more than 17,000 chemical releasing facilities. The Scorecard also provides data on the health effects and regulatory status of different chemicals. The site correlates TRI chemical release data with U. S. Census demographic data. ED is currently linking TRI data with toxicological studies to create a Scorecard tool that compares the risks of different toxic chemical releases. Logging 500,000 data requests on its first day of operation, the Scorecard website has drawn significant public interest. In 2003, Scorecard received approximately 3 million queries related to TRI data.

The Right to Know Network ( RTKNet) website ( http:// www. rtknet. org), launched in 1989 by the nonprofit organizations OMB Watch and the Unison Institute, also facilitates public access to TRI data. Users can search the TRI data by ZIP code, city, county, state, year, or chemical. The website also includes links to additional information about chemicals and right to know issues. RTKNet estimates that over 100,000 TRI searches were performed in 2003 which is about 50% of the total database searches on RTK NET for the year.

The former Environmental Information Center conducted a study of the Great Lakes in 1997. Scientists used TRI data to examine endocrine disrupters released in states bordering the Great Lakes. The study ranked the largest emitters of various classes of toxic chemicals by region, and April, 2005 20 found the Great Lakes region to be the nation's top emitter of reportable endocrine disrupting chemicals.

In September 2000, Physicians for Social Responsibility, along with the National Environmental Trust and the Learning Disabilities Association of America, released the report, " Polluting Our Future: Chemical Pollution in the U. S. that Affects Child Development and Learning" ( www. psr. org/ trireport. pdf). This report used TRI and other data to present national information about releases of chemicals that present potential developmental and neurological risks. The report ranked states by the amount of releases of these chemicals and included information about counties, industries, and facilities with the highest toxic chemical releases.

Labor unions also have used TRI data to support demands for safer working conditions for employees. Other than citizens who live near facilities, employees of TRI reporting facilities are most at risk from toxic chemical releases because they are most likely to come in regular contact with these chemicals. Beginning in 1990, the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America ( UAW) began training employees and managers of UAW companies to access, interpret, and utilize computer databases and programs in " critically assessing industrial emergency response activities at their facilities." Workers were trained to download and interpret environmental compliance data. TRI data was one of the main sources of information for the program. Concerning TRI, the UAW stated, " knowing about maximum amounts on site can help people prepare for a ` worst case scenario'. " It can help an emergency response planning group decide if there is enough response equipment and personnel to deal with an emergency involving the chemical( s) in question."

The Safe Hometowns Initiative is a group of organizations and individuals concerned about the threat to public safety posed by hazardous chemicals in American communities. They formed shortly after September 11th to encourage government and industry to protect communities by putting prevention first rather than restricting environmental information. They advocate using TRI data in their Safe Hometowns Guide ( http:// www. safehometowns. org/ download. html) to help communities identify vulnerable facilities, organize assessments of hazardous materials used at facilities, and make recommendations on safer material and process alternatives.

Direct Negotiation Through increasing their understanding of TRI data, members of the public can begin to understand potential risks associated with toxic chemical releases in their communities and can work with facilities to reduce those risks. The nation's first " right to act" law was enacted in September 1999 by the Passaic, N. J., Board of Chosen Freeholders, the county's governing body. The law " allows neighbors and/ or employees to petition the county health officer for creation of Neighborhood Hazard Prevention Advisory Committees ( NHPACs) for specific facilities." Even without the aid of this law, concerned citizens nationwide can take action in their own April, 2005 21 communities. Community organizations and citizen activists have used TRI data to negotiate with local facilities. Examples of direct negotiation agreements between citizens and facilities follow:

In the city of Richmond, California, community members were concerned about toxic chemical releases from several oil refineries and other large industrial facilities. The West County Toxics Coalition, a local environmental organization, joined with Communities for a Better Environment, a statewide environmental organization, to investigate industrial polluters in Richmond. Using the TRI and other databases, they published the report, Richmond at Risk, that identified the area's 20 largest industrial polluters and named the Chevron oil refinery the number one polluter. The report served to initiate discussions among Chevron, the West County Toxics Coalition, and other community and environmental organizations. As a result of the meetings, the company agreed in 1994 to close down older portions of the plant and install P2 equipment to achieve zero net toxic chemical releases on its reformulated fuel project.

The Calhoun County Resource Watch ( CCRW), founded by a Texas environmental activist and shrimper named Dianne Wilson, used TRI data to build community awareness about pollution of the rich shrimp and oyster breeding grounds of Lavaca Bay on the Gulf of Mexico. Calhoun County was ranked first in the nation for toxic chemical disposal to the land, based on the 1987 TRI data. Lavaca Bay was designated as a Superfund site in 1993. CCRW brought suit against the Aluminum Company of America ( Alcoa) related to this pollution. In 1995, Alcoa signed an agreement designed to protect the breeding grounds. Two Alcoa firms, a chemical plant and a bauxite refinery, committed to " fund independent review of zero discharge options and to adopt the technologies where technically, economically, and environmentally sound." In return, CCRW agreed to drop its legal challenges and suspend permit interventions against the companies. According to an Alcoa operations manager, as of March 2000 the company had made considerable progress toward the goals set in 1995, including compliance with a permit that sets the " allowed total annual maximum mass loading mercury limit" at 30 pounds, development and implementation of a Best Management Practices plan, and installation of an " evaporative spray and dust control system" near the refinery.

In 1998, Butler County, PA, warned pregnant women and infants against drinking water from Connoquenessing Creek due to high levels of nitrates in the water. In its report, the Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group ( PennPIRG) used TRI data to highlight the significant quantities of nitrate compounds being released into the creek. The report identified the major source of the nitrates as the AK Steel Corporation. TRI data showed that the company had discharged approximately 29 million pounds of nitrates into the creek in 1997 and 32 million pounds in 1998. This report and several newspaper articles about these toxic chemical releases prompted the state to commit to reduce the levels of nitrates that AK Steel is permitted to release into the creek. Pennsylvania began developing a new water permit to reduce allowable nitrate releases to a level 90 percent lower than the previous level. In June 2000, EPA issued an emergency order requiring AK Steel to significantly reduce the nitrate compounds it discharges into Connoquenessing Creek. In addition, AK Steel was required to provide and pay for an alternative water source for the April, 2005 22 affected public on any day that the local water plant could not meet the federal maximum nitrate contaminant standard.

Working with The Ecology Center, a public interest organization based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, residents of the town of Flat Rock used TRI data to obtain a commitment from Auto Alliance International to enact an aggressive solvent reduction program. TRI data showed that the company's air releases of toluene had increased from 100,000 pounds in 1991 to 800,000 pounds in 1993, along with an increase in noxious odors in the community. A former Ecology Center staff member, Andrew Cormai, said, "[ R] esidents who have put up with the smells since 1987 suddenly have a bone to pick with the company. The company is going to be saving some money by recapturing solvents, and they will be improving community air quality."

Environmental Justice The goal of environmental justice is to ensure that all people, regardless of race, national origin, or income, are protected from disproportionate impacts and environmental hazards. " The concept [ of environmental justice] addresses evidence [ that] in some parts of the nation, poor and minority communities live closer to factories, highways and airports and are exposed to more pollution and noise and generally more environmental risks than the population at large." TRI data have proved to be an important tool in environmental justice. Communities that were once uninformed about the toxic chemical releases in their area now have access to that information. Examples of TRI data use in environmental justice activities include:

Two areas of Louisiana have become focal points for environmental justice efforts: the Mississippi River corridor, popularly known as " Cancer Alley," and the Lake Charles region. Local groups have used TRI data to illustrate the high toxic chemical release rates in these areas compared to those in other regions. Several small communities have confronted industrial facilities about their toxic chemical releases and possibly related health effects. One illustrative dispute arose in Mossville, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, where some residents suspected that poor health in their community was due to the activities of 17 industrial facilities located within one half mile of the community. Their concerns prompted numerous public interest organizations to collaborate on the report, Breathing Poison: The Toxic Costs of Industries in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. The 2000 report used TRI data and information from the Scorecard website to convey the health risks to which the community might be exposed. It stated the need for " pollution reduction, environmental health services, and a fair and just relocation for consenting residents."

The Asian Pacific Environmental Network ( APEN) works with Asian and Pacific Islander communities in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. APEN created a series of maps that combined TRI and demographic data, to show that many poor Asian and Pacific Islanders live in " toxic hot spots." The maps increased awareness among community members about both their environment and environmental justice issues. APEN might add more environmental, health, and demographic information, and expand its mapping work to other nearby counties. April, 2005 23 The Los Angeles chapter of Communities for a Better Environment used TRI data to help ensure that the communities it serves would not be exposed to higher environmental risks as a result of poverty or ethnicity. In one project, the organization combined 1996 TRI data with Geographical Information System ( GIS) mapping data to show that 80 to 100 percent of facilities that release toxic chemicals in Los Angeles County were located in areas where a large majority of the residents were people of minorities. These findings led to the report, Holding Our Breath   the Struggle for Environmental Justice in Southeast Los Angeles.

Industry Use TRI data have also specifically benefitted regulated industrial facilities.

Cost Reduction A primary goal of the International Organization for Standardization ( ISO 14000) is to bring environmental issues to the attention of the highest levels of corporate management. Leaving decision making to environmental managers alone might not produce the corporate commitment necessary to achieve the best success. TRI data have been used as evidence to convince highlevel management of the need for an EMS. In turn, the proactive environmental protection afforded by an EMS can reduce corporate costs.

For some industries, the creation of the TRI marked the first time that company managers and operators could be made aware of the quantity of chemicals being released from their facilities. Initially, some companies expressed surprise at their own toxic chemical release ratings and set goals to improve their environmental performance. Some companies have reduced their toxic chemical releases and increased their efficiency at the same time, leading to an increased profit. Examples of ways that industry has used TRI data to reduce costs follow:

After reporting toxic chemical releases to the TRI, Berg Electronics realized that it was releasing almost 300,000 pounds of toxic chemicals into the environment annually. By installing a new cleaning system, the company reduced its toxic chemical releases to less than 400 pounds per year. Although the initial costs for the new system were relatively high ($ 500,000), the company was able to save approximately $ 1.2 million a year by avoiding cleanup and hazardous waste disposal costs.

The Haartz Corporation, located in Acton, Massachusetts, makes coated fabrics used in automobiles. The firm once used 800,000 pounds per year of methyl ethyl ketone ( MEK), a solvent that can cause dizziness, nausea, or unconsciousness when inhaled. In 1987, when the Haartz Corporation was preparing its first TRI report, the company installed a new emissions control system to capture and recycle MEK. TRI data enabled the company to track the association between reduced toxic chemical releases and reduced costs. According to the Haartz Corporation environmental manager, the company's " emissions have stayed pretty flat" despite its April, 2005 24 " double digit sales growth" between 1993 and 1998. In addition, reducing its MEK releases saved the Haartz Corporation an estimated $ 200,000 annually.

Performance Measurement Industry uses TRI data to identify pollution prevention opportunities, set goals for toxic chemical release reductions, and demonstrate its commitment to and progress in reducing emissions. At least one industry initiative  the American Chemistry Council's ( ACC) Responsible Care Program plans to use TRI data as a performance measure to demonstrate participating companies' environmental progress. In 2004, there were 226 companies participating in the Responsible Care Program that will report their TRI releases as a performance metric. Of the 226 responsible care companies, 33 are in the top 50 ( 66%) chemical companies based on sales in 2002 and will use their TRI releases, in part, as a measure of their performance.

International Right to Know The TRI has served as the model for many countries' Chemical Right To Know programs and laws. Within the next few years, more than 30 nations are expected to have a TRI like system, known internationally as Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers ( PRTRs). PRTRs allow the public to obtain toxic chemical release data covering a large geographic area. Countries can compare their data and share ideas about improving environmental regulations. Examples of how PRTR information is being used include:

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation ( CEC), which was created by a side agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA), began its PRTR work by preparing a document that compares U. S. and Canadian PRTR systems. The CEC now develops an annual report, entitled " Taking Stock", that correlates data from the TRI and the Canadian National Pollutant Release Inventory to give an overall view of releases and transfers of toxic chemicals within and between countries. The CEC also has created an Internet search engine that allows the public to obtain continental PRTR data.

In 2000, the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition attended an international conference in Croatia on public participation and community right to know. Participants recognized the fundamental importance of Chemical Right To Know and are lobbying the United Nations to promote the program and persuade nations to support the passage of community right to know laws modeled after the TRI.

Investment The public's increased awareness of environmental issues has made environmental performance an important factor in their investment decisions. Many investment companies have responded to April, 2005 25 this demand by providing socially responsible investment options. Examples of how TRI data have been used in investment decisions include:

Green Century Funds, an investment organization that specializes in socially responsible mutual funds, offers two funds committed to promoting corporate environmental responsibility. The Green Century Balanced Fund invests in " performance driven companies that are a part of the solution to environmental problems," as well as in environmentally benign companies and " best of class" companies that are setting standards for environmental protection in their industries. The Green Century Equity Fund screens out companies with the worst environmental and social records. The funds are monitored for environmental performance using TRI data.

KLD Research and Analytics screens companies and investments for inclusion in Domini Social Investments' " Domini 400 Social Index." Environmental performance is one aspect of their selection criteria including an evaluation of the largest emitters as reported in TRI for each state. Other environmental selection measures include compliance with EPA regulations, a company's liability for hazardous waste sites, and involvement in pollution prevention programs, among other factors.

Vanderbilt University's Owen Graduate School of Management found a correlation between a company's stock value and its P2 efforts, which were assessed using TRI data. A researcher from the University performed two separate studies comparing the progress of a company's P2 activities as reported on TRI forms to a company's stock market performance. The study reported that " companies that underperform expected pollution prevention goals are penalized in the stock market, and the stock of the companies that engage in pollution prevention activity tends to outperform the stock of companies that do not engage in pollution prevention."

Using TRI data, the Investor Responsibility Research Center ( IRRC) developed an Emissions Efficiency Index ® that indicates which companies have a competitive edge in environmental performance. The Index is predicated on the idea that greater toxic chemical releases are associated with higher risks of negative publicity, more tort actions, and higher costs for pollution control and waste management. IRRC's constituency uses TRI based information to identify companies with poor environmental records. Using the index, investors can either screen such companies out of their portfolios or purchase shares and use their ownership as leverage to improve environmental performance.

Before making an investment in property, The National Association of Realtors suggests that homebuyers check information reported through TRI. On their web site, Realtor Magazine Online recommends that homebuyers and realtors evaluate an area's environmental safety by checking the pollutant release data provided at Environmental Defense's Scorecard web site.

Academic Use April, 2005 26 A variety of TRI data applications occur in academia, in areas ranging from doctoral theses and journal publications to teaching in the classroom.

Research Universities and research institutions are using TRI data as a means for " examining environmental policies and strategies, and clarifying risks associated with toxic chemicals at the state and local level." Students and faculty in the academic community also perform studies based on TRI data. Examples of academic research using TRI data include:

In February 2000, the journal Drug and Chemical Toxicology published an article entitled, " Using GIS to Study the Health Impact of Air Emissions." This article showed how public health professionals are able to use data ( such as the TRI) on toxic chemical releases to air, air dispersion modeling, and GIS to identify and define a potentially exposed population. In addition, such data can be analyzed to estimate the health risk burden of that population and determine correlations between point based health outcome results and estimated health risk.

In the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management in 1998 and 1999, and in the Journal of Economic Surveys in 2001, researcher Madhu Khanna published results of research that examined the environmental, economic and investment effects of voluntary and mandatory toxic release reporting programs. One of the research studies focused on the EPA's 33/ 50 Program during its first three years, 1991 1993, and its impact on the U. S. chemical industry. The paper showed that Program participation led to a statistically significant decline in toxic releases over the time period, a statistically significant negative impact on current return on investment, but a positive and statistically significant impact on the expected long run profitability of firms.

At Louisiana State University, environmental science professor Paul Templet developed a method, using TRI data, to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of pollution control strategies, policies, and programs, by calculating an " emissions to jobs ratio." This ratio, which is the number of pounds of toxic chemical releases per job in a given industry and location, can be compared to a national or other average. The comparison is then used to assess the relative toxic air releases associated with a certain job. This ratio was used to modify tax exemptions granted to facilities to encourage and reward job creation.

Professor Mark Stephan used TRI in research focusing on the role of information disclosure programs in environmental policy. One of his research projects, conducted with Michael Kraft and Troy Abel, utilized TRI data to examine correlations between measures of emissions as reported in TRI and state measures of policy, political environment, and economic resources. The authors found that the ratio of facilities reducing toxic releases to facilities increasing them was correlated with political factors at the state level such as membership in conservation groups. Researchers R. D. Klassen and D. C. Whybark studied management of the natural environment in April, 2005 27 manufacturing firms, given increased public awareness and scrutiny as a result of programs like the TRI. In one of their published studies, it was found that an emphasis on pollution prevention instead of pollution control, improved delivery performance and firms' competitiveness.

Andrew King and Michael Lenox of New York University's Stern School of Business tested the relationship between " lean production" and environmental performance. TRI data were employed as one measure of production, with lower inventories representing leaner production. The study found that lean production was correlated to measures of waste reduction and pollution reduction.

Michael Ash of the University of Massachusetts and T. Robert Fetter of Science Applications International Corporation used TRI data in an environmental justice analysis for the contiguous United States. They incorporate measures of risk faced by different economic and racial groups by using RSEI, which combines TRI data on releases with information on transport and toxicity for each chemical. Their analysis also controls for regional variations in pollution, allowing them to identify exposure differences both within cities and between cities. They found a consistent relationship between income and pollution exposure, and determined that certain racial groups live both in more polluted cities, and in more polluted neighborhoods within cities, while others live in less polluted cities, but in more polluted areas within cities.

Linda Bui, an economics researcher at Brandeis University, has used TRI data in her work on the effect of public disclosure laws such as TRI. One such study, published in The Review of Economics and Statistics in 2003, evaluated the relationship between TRI releases and housing prices and other political economy variables. In another study, Bui examined firm level response of petroleum refineries to public disclosure of their toxic chemicals through TRI. TRI releases to air and water were evaluated in relation to firm expenditure on abatement technology for other non hazardous chemicals discharged. In addition, Bui looked at whether state pollution prevention policies and TRI type programs helped to explain differences in TRI releases at the refineries across states as a measure of effectiveness of public disclosure policies. Researchers from Harvard University, Robert Stavins, Lori Snyder, and Nolan Miller, also evaluated firm level response to TRI. Their study examines the effect of TRI and other regulatory programs on technology adoption in the chlorine manufacturing industry, particularly of adoption of membrane cell technology. The authors are also studying the effect of state level pollution prevention regulations with some similarity to TRI.

Lori Snyder also conducted research assessing the validity of TRI data in light of the potential " truncation bias" that may be caused by TRI's reporting thresholds. She estimates the magnitude of releases for Massachusetts that may not be reported to TRI because of facilities which dropped below the reporting threshold for particular chemicals. Massachusetts's Toxic Use Reduction Act ( TURA) provides comparison data for Massachusetts facilities, because it has lower thresholds and it also asks facilities why they may have stopped reporting for a chemical they previously reported. She found that truncation bias could be significant at least for releases in Massachusetts, and based on her results, she provides guidance for policy analysts in using TRI April, 2005 28 data to measure program effectiveness.

Research conducted at North Carolina State University, in conjunction with the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and with funding from EPA, assessed the extent to which people are aware of TRI data and the impact of this information. To measure the extent of public awareness of TRI information and people's approach to environmental information, a telephone survey was carried out of 600 people in two cities. The authors also conducted more in depth focus groups and interviews with respondents who were familiar with TRI to ascertain the level of their knowledge and the level of their support for environmental information dissemination as a form of environmental protection.

As an extension of measuring program effectiveness, Wade E. Martin of California State University proposed a study to evaluate the economic benefit of TRI information. He proposed to study two main user groups, attorneys and citizen activist groups, to determine their " willingness to pay" for the data available through TRI. The project would entail surveying a random sample of both user groups, and asking questions about their use of TRI data and its role in their work. The end result would be an economic valuation for the TRI data, and the cost to these users of not having the data available in its current format.

Classroom Use High school and university instructors have incorporated the TRI into curricula involving subjects ranging from introductory chemistry to business.

The JSI Center for Environmental Health Studies developed a field based environmental education curriculum for high school students in Chelsea, Massachusetts, a low income minority community near Boston. The goal was to encourage student participation in environmental assessment and protection. Students learned to inventory sources of contamination in a local creek and to work with community agencies on protecting a valuable environmental resource. TRI data were an integral part of the students' research.

TRI data are integrated into many lesson plans or activity guides for K 12 teachers and students. The National Science Teacher's Association published a resource guide for high school teachers on using environmental data, specifically TRI, to integrate science in an everyday context. The resource kit was designed with the help of EPA and helps students to conduct research into environmental issues in their own communities.

Delaware's Department of Natural Resources designed a set of lessons for a high school and middle school air quality education program. This program, which incorporates TRI data, includes a lesson on air quality impact associated with industrial sources. Students use the data to locate facilities in their area that have air emissions. They are also able to identify the types and quantity of facility emissions. They can compare businesses that report to TRI between counties April, 2005 29 and explore the health hazards posed by the reported emissions.

A 2001 workshop sponsored by the University of Arizona explored how to integrate toxicology with high school curriculum. How to obtain data from the TRI and what the data mean were included in the activities for middle and high school teachers to help them use it with their students.

Private groups also have incorporate TRI data into environmental education programs. Aquatic Research Interactive, Inc, which conducts distance learning programs online, offers a program on accessing TRI data. " Diving into Toxic Releases Inventory" reviews how students, educators, and community members can access toxic release data from the EPA. The program demonstrates how to use EPA's TRI Explorer Web site, including how to use the different search features; generate reports; and interpret the results.

Professor Robert Hognor of Florida International University incorporated TRI data into his classes in the Department of Business and Society. In one example, students used TRI data as the basis for assessing the potential impact of toxic chemicals in the Caribbean and then issued a report on the subject.

3 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 3( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The statute applied the reporting requirement to owners and operators of facilities that have 10 or more full time employees, manufacture or process more than 25,000 pounds or otherwise use more than 10,000 pounds of a listed chemical, and are in Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes 20 through 39. The SIC code determination applies to all operations within each two digit category, including all sub categorizations to the four digit level. In addition, in May, 1997, EPA issued a final rule that expanded the TRI reporting requirements to facilities in seven industries outside of the manufacturing sector. A detailed listing of the four digit SIC codes and categories can be found in Table I of Attachment A ( Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms and Instructions). The following identifies the SIC codes and corresponding categories at the two and four digit level:

SIC Code Industry Group 10 Metal Mining ( except 1011,1081 and 1094) 12 Coal Mining ( except 1241) 20 Food 21 Tobacco 22 Textiles 23 Apparel April, 2005 30 24 Lumber and Wood 25 Furniture 26 Paper 27 Printing/ Publishing 28 Chemicals 29 Petroleum 30 Rubber and Plastics 31 Leather 32 Stone, Clay, and Glass 33 Primary Metals 34 Fabricated Metals 35 Machinery ( ex. electrical) 36 Electrical/ Electronic Equipment 37 Transportation Equipment 38 Instruments 39 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 4911, 4931 or 4939 Electric Utilities ( limited to facilities that combust coal and/ or oil for the purpose of generating electricity for distribution in commerce.) 4953 Commercial Hazardous Waste Treatment ( limited to facilities regulated under RCRA Subtitle C, 42 U. S. C. section 6921 et seq. 5169 Chemical Allied Products Wholesale 5171 Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants Wholesale 7389 Solvent Recovery Services ( limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvents recovery services on a contract or fee basis).

Establishments that are part of a multi establishment facility have the option to report separately, provided that all of the releases and waste management data from all of the establishments in that facility are reported.

4 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 4( a) Agency Activities EPA engages in many activities to fulfill the requirements of EPCRA. These activities can be grouped in the following categories which cover what the Agency does to assist the regulated community with compliance, process the data, maintain the database, and make the data available. April, 2005 31

Assistance to Respondents

Data Processing and Quality Control

Making Data Available

List Revisions and Petition Reviews

Trade Secrecy Reviews Assistance to Respondents. The Agency has operated a successful outreach program to assist businesses in obtaining and completing both the Form R and Form A Certification Statement. A reporting package that is updated annually is distributed directly to all TRI respondents. This package also is made available to potential respondents through EPA's TRI website, Regional office coordinators and the EPA publications distribution center. The package contains reporting forms with detailed instructions along with a magnetic media software package that allows reporters to submit their data on computer diskettes. General guidance has been prepared for estimating releases, including fourteen industry specific guidance documents.

EPA also has established a training program designed to familiarize Regional personnel with the reporting requirements and to train them in providing technical assistance to respondents. Using that training, the Regions have conducted and continue to conduct numerous workshops each year to explain the reporting requirements to the regulated community. EPA also has established a training program to teach EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements to private businesses and consultants that wish to provide counsel on section 313 compliance. As previously mentioned, EPA operates a toll free hotline to answer general questions and direct potential respondents to proper EPA personnel. In addition, the Agency maintains a website with current program specific information and guidance ( www. epa. gov/ tri).

EPA has also provided guidance for persons or organizations interested in petitioning the agency to add or delete chemicals from the TRI list. In addition to this guidance, EPA also convenes prepetition meetings to assist petitioners if they request such assistance.

Data Processing and Quality Control. When TRI reports are submitted on paper, the information is keyed into a database on a PC based local area network ( LAN). Automated data quality checks begin at data entry, including various edit checks and the start of normalization of some of the data fields. At this point, emphasis is placed on identifying forms that are not completed correctly. If the problem( s) identified prevent further processing of the form, EPA sends a Notice of Significant Error to the respondent. Notices of Technical Error are sent to the respondents identifying any errors and requesting corrections.

At this stage, EPA also loads data from those facilities that have provided their Form R submissions on magnetic media. Many data quality checks are incorporated into the magnetic media reporting package.

EPA continues to place a high emphasis on data entry accuracy within the TRI. EPA's internal April, 2005 32 review of approximately 4% of the records showed a data entry accuracy rate of over 99.9%. This is up from 97.5% for the 1987 reporting year. EPA continues to conduct the computerized edit checks at the point of data entry, including a high percentage of verification and data reconciliation activities. EPA now has available an electronic Facility Data Profile ( FDP) that enables all reporting facilities to verify online all TRI data submitted. EPA continues to mail hard copy notices of significant reporting errors to reporting facilities.

Once on the LAN, the data are uploaded to the mainframe, where further data quality checks are made. These operations involve continued normalization of name fields, such as county names, insertion of missing latitude and longitude coordinates along with checks with other data.

Congress requires EPA to make TRI data available to the public through computer telecommunications. As a result, EPA has found it necessary to undertake a variety of activities to make the data more usable. This is due to the fact that computer searches only retrieve data in exactly the format requested. Because facilities report their data in a wide variety of ways, EPA has taken steps to use a consistent name for all counties, uses a variety of nomenclature standards for names within the database, has added latitude and longitude representing the center of the zip code area in which the facility is found, and has taken other steps to assist in the normalization of the data.

EPA generates a facility identification number for newly reporting facilities at the time of data entry. This allows linkage to all years of reports for a particular facility or location. The identification number also allows easy retrieval of cross year data, even when a facility is sold or changes its name. This number has been sent to all facilities and they are required to use it on all future submissions submitted to the Agency. Use of the facility identification number also facilitates data quality and cross year analysis.

Under EPCRA section 313, facilities are required to submit forms both to EPA and the state in which they operate. For additional quality assurance and tracking purposes, EPA provides all states with a listing of facilities that reported to the Federal Reporting Center for each reporting year. This activity typically results in the identification of several cases where facilities had not reported to one or the other government. Many states then provide copies of forms to the EPA where EPA had not received copies, and vice versa. This activity has provided a critical step to assist EPA in coordinating the data collection with the states and completing both data repositories.

Ensuring the accuracy of the on site release and off site transfer estimates is an on going effort, and includes comparison across reporting years as well as use of data and evaluations based on facility site visits. EPA conducted a data quality site survey of 104 facilities for reporting years 1994 and 1995: 25 facilities in SIC code 25 ( furniture manufacturing) for 1994; 19 facilities in SIC code 281 ( inorganic chemical manufacturing) for 1994; 17 facilities in SIC code 285 ( paint manufacturing) for 1994; 23 facilities in SIC code 30 ( rubber and plastics manufacturing) for April, 2005 33 1994; 10 facilities in SIC code 26 ( pulp and paper manufacturing) for 1995; and 10 facilities in SIC code 286 ( organic chemical manufacturing) for 1995. Following are some of the major findings of the site survey: 1) Facility and site surveyor release estimates were in good agreement, calculated to be within ± 3%. 2) Facilities primarily used purchasing records to make threshold determinations. 3) Facilities in chemical manufacturing used production data more frequently to make threshold determinations. 4) Facilities in chemical manufacturing were more likely to assume thresholds were exceeded and because of that they had the highest error rate, primarily for reporting chemicals that did not exceed thresholds. 5) Container residue was the most commonly overlooked release source.

Making TRI Data Available. Many options are available for accessing TRI data. EPA offers the data in a variety of common computer and hard copy formats to ensure that everyone can easily use the information. TRI is available on diskette, CD ROM, and on the Internet. While TRI data have been available from several computer based sources, recent system conversions, processing efficiencies, improvements in web based access have created a need for a primary source for accessing TRI ( and other Agency) data. Therefore, EPA has shifted its focus to the Envirofacts and TRI Explorer systems to address this need. TRI data will be updated in the Envirofacts and TRI Explorer systems at a more frequent rate than previously possible allowing the user community access to virtually " live" TRI data.

TRI reports are also available from state government offices as well as from EPA. For each reporting year, many states make their data available before EPA releases data from the national database. Persons interested in receiving state specific information may call their state EPCRA Coordinator or EPA Regional TRI Coordinator for assistance.

List Revisions and Petition Reviews. The list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under section 313 of EPCRA is not static. The list can be modified by Agency initiated reviews of chemicals or by public petition. If a listing petition is submitted by a State governor, then EPA must respond within 180 days by either publishing an explanation of denial or granting the petition. If EPA does not respond within 180 days the chemicals are automatically added to the toxic chemical list. Once a petition is received, EPA begins an intensive review that includes chemistry and toxicity analyses of the chemical or chemicals. Depending on the toxicity of the chemical or chemicals, EPA's review also may include exposure, economic, and engineering analyses. If the chemical meets the criteria for addition to the list, it is added or maintained on the list. If the criteria are not met, then the chemical is removed from the list. The criteria for inclusion on the list are stated in section 313( d)( 2): the chemical is known to or can reasonably be anticipated to cause significant adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels that are reasonably likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring, releases; the chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause in humans cancer or teratogenic effects, or serious or irreversible reproductive dysfunctions, neurological disorders, heritable genetic mutations or other chronic health effects; or the chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause a significant adverse effect on the April, 2005 34 environment because of its toxicity, its toxicity and persistence in the environment, or its toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment.

Since the list was first published, there have been 332 additions ( including 6 chemical categories) to and 19 deletions or modifications ( including modifications to two chemical categories) from it, and several delisting petitions are pending. Two hundred ninety one of these additions ( including 4 chemical categories) are the result of Agency initiated rulemakings. Four of the deletions or modification, including acetone, sodium hydroxide ( solution), sodium sulfate ( solution), hydrochloric acid ( non aerosol), and sulfuric acid ( non aerosol), were high production volume chemicals, which greatly reduced the reporting burden on industry. In general, previous petitions have been submitted for single chemicals, however, a recent increase in petitions for groups of chemicals has occurred. EPA may list the chemicals as a category or add only those individual chemicals which meet the section 313( d)( 2) criteria. Since inception of the TRI Program, EPA has identified several existing listed chemicals as PBT chemicals as well as added new chemicals as PBT chemicals.

Trade Secrecy Reviews. When a respondent claims a chemical identity as a trade secret, a substantiation must be included. Occasionally respondents claim trade secret status on Form R, but do not provide substantiation. In those cases, EPA must review the claim and contact the respondent to determine the true intent. In many cases, the trade secret claim was not intended and no substantiation is made. Trade Secrecy reviews, including the costs to EPA, are discussed in greater detail in the ICR for the Trade Secrecy Rule for EPCRA ( EPA # 1428, OMB # 2050 0078).

4( b) Collection Methodology and Management EPA continues to encourage the use of submissions on magnetic media. The use of magnetic media is intended to reduce both the cost and the time required to enter, process, and make available the data, although is may also reduce the reporting burden on industry. Submission by magnetic media also improves data quality because of automatic checks that highlight errors or omitted data. As an additional step in improving user's ability to report using magnetic media, EPA has made the Form A Certification Statement available on magnetic disk and CD ROM. For TRI reporting, EPA has made available an automated reporting software package called TRI ME, that simplifies the reporting process by automating calculations and compiling instructions and guidance in an electronic format.

4( c) Small Entity Flexibility The statute provides that facilities with less than 10 full time employees ( or equivalent) are not required to report. In addition, EPA has taken several steps to minimize the burden for small businesses. A range reporting option was added to the February 16, 1988 final rule ( 53 FR 4500) that codified the EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements. Range reporting was the preferred April, 2005 35 option from the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis to provide burden reduction for small businesses. Range reporting provides an option for releases of less than 1,000 pounds to be recorded as a code representing one of three ranges, 1 to 10 pounds, 11 to 499 pounds, or 500 to 999 pounds, rather than as a specific estimate of the release amount. The benefit is not, however, limited to small businesses. Range reporting is not applicable for PBT chemicals.

In addition, in response to a petition from the Small Business Administration, EPA has promulgated the alternate threshold ( November 30, 1994, 59 FR 61488) discussed above. Although any reporting facility meeting the criteria may use the alternate threshold, it is thought that this alternate threshold will be most advantageous to small entities.

EPA has also developed interactive, intelligent, user friendly software called " Toxics Release Inventory Made Easy Software ( TRI ME)," that asks the user simple, straightforward questions to help the user determine if the facility is subject to TRI reporting. TRI ME has greatly reduced data quality errors and therefore, reduced the likelihood of a facility being in violation of the reporting requirements, or having to subsequently submit corrections. In the last five years TRIME usage has increased. Note that 73 percent of responses were received electronically for the 1999 reporting year. And by reporting year 2003 93% of responses were received.

4( d) Collection Schedule Facilities must report their information on a calendar year bases, and submit the Form R to EPA by July 1 each year. On average, EPA has released the national TRI data set to the public approximately ten months after the annual reporting deadline, i. e., July 1. In response to public concerns about shortening the time frame for release of TRI information, EPA is instituting tighter deadlines for facilities to submit revised reports, and combining a series of automated data quality operations. The Agency expects these measures will help it to meet the ultimate goal of releasing data in the year of submission. Also, it is important to note that EPA's national database is just one avenue of access to the TRI information. Each state also makes its data available to the public, and most states are able to make their data available prior to EPA's release of the national database. For example, nearly half of the states release their state's TRI database within four months of the reporting deadline.

5 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 5( a) Nonduplication The basic information requested on the Form R is required to be reported by law. Other statutes, however, also require the reporting of information about releases of chemicals to the environment, creating the possibility of overlap or duplication of reporting requirements. EPA anticipates some overlap and provides that respondents may use readily available data collected pursuant to other provisions of law to complete the section 313 reports. However, currently available non TRI April, 2005 36 sources of information cannot provide readily accessible release and transfer, inventory, or pollution prevention data with the scope, level of detail, and chemical coverage as data currently included in TRI.

The TRI contains information on releases, transfers, inventories, and pollution prevention activities for approximately 650 toxic chemicals and chemical categories. Although there are no national databases that are comparable to the whole of TRI, several data sources exist which contain media specific data on releases and transfers. In theory, information from these databases could be combined to form an analog of release and transfer data contained in TRI. However, this undertaking is extremely difficult at best, and may be impossible given the currently available data sources ( see Figure 1 below). Difficulties replicating TRI data using these alternative sources include differences in chemical coverage, facility coverage, reporting frequencies, and perhaps most importantly, the integration of data from various sources at a facility level.

For example, the AIRS Facility Subsystem ( AFS) contains emissions, compliance, and enforcement data on air pollution point sources emitting any of the so called criteria pollutants at levels above defined thresholds. The Air Quality System ( AQS) technical area is designed primarily for AQS users ( state, tribal and local agency management, EPA Regional Offices, consultants, and environmental groups.) It provides information about the use of the AQS application, software downloads, file formats, background project information, and events of special interest to personnel working with data for the AQS. AQS was formerly a subsystem of the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS). AIRS also included the AIRS Facility Subsystem ( AFS). AFS is now operated and maintained by the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ( OECA).

The Air Facility Subsystem ( AFS) contains compliance and permit data for stationary sources regulated by the U. S. EPA and state and local air pollution agencies. AFS is used by some state and local government agencies to track permit data. For further information regarding the air permitting program, visit EPA's Air Permits page. This information is used by the states to prepare State Implementation Plans ( SIPs) and to track the compliance status of point sources with various regulatory programs under the Clean Air Act. Tracking of emissions inventories has been moved to the National Emissions Inventory ( NEI) database. This site is designed to keep users of the system appraised of new developments. AFS was once a part of AIRS, hence the historical utilization of that term may be incorporated within referenced documentation.

AFS data are not a good substitute for TRI air emissions data because of the lack of reporting requirements for most air toxics and the lack of rigid reporting schedules, and because there is no requirement for states to report emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants ( HAPs) to AFS. A number of states and regional agencies do maintain their own air emissions inventories, including California, and the Great Lakes states. In these states, difficulties replicating TRI data include variations in the types of data collected, and the fact that only some states maintain these types of inventories. April, 2005 11. For additional detailed information on chemical coverage of TRI, AFS, BRS, and PCS, please refer to Attachments B 1 and B 2 at the end of this document. 22. " Ease of substitution" refers only to the potential of the information in the database to substitute for TRI reporting. It does not imply that the database is not adequate for the purposes for which it was designed.

37 FIGURE 1  MAJOR RELEASE AND TRANSFER DATABASES Data source Media and chemical coverage1 Relevant releases statistics available Ease of database substitution for TRI data2 Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS), Facility Subsystem ( AFS) Contains annual emissions of six criteria air pollutants for facilities above reporting thresholds. Also contains limited information on toxics. Total annual releases; average daily releases in non attainment areas. Limited toxics data due to submission being voluntary.

Permit Compliance System ( PCS) Contains monthly discharge monitoring data and flow rates for major sources of water pollutants. Contains concentration data; total annual releases can be calculated; average daily releases, maximum " moment" if continuous monitoring. Only includes chemicals for which a discharge limit has been set. Difficult to link between PCS parameters and CAS #; very limited monitoring data for minor dischargers.

Biennial Reporting System ( BRS) Contains waste volumes by RCRA waste code reported biennially. Total annual off site transfers of hazardous waste for land disposal; total annual releases to POTW. Many RCRA waste codes are not specific to an individual CAS #. Quantities of chemicals in waste can not be determined. Portion of waste stream matching each waste code can not be determined.

Under RCRA, generators, treaters, storers, and disposers of hazardous waste are required to submit reports to the Biennial Reporting System ( BRS) every two years. The Biennial Reporting System is a national system that collects data on the generation, management, and minimization of hazardous waste.( http:// www. epa. gov/ enviro/ html/ brs/ index. html). This system captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste from large quantity generators and data on April, 2005 38 waste management practices from treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The biennial data provide a basis for trend analyses. Data about the previous year's hazardous waste activities is reported on even years by the facilities to EPA. EPA then provides reports on hazardous waste generation and management activity that accompany the data files. BRS cannot duplicate the information contained within TRI, as BRS waste codes do not necessarily map to unique chemicals, quantities of specific wastes in the wastestream cannot be determined, and reporting is less frequent than that of TRI.

The Permit Compliance System ( PCS) tracks permit compliance and enforcement status of facilities that discharge to surface waters. The Permit Compliance System ( PCS) ( http:// www. epa. gov/ enviro/ html/ pcs/) provides information on companies which have been issued permits to discharge waste water into rivers. You can review information on when a permit was issued and expires, how much the company is permitted to discharge, and the actual monitoring data showing what the company has discharged. The Water Discharge Permits Query allows you to retrieve preselected data from the PCS database in Envirofacts. You can narrow your search by selecting various options including facility name, geographic location, standard industrial classification, and chemicals.

PCS data are not a suitable substitute for TRI data due to the fact that PCS is a permit tracking system and not a loadings system. In other words, PCS typically tracks pollutant concentrations, and not total releases. This difference in purpose results in differences which are difficult to resolve in the amount and types of data collected. Furthermore, PCS does not contain all TRI chemicals.

TRI also contains inventory data, which makes up a small portion of the total data. The most likely alternatives for TRI inventory data are the Tier I/ II data reported under EPCRA § 312. Under EPCRA § 312, regulated facilities must submit annual inventory reports of hazardous chemicals stored on site to the state. Tier I requires reporting on broad categories of physical hazards, while Tier II requires chemical specific information by CAS number. The information contained on the Tier I and Tier II reports surpasses the chemical inventory data requested on TRI Form R in terms of the chemicals covered and level of detail. However, there are significant difficulties with respect to public access of Tier I and Tier II data, including the lack of a national integrated database.

In addition to release/ transfer and inventory data, TRI also collects pollution prevention data from reporting facilities. Pollution prevention data somewhat analogous to data in TRI can be found in BRS ( described above) and databases administered by two state environmental agencies. While BRS provides both qualitative and quantitative pollution prevention information, it does not have the facility or chemical coverage necessary to replace TRI pollution prevention reporting requirements. BRS contains data on generation, transfer, and management of hazardous wastes, while pollution prevention data contained in TRI includes information on wastes or process by April, 2005 39 products in all production phases and media. In addition, states have come to rely on the pollution prevention data provided to them by TRI. As a result, no state program collects all of the pollution prevention data currently available in TRI.

What follows is a more detailed discussion of the several information sources that currently provide pollutant release and transfer data. The analysis is broken down by specific type of data collected under TRI.

Fugitive/ Non Point Air Emissions and Stack/ Point Air Emissions Fugitive ( non point) air emissions and stack ( point) air emissions are reported under Sections 5.1 and 5.2, respectively, of TRI Reporting Form R. ( Fugitive air emissions are defined as all releases of air pollutants to the air that are not released through stacks, vents, ducts, pipes, or any other confined air stream. Stack air emissions are defined as all releases of air pollutants that are released through stacks, vents, ducts, pipes, or any other confined air stream.) In the paragraphs below, several alternative data sources are compared and contrasted to TRI. Key criteria considered in comparing the alternative data sources with TRI include: chemical coverage, industry/ facility coverage, release statistics, and public accessibility to the data.

AIRS Facility Subsystem ( AFS)

The Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) is a computer based repository of information on airborne pollution in the United States and various World Health Organization ( WHO) member countries. AIRS is comprised of four major databases  Air Quality ( AQ), AIRS Facility Subsystem ( AFS), Area/ Mobile Source ( AMS), Geo Common ( GCS) subsystems, and a mapping utility for all AIRS data called AIRS Graphics ( AG). Each subsystem addresses different, but connected, aspects of the Clean Air Act regulatory requirements. AIRS is administered by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation ( OAR).

The AIRS Facility Subsystem ( AFS) is the database component of AIRS which tracks air emissions from industrial plants. AFS is a sub system of the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS). AFS contains compliance and permit data for stationary sources regulated by the U. S. EPA and state and local air pollution agencies. AFS contains emissions, compliance, and enforcement data on air pollution point sources regulated by EPA, state and local environmental regulatory agencies.

OAR manages EPA programs to improve air quality in areas where the current quality is unacceptable and to prevent deterioration in areas where the air is relatively free of contamination. To help accomplish this task, OAR uses AFS to track emissions of pollutants that have been proven to be detrimental to public health, known as criteria pollutants, as defined in the national ambient air quality standards. The six criteria pollutants which states must report to AFS include: April, 2005 33. AP 42 Emission Factors, available from the Factor Information Retrieval ( FIRE) System, and emission factors in general, are representative values that attempt to relate the quantity of a pollutant released with a given activity associated with the release of that pollutant. Emission factors are typically expressed as the weight of pollutant divided by a unit weight, volume,

40 particulate matter less than 10 microns in size ( PM10), carbon monoxide ( CO), sulfur dioxide ( SO 2), nitrogen dioxide ( NO 2), lead ( Pb), and ozone ( reported as reactive volatile organic compounds, an ozone precursor). States are required to report ambient air quality data on a quarterly basis, and point source data on a yearly basis, for the criteria pollutants listed. In addition, states may choose to use the AIRS system to store data on a wide variety of other pollutants and related variables.

Data in AFS is organized into four logical levels: plant, stack, point, and segment. The plant is a facility represented by its physical location, and defined by property boundaries. A stack or vent is where emissions are introduced into the atmosphere. An emission point is a physical piece of equipment or a process that produced emissions. Finally, a segment is a component of a point process ( such as fuel combustion) that is used in the computation of emissions. ( U. S. EPA, 1995a)

At the facility level, sources with air emissions greater than 1,000 tons per year ( tpy) for CO, 100 tpy for VOC, PM 10, SO x, or NO x, or 5 tpy for lead must report actual or estimated annual emissions data. At the point level, such as a stack or any single piece of equipment or process where emissions occur, sources with air emissions greater than 25 tpy for VOC, PM 10, SO x, or NO x, 250 tpy for CO, and 5 tpy for lead must report actual or estimated annual emissions data. AFS data are utilized by states to prepare State Implementation Plans to comply with regulatory programs and by EPA as an input for the estimation of total national emissions. Data for over 100,000 point source facilities are stored in AFS.

Compliance and enforcement data are updated by states and EPA based on the data submitted by facilities. Compliance data for these plants may be recorded for the plant as a whole or for a specific point within the plant. Emissions estimates are available for facilities satisfying the emissions thresholds described above. States also are required to report emissions data for point sources which emit below the 100 ton threshold in areas where air quality does not meet federal standards ( non attainment areas).

Fugitive air emissions data are not specifically flagged within AFS. It may be possible, however, to generate fugitive emissions estimates for pollutants included within AFS by determining all Source Classification Codes ( SCCs) generating fugitive air emissions, and then totaling emissions ( Kleeman, 1995). SCCs are eight character codes which represent specific processes or functions within a source category. For example, SCC 1 02 005 01 corresponds to the burning of distillate oil in an industrial boiler. SCCs allow proper identification of processes as well as proper calculation of emissions when applying AP 42 emission factors. 3 Because SCC codes are not April, 2005 distance, or duration of the activity emitting the pollutant ( EPA, 1995b). Generally, AP 42 emission factors are simply averages of available emissions rates that can be used to facilitate the estimation of air emissions and are sometimes used by facilities to estimate TRI releases and transfers. A difficulty with using emissions factors is that there is a lack of facility specific throughput data ( production or activity), without which estimates cannot be made. Another difficulty is that the factors are averages and do not account for the variations between facilities. 44. Hazardous Air Pollutants ( HAPs) are defined in Section 112 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA). Section 112 lists 189 HAPs, of which 181 also are listed in TRI.

41 designed to distinguish stack level emissions from fugitive air emissions, such an effort would require a review of all coded industrial processes in order to identify those generating fugitive emissions.

As described in more detail in following sections, AFS data are not good substitutes for TRI stack or fugitive emissions data. Problems include the lack of reporting requirements for most air toxics, and the lack of rigid reporting schedules.

Chemical coverage: States are required to report to EPA annual emissions estimates for point sources emitting greater than or equal to threshold quantities of the criteria pollutants ( 40 CFR § 51: 321 326): particulate matter ( PM 10 & PM 2.5), carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, lead, and ozone. Currently, there is no requirement for states to report hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs) to AFS, although some states with toxics reporting requirements that exceed federal requirements may upload their air toxics information to AFS. 4 At this time, however, no research has been undertaken to determine which states report which HAPs. There also are no statistics on the frequency of state HAP reporting, which facilities report, or the reporting thresholds.

Because data on toxic releases in AFS are sparse, emissions can be estimated ( that is, modeled) using a technique called " speciation." Speciation involves multiplying reported emissions of particulate matter ( PM) and VOCs by fractions representing various compounds, according to a profile specific to the emission source. SPECIATE is EPA's repository of total organic compounds ( TOC) and particulate matter ( PM) speciated profiles for a variety of sources for use in source apportionment studies. OAQPS's Clearinghouse for Inventories on Emission Factors ( CHIEF) website makes available SPECIATE, a windows based speciation application with apportionment factors for 691 organic chemicals and 110 particulates in about 700 total profiles. However, there are significant limitations to the accuracy and reliability of speciation data. The speciation profiles contained in SPECIATE were developed from field sampling, engineering judgements, and other indirect techniques. The weight percentages and number of chemicals in a given profile may be heavily influenced by the particular analytical and sampling methods used to develop the profile. ( U. S. EPA, 1996)

Another shortcoming of SPECIATE involves the assignment of profiles for all SCCs in AIRS. April, 2005 42 Ideally, each SCC in AIRS would have a unique profile to represent its speciation characteristics; however, there are far more SCCs than available profiles. Therefore, those categories which are not associated with original profiles are assigned profiles based on engineering judgement ( Radian, 1993).

Industry/ facility coverage: Because facilities are included in AFS on the basis of their emissions levels, there are no SIC or industry limitations imposed on the list of AFS covered facilities. In contrast, TRI currently only requests data from some, but not all SIC codes, thereby excluding many other industries. It is important to note, however, that emissions thresholds play an important role in determining which facilities are covered. Facilities are covered under AFS only if they release multiple tons of criteria pollutants annually. Smaller HAP emitters that release small amounts of criteria pollutants may therefore be completely exempted from reporting to AFS. TRI, on the other hand, employs thresholds of 10,000 and 25,000 pounds per year, depending on how a particular chemical is used, processed, or manufactured. In addition to this use threshold, TRI also exempts facilities with less than the equivalent of ten full time employees.

Release statistics/ reporting frequency: EPA requests that states upload information to AFS on an annual basis. However, because there are no defined reporting schedules and no real penalties for not reporting, in practice there is " rolling receipt" of information, with some states failing to report for various reasons in some years. Although AFS notes that most states report regularly, and some facility specific emissions data are available from AFS across all reporting years ( Wakefield, 1995), the looseness of the reporting structure makes comparisons across states, industry, facilities, or years difficult.

Accessibility: AFS data are accessible through the EPA Mainframe and to a limited degree, through AIRS Executive, a self contained updatable and downloadable program which digests and summarizes AIRS data. There are no access restrictions for AIRS Executive which is available through the EPA World Wide Web site ( http:// www. epa. gov/ airs/ aexec. html). The EPA Mainframe, however, is password protected and is not accessible by the general public.

State Air Emissions Inventories Several states and regional agencies maintain their own air emissions inventories, including the inventory set up under California's " Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act ( Assembly Bill 2588), and the Great Lakes Regional Air Toxics Emissions Inventory. Approximately half the states have implemented some kind of air toxics reporting system ( Pope, 1995). However, the amount of data as well as the types of data elements collected varies widely from state to state. The Great Lakes inventory merits special attention because other states and countries ( including Louisiana; Texas; Ontario, Canada; and Mexico) use it as a model for their own inventories. A number of other states have active programs or are in the process of developing them. A number April, 2005 43 of other states have active programs or are in the process of developing them. Two are discussed below in terms of their coverage and accessibility characteristics.

Chemical coverage: Chemicals covered under state and regional inventories vary widely in the number of chemicals covered, data elements required, and reporting thresholds used. While some inventories collect detailed, facility level information on many chemicals, others are designed only to track very specific pollutants for specific applications.

Industry/ facility coverage: States often develop their own toxics inventories due to perceived gaps in TRI's industry coverage. For example:

The Great Lakes Regional Air Toxics Emissions Inventory does not require emissions reporting by industry. Rather, state agencies will use best available emission factors ( FIRE) or sourcespecific emission factors and throughput information to estimate emissions from a much larger catalog of sources than TRI, including area sources such as dry cleaners, asphalt plants, and wood stoves ( Ratza, 1995).

Release statistics/ reporting frequency: The type of data collected and data collection frequency among states and regions also varies widely. For example:

Accessibility: Because each state or region which maintains a HAPs database does so more or less independently of the federal government, there currently is no central repository of this information. Because the states and regions also use different database formats and applications to maintain their data, building a multi state/ region air emissions inventory from the existing databases would be a challenging task. However, OAQPS is in the process of developing a national toxics inventory database, which will utilize a combination of TRI data and state, regional, & local databases ( Pope, 1995).

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).