June, 2003 TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE INVENTORY TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE REPORTING INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT OMB CONTROL NO. 2070 0093 EPA ICR # 1363.13 June, 2003 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2( b) Use/ Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3( b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4( a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4( b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . 33 5( a) Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5( b) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5( c) Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5( d) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5( e) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 June, 2003 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 6( d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 6( e) Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 6( f) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 ATTACHMENT A Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Form R ( EPA Form # 9350 1) . . . . . . A 1 ATTACHMENT B TRI Chemicals Reported to Non TRI Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B 1 ATTACHMENT C Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986, Section 313 ( 42 U. S. C. A. Section 1023) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C 1 ATTACHMENT D Pollution Prevention Act ( 42 U. S. C. A. Sections 13101 13109) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D 1 ATTACHMENT E 40 CFR Part 372 Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Community Right to Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 1 ATTACHMENT F Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms and Instructions Revised 2001 Version ( EPA 260 B 02 001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F 1 ATTACHMENT G Revised Form R ( OMB No. 2070 0093) and Crosswalk of Proposed Form R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G 1 June, 2003 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.: 1363.13 OMB Control No.: 2070 0093 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 Right to 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 0143. 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 June, 2003 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 March 10, 2003 with an expiration date of October 31, 2003. A revised draft Form R is included in this ICR as attachment G. In addition, EPA has included a crosswalk between the proposed Form R and the previous version of the Form R in attachment G. EPA amended the draft Form R in light of comments received from reporting facilities in an effort to collect information in a more logical, simplistic manner. The redesigned draft Form R collects all the same information as the prior form; however, it collects that information in a different format. For example, instead of collecting location information and release quantity information separately in sections 5 and 6, the information June, 2003 5 would now be collected together in the same section. In addition, several data elements have been further subdivided than they were in the prior Form R. For example, section 8.1 is subdivided into four subsections: section 8.1a total onsite uncontained releases; section 8.1b total onsite contained disposal; section 8.1. c total offsite uncontained releases; and section 8.1d total offsite contained disposal. This change and others are described in more detail in section 3( b) of this document. The existing reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with Form R, supplier notification and petitions are discussed in this ICR ( EPA ICR # 1363), which is separate from the ICR related to the alternate reporting requirement of the Form A Certification Statement ( EPA ICR # 1704). The reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the alternate reporting requirement using the Form A Certification Statement are contained in a separate ICR and are approved under OMB Control # 2070 0143 ( EPA ICR # 1704). OMB last approved the Form A Certification Statement ICR on March 10, 2003 for use through October 31, 2003. Please note that these two ICRs function entirely separately, such that the OMB action taken with regard to EPA ICR # 1704 applies only to the alternate reporting requirements and the Form A Certification Statement, and that any OMB action taken with regard to the Form R ICR ( EPA ICR # 1363), will apply only to the existing reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with Form R, supplier notification and petitions.

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 June, 2003 6 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 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. June, 2003 7 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 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 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 June, 2003 8 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.

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 Amendments of 1990 ( CAAA). Title III of the CAAA requires EPA to develop Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) standards for major 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 CAAA.. 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 CAAA. Trends in the TRI data are envisioned to be a part of those indicators.

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. June, 2003 9 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. 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 and the Facility and Company Tracking System ( FACTS).

In addition, OECA uses the TRI data in its EPCRA Targeting System ( ETS), which provides local access to TRI and FACTS data for all facilities subject to EPCRA section 313 requirements. ETS supports creation of prioritized inspection targeting lists, generated from a wide array of selection criteria, and daily targeting activities such as contacts with facilities and tracking tips and complaints.

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 approximately ten separate databases, including the Toxic Release Inventory System ( TRIS). 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.

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.

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). 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.

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 June, 2003 10 Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ( CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation Recovery Act of 1976 ( RCRA) statutory authorities.

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.

Use of the Data by the Office of Water The Office of Water ( 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.

The Office of Water Enforcement and Compliance ( OWEC) 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 June, 2003 11 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.

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.

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/).

The EPA " 33/ 50 Program" targeted 17 priority TRI chemicals for 33 percent and 50 percent reductions from 1988 release levels, to be attained by 1992 and 1995, respectively. More than 1,200 companies nationwide joined the Program, which provided several forms of recognition to participating companies. The Program reached both its interim 33 percent reduction goal and its final 50 percent reduction goal one year earlier than planned.

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 June, 2003 12 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 new 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 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. June, 2003 13 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 sends queries to the Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis ( IDEA) system. Only State and Federal agencies have access to the OTIS data system. IDEA copies many EPA and non EPA databases monthly, and 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 proposed public access site for enforcement and compliance data.

OTIS is currently restricted to registered users from governmental organizations. As of March 2002, all states, all EPA Regional Offices, and another 90 local, state and federal governmental 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), the Federal Enforcement Docket, National Compliance Database ( NCDB), and the 1990 U. S. Census. June, 2003 14 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.

The EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics's Risk Screening Environmental Indicators June, 2003 15 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.

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 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 June, 2003 16 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.

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. June, 2003 17 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 about a quarter of a million searches are performed on the site annually.

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 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."

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 June, 2003 18 their own 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 June, 2003 19 into Connoquenessing Creek. In addition, AK Steel was required to provide and pay for an alternative water source for the 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 June, 2003 20 environment and environmental justice issues. APEN might add more environmental, health, and demographic information, and expand its mapping work to other nearby counties.

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 Although Congress intended the public to be the primary audience for TRI data, the TRI has also benefitted industries.

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 June, 2003 21 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 " double digit sales growth" between 1993 and 1998. In addition, reducing its MEK releases saved the Haartz Corporation an estimated $ 200,000 annually.

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 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 June, 2003 22 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.

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.

Academic Use 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 June, 2003 23 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 as the background for an academic paper focusing on the role of information disclosure programs in environmental policy. Professor Stephan used TRI as a prime example for the fundamental theories and concepts that underlie the empirical work on the comparison of basic theories arising from the knowledge of economics, psychology, and politics.

Researchers R. D. Klassen and D. C. Whybark studied management of the natural environment in 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.

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.

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 June, 2003 24 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 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 June, 2003 25 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.

3( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items Reporting Requirements for Form R. Form R consists of two major parts. Part I is for facility identification information such as the name, address, and other identifying information including permit numbers. Part II is for chemical specific information, such as the identity, uses at the facility, quantification of the releases and off site transfers of the chemical, on site waste treatment methods and efficiencies, and the new source reduction and recycling data.

Changes to the Form R: EPA is proposing changes to Part II the Form R based on feedback received from stakeholders through various venues ( e. g., Stakeholder Phase I process, ICR renewal process in 2002, letters, meetings, etc.). Specifically, stakeholders have been requesting that EPA provide more clarity in the organization of data that are collected. These changes do not collect any new or different information than has been previously collected. Instead Part II now clearly identifies on the Form itself the categories for reporting releases and other waste management activities of toxic chemicals. The previous version of this form collected information using codes to specify categories of releases and other waste management activities ( e. g., M73 for Land Treatment). This proposed revision incorporates these codes into the form so it is easier to identify the appropriate release or other waste management activity for the toxic chemical reported, and thus provides greater clarity to the information collected.

Also, in light of feedback received from stakeholders, EPA has broken the information collected on releases in section 8.1 of Part II into four subcategories: total onsite uncontained releases; total onsite contained disposal; total offsite uncontained releases; and total offsite contained disposal. The category of contained disposal would include the quantities sent to on site or offsite landfills and Class I Underground Inject Control wells. This would provide a more complete characterization of TRI chemicals in waste streams by distinguishing between releases to June, 2003 26 ambient media and releases to managed facilities consistent with environmental reporting requirements under other laws. The presence of only one of these factors is not considered enough to consider the release " contained"; for example, regulated air stack emissions are clearly not contained releases. Therefore, all release quantities other than quantities sent to on site or off site landfills and Class I Underground Inject Control wells would be included in the category of uncontained releases.

All of the proposed changes to the Form R should make it easier for facilities to complete the Form and also help in reducing any data quality errors that may have occurred with the previous version of this form ( e. g., selection of the wrong code, discrepancies between Sections 5, 6, and 8). These changes will also allow the award winning Toxics Release Inventory  Made Easy ( TRI ME) software to facilitate the completion of the Form R. Below is a detailed discussion of the changes that are being proposed.

Form R  Part I. Part I contains five sections. EPA is not proposing any changes to Part I of the Form R. The first section is for identification of the reporting year. The second section is for indication if the toxic chemical is claimed as a trade secret. The third section is a certification statement that must be signed by the owner or operator or a senior official with management responsibility for the person or persons completing the form.

The fourth section is for the identification of the facility, its location, and TRI Facility Identification Number. As part of the location information, EPA requires the facility to provide business related specifics such as its Dun and Bradstreet number and the primary four digit SIC code. This section also requires the number of the facility's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit, if the facility has been issued one, the facility's underground injection control ( UIC) code, and, if applicable, its EPA Identification number. The name and telephone number of the public contact, and the technical contact are also entered in the fourth section. In this ICR renewal ( EPA 1363.12 and OMB Control No. 2070 0093), EPA is proposing to add an e mail address field for the technical contact. The fifth section is for identification of the respondent facility's parent company, if applicable, and that parent company's Dun & Bradstreet Number.

Form R  Part II. Part II contains eight sections. The first two are for identification of the chemical or the mixture component. Respondents must identify the chemical or chemical category being reported by the listed name and by the Chemical Abstract Service ( CAS) registry number, if applicable. If the facility claims that the specific chemical identity is a trade secret, the respondent must enter a generic name in Section 1.3.

The third section is for identification of the use or uses of the chemical: manufacture, processing, or otherwise use. The fourth section requires an estimate of the maximum amount of the chemical present at the facility at any time during the calendar year. Ranges identical to those implemented in Sections 311 and 312 are used. June, 2003 27 The fifth section covers all on site and off site releases of the chemical to the environment. Previously the fifth section covered only on site releases. This includes fugitive and stack air emissions, discharges to streams or other water bodies, underground injection, and releases to land such as to landfills and surface impoundments. The respondent also is required to indicate the basis or technique for estimating those releases. The respondent reports the pounds per year released in column A of section 5. In column B of this section, facilities report the release quantity reported in column A resulting from remedial actions, catastrophic events, or one time events not associated with production processes ( pounds per year). Section 5.1 collects information about fugitive or non point air emissions. Section 5.2 collect information about stack or point air emissions. When reporting releases to water bodies, facilities report the name of the body along with the quantity released in Section 5.3.

EPA has subdivided section 5.4 into four parts: 5.4.1: underground injection on site to class I wells; 5.4.2: underground injection on site to class II V wells; 5.4.3 underground injection offsite to class I wells; and 5.4.4 underground injection off site to class II V wells. The previous version of the Form R did not subdivide releases to underground injection wells off site into class I versus class II V wells. For off site releases to underground injection wells, the facility must report the name and location of off site location( s) to which the chemical is sent for the purposes of disposal. In addition, the RCRA ID number ( if applicable) and an indication of whether each such facility is under the control of the reporting facility also is reported. This information is reported in section 7.2, transfers of the toxic chemical in wastes to other off site locations, and is indicated in column E in section 5.4.3 and/ or section 5.4.4.

With respect to land releases, they are divided into two sections: 5.5: disposal to land on site; and 5.6: disposal to land offsite. Section 5.5.1, landfills, is subdivided into 5.5.1. A: RCRA subtitle C landfills and 5.5.1. B: other landfills. In addition, section 5.5.3 is now subdivided into two parts: 5.5.3. A: RCRA subtitle C surface impoundment; and 5.5.3. B: other surface impoundment. Previously this information was combined and reported in section 5.5.3 surface impoundment. The other on site land categories are section 5.5.2 land treatment/ application farming and section 5.5.4 other disposal.

Section 5.6: disposal to land offsite is divided into twelve sections: 5.6.1: RCRA subtitle C landfills; 5.6.2: other landfills; 5.6.3: land treatment; 5.6.4: RCRA subtitle C surface impoundments; 5.6.5: other surface impoundments; 5.6.6: other land disposal; 5.6.7: storage only; 5.6.8: solidification/ stabilization  metals and metal compounds only; 5.6.9: wastewater treatment ( excluding POTW)  metals and metal compounds only; 5.6.10: other offsite management: 5.6.11: transfer to waste broker  disposal; and 5.6.12: unknown disposal. This information was previously collected in section 6.2 of the Form R. For off site releases reported in these sections, the facility must report the name and location of off site location( s) to which the chemical is sent for the purposes of disposal. In addition, the RCRA ID number ( if applicable) and an indication of whether each such facility is under the control of the reporting facility also is reported. This information is reported in section 7.2, transfers of the toxic June, 2003 28 chemical in wastes to other off site locations, and is indicated in column E in the appropriate section.

Section 5.7: transfers of publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs) for release of metals and metal category compounds is information that was previously collected in section 6.1 of the Form R. For off site releases to POTWs, the facility must report the name and location of the POTW( s) to which the chemical is sent for the purposes of disposal. This information is reported in section 7.1, transfers of the toxic chemical in wastes to off site POTWs, and is indicated in column E in section 5.7.

Sections 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 are new data elements, however, they do not contain new data. These elements have been added to facilitate the completion of the Form and reduce potential data quality errors. Section 5.8 is the total on site uncontained releases and is the sum of sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4.2, 5.5.2, 5.5.3A, 5.5.3B, and 5.5.4. Section 5.9 is the total on site contained disposal and is the sum of 5.4.1, 5.5.1A, and 5.5.1B. Section 5.10 is the total off site uncontained releases and is the sum of 5.4.4, 5.6.3, 5.6.4, 5.6.5, 5.6.6, 5.6.7, 5.6.8, 5.6.9, 5.6.10, 5.6.11, 5.6.12, and 5.7. Section 5.11 is the total offsite contained disposal and is the sum of 5.4.3, 5.6.1, and 5.6.2.

Section 5.12 replaces Section 8.8 of the previous Form. Section 5.12 is the total releases resulting from remedial actions, catastrophic events, or one time events not associated with production processes ( i. e., the sum of column B in sections 5.8 through 5.11).

The sixth section consists of three subsections and requires respondents to quantify the other management of the toxic chemical in wastes, that is, the treatment, energy recovery, and recycling of the toxic chemical both on and off site . The previous code U09  Other Energy Recovery Methods has been dropped in the revised Form because this element is not applicable since the only energy recovery methods are combustion in a kiln, boiler or industrial furnace. Combustion units other than kilns, boilers and industrial furnaces are used for treatment of the toxic chemical ( except for metal and metal compounds). This revised section 6 combines information formally reported in sections 6.1, 6.2, 7, and 8.2 through 8.7 of the previous version of the Form R. Section 6 requires the name and location of all POTWs to which non metals are sent for the purposes of treatment. For other off site facilities to which the chemical is sent for the purposes of recycling, treatment, or disposal, the RCRA ID number ( if applicable) and an indication of whether each such facility is under the control of the reporting facility also is reported. This location information is reported in column D of the appropriate section. Section 6 also captures information about the on site treatment methods, energy recovery methods, and recycling methods used at the facility.

Section 7 is a new section that is divided into two subsections. Section 7.1: transfers of the toxic chemical in wastes to off site POTWs; in this section the respondent reports the name and location of all POTWs. Section 7.2: transfers of the toxic chemical in wastes to other off site June, 2003 29 locations; in this section the respondent reports the name and location of off site locations to which the chemical is sent for the purposes of recycling, treatment, or disposal. For other offsite facilities, the RCRA ID number ( if applicable) and an indication of whether each such facility is under the control of the reporting facility also is reported.

Section 8 in the proposed form is now called quantity of the toxic chemical in production related waste. In the previous version of the form, this section was called source reduction and recycling activities. Section 8, column B, is different from the previous version of the Form R because column B is now a summary of information that is collected elsewhere in the form. Also, in the proposed form, section 8.1 is now subdivided into four subsections: section 8.1a total onsite uncontained releases; section 8.1b total onsite contained disposal; section 8.1. c total offsite uncontained releases; and section 8.1d total offsite contained disposal. These quantities are obtained from sections 5.8 through 5.11. Section 8.2, column B, is the quantity treated onsite, this quantity is inserted from section 6.1. A. 5. Section 8.3, column B, is the quantity treated offsite, this quantity is inserted from section 6.1. B. 8. Section 8.4, column B, is the quantity used for energy recovery onsite, this quantity is inserted from section 6.2. A. 2. Section 8.5, column B, is the quantity used for energy recovery offsite, this quantity is inserted from section 6.2. B. 3. Section 8.6, column B, is the quantity recycled onsite, this quantity is inserted from section 6.3. A. 5. Section 8.7, column B, is the quantity recycled offsite, this quantity is inserted from section 6.3. B. 6. In addition to the quantities reported for the current year in column B, quantities are reported for the prior year, as well as quantities anticipated in both the first year immediately following the reporting year and the second year following the reporting year.

The quantity released to the environment as a result of remedial actions, catastrophic events, or one time events not associated with production processes was collected in the previous version of the form in section 8.8. This information in now collected in section 5.12 of the proposed form. In the proposed form, section 8.8 now collects the ratio of reporting year production to prior year production or an activity index based on a variable other than production Section 9 source reduction activities is a new section and consists of information collected in sections 8.9 through 8.11 of the previous form. This section includes the following information: source reduction activities implemented during the calendar year for the reported toxic chemical, and the method used to identify the source reduction activity. Facilities also must indicate whether additional optional information is being submitted on source reduction, recycling, or pollution control activities.

Section 10: onsite waste treatment methods and efficiency, is a new section but is the equivalent of information that was previously collected in section 7A of the previous version of the Form R.

Reporting Requirements for the Form A Certification Statement. On November 30, 1994 ( 59 FR 61488), EPA promulgated the alternative threshold rule which allows a facility which June, 2003 30 manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses 1 million pounds or less of a chemical annually, and if 500 pounds or less of that chemical is present in their annual reportable release amount, then the alternate threshold reporting option, TRI reporting Form A Certification Statement, is available to that facility for a specific chemical. An annual reportable amount is defined as the combined total quantities released at the facility, treated at the facility ( as represented by amounts destroyed or converted by treatment processes), recovered at the facility as a result of recycle operations, combusted for the purpose of energy recovery at the facility, and amounts transferred from the facility to off site locations for the purpose of recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and/ or disposal.

The reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the alternate reporting requirement using the Form A Certification Statement are contained in a separate ICR approved under OMB Control # 2070 0143 ( EPA ICR # 1704).

Recordkeeping. Facilities must keep a copy of each Form R and Form A Certification Statement submitted for at least 3 years from the date of submission. Facilities also must maintain the documents, calculations, and other information used to prepare the reports. Documents and records that facilities keep to prepare a report submitted may include, but are not limited to:

C Prior years' Form Rs; C Inventory data and purchase records; C Process diagrams that indicate releases and waste management activities; C Monitoring records; C Flowmeter data; C Manufacturer's estimates of efficiencies; C Worksheets, engineering calculations, and other notes; C NPDES permits and associated data; C EPCRA Section 312 Tier II reports; C Pretreatment reports when applicable; C RCRA manifests; C RCRA Hazardous Waste Generator's Report; and C Invoices from waste management companies.

( ii) Respondent Activities EPA makes Form R, the Form A Certification Statement, and detailed instructions and guidance documents available to owners or operators of facilities subject to the section 313 reporting requirements. In addition, a toll free hotline is available to handle general and technical inquiries from the regulated community. Technical assistance also is available through the EPA Regional offices and States. The regulated community is expected to comply with the reporting requirements by completing either the Form R or the Form A Certification Statement and mailing it to EPA and the appropriate state agency. Section 313( g)( 2) provides that a " facility may use readily available data ( including monitoring data) collected pursuant to other provisions of law, or where data are not readily available, reasonable estimates of the amounts involved." June, 2003 31 Respondents are not required to develop new information. The following are the respondent activities and are briefly summarized below:

C Compliance Determination C Report Completion ( Compliance) C Substantiation of a Trade Secret Claim C Recordkeeping/ Disclosure C Supplier Notification C Petition Submission ( not a requirement)

Compliance Determination. Facilities must first determine if they are required to submit a Form R or are eligible to submit a Form A Certification Statement. The determination is based on the SIC code( s) for the facility, the number of full time employees or equivalents, and the quantities of listed toxic chemicals manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at the facility. For facilities contemplating using the Form A Certification Statement, for each non PBT ( persistent bioaccumulative toxic) chemical, facilities also must determine the sum of amounts in total waste and determine that they did not manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than 1 million pounds of the listed toxic chemical. Assistance with compliance determination and Form R completion is available through the States and the EPA Headquarters and Regions.

Report or Form Completion ( Compliance). Once a facility has determined that it must comply with the statute, it must submit either a Form R or, if eligible, a Form A Certification Statement for each reportable chemical. The basic procedures for reporting are detailed in the regulations at 40 CFR 372 and described in the Reporting Forms and Instructions ( Attachment A).

Substantiation of a Trade Secrecy Claim. If a submitter claims that the identity of a chemical is a trade secret, the submitter must support that claim. As the intent of the statute is public disclosure, the burden is upon industry to prove that certain data must be withheld from the public. Information must be provided to EPA that indicates that the identity has not been already revealed, that a competitive advantage would be lost if the identity were revealed, and that reverse engineering could not be performed to reveal the true identity of the substance if trade secrecy was granted. Trade Secrecy Substantiation, including the burden and costs to industry, is discussed in greater detail in the ICR for the Trade Secrecy Rule for EPCRA ( EPA ICR # 1428, OMB # 2050 0078).

Recordkeeping/ Disclosure. Respondents are required to maintain records up to three years. Respondents are not required to disclose any information directly to the public.

Supplier Notification. Suppliers of facilities in SIC codes 20 39 are required to develop and distribute a notice if the mixtures or trade name products they manufacture or process, and subsequently distribute, contain listed toxic chemicals. These notices are distributed to June, 2003 32 companies in SIC codes 20 39 or to companies that sell or otherwise distribute the product to facilities in SIC codes 20 39.

Petition Submission. EPA issued statements of petition policy and guidance in the Federal Register on February 4, 1987 ( 52 FR 3479) and on May 23, 1991 ( 56 FR 23703). Petitioners may submit, in writing, a request to either add or delete a chemical to or from the section 313 list. The petitioner may include in this request evidence that the chemical either meets or does not meet the criteria established for inclusion on the section 313 list. Submission of a petition thus may involve a literature search and compilation and presentation of the findings to the Agency. Petition submission is not an activity that is required of regulated entities, but the burden estimates for filing a petition are included in this ICR.

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.

C Assistance to Respondents C Data Processing and Quality Control C Making Data Available C List Revisions and Petition Reviews C 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, June, 2003 33 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 programspecific 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 pre petition 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 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. June, 2003 34 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 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. June, 2003 35 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 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 June, 2003 36 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 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. Over the three years of the ICR period, EPA expects adoption rates of TRI ME to increase rapidly. Note that 73 percent of responses were received electronically for the 1999 reporting year. For the 2000 reporting year, 79 percent of responses were received electronically. EPA expects to attain similar adoption rates for TRI ME by the end of the ICR renewal period. Based on responses from facilities that June, 2003 37 tested TRI ME in Reporting Year 2000, EPA expects that TRI ME will result in a burden reduction of 25 percent in the activities of Form R Completion and Recordkeeping/ Submission.

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 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. June, 2003 38 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. June, 2003 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.

39 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 nonattainment 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 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 June, 2003 40 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 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. June, 2003 41 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: particulate matter less than 10 microns in size ( PM10), carbon monoxide ( CO), sulfur dioxide ( SO2), nitrogen dioxide ( NO2), 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 June, 2003 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, 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 42 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, SOx, or NOx, 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, SOx, or NOx, 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 June, 2003 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.

43 SCC codes are not 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 ( PM10 & PM2.5), 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. 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). June, 2003 44 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.