[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 144 (Thursday, July 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18449]
[Federal Register: July 28, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 372
Alternate Threshold for Low-Level Releases and Transfers; Toxic
Chemical Release Reporting; Community Right-to-Know; Proposed Rule
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 372
[OPPTS-400087; FRL-4776-8]
RIN 2070-AC70
Alternate Threshold for Low-Level Releases and Transfers; Toxic
Chemical Release Reporting; Community Right-to-Know
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Action: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: EPA is proposing to establish an alternate reporting threshold
for those facilities with low-level releases and transfers that would
otherwise meet reporting requirements under section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). A
facility that meets the current section 313 reporting thresholds, but
estimates that the sum of its annual releases on-site and transfers
off-site (for the purposes of treatment and/or disposal only) of a
listed chemical is below 100 pounds, may be eligible to take advantage
of this proposed alternate reporting threshold, for that chemical in
that year, provided that certain conditions are adhered to. EPA is
proposing to establish this alternate reporting threshold in response
to petitions received from the Small Business Administration and the
American Feed Industry Association.
Dates: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received by
August 29, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted in triplicate to: OPPT
Docket Clerk, TSCA Document Receipt Office (7407), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. NE-B607,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments should include the
document control number for this proposal, OPPTS-400087.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Crawford, Project Manager, (7408),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
For specific information on this proposed rule, or for more information
on EPCRA section 313, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Hotline, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 5101, 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, Toll free: 1-800-535-0202, in Virginia
and Alaska: 703-412-9877 or Toll free TDD: 1-800-553-7672.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
This proposed rule is issued under sections 313(f)(2) and 328 of
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA),
42 U.S.C. 11023(f)(2) and 11048. EPCRA is also referred to as Title III
of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
Section 313 of EPCRA requires certain facilities manufacturing,
processing, or otherwise using listed toxic chemicals in excess of the
applicable threshold quantities to report their environmental releases
of such chemicals annually. Beginning with the 1991 reporting year,
such facilities began reporting pollution prevention and recycling data
for listed chemicals, pursuant to section 6607 of the Pollution
Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 13106. This information is submitted on EPA
form 9350-1 (Form R) an compiled in an annual Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI). Each covered facility must file a separate Form R for each
listed chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in excess of
the reporting thresholds established in section 313(f)(1). EPA has
authority to revise these threshold amounts pursuant to section
313(f)(2); however, such revised threshold amounts shall obtain
reporting on a substantial majority of total releases of the chemical
at all facilities subject to section 313. A revised threshold may be
based on classes of chemicals or categories of facilities. Section 328
provides EPA with general rulemaking authority to develop regulations
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act.
B. Background on Petitions
On August 8, 1991, the Small Business Administration (SBA)
petitioned EPA to exempt from TRI reporting requirements facilities
reporting low volumes of chemicals released and transferred. This
petition states that:
Currently, EPA's implementation of SARA mandates a collection of
both significant and insignificant data. It unreasonably includes
many small facilities whose compliance with present section 313
regulations is overly burdensome. The TRI database is not
meaningfully improved by countless entries of zero or de minimis
release figures, as it now appears with current Congressionally-
specified thresholds. Based on 1988 data, the Office of Advocacy
estimated that EPA could generally exclude facilities with releases
and transfers of less than 5,000 pounds annually for the vast
majority of section 313 chemicals and still satisfy the right to
know objectives and the statutory requirements. (Ref. 1).
EPA published this petition in the Federal Register (October 27,
1992, 57 FR 48706) (SBA Notice), and received a substantial number of
comments in response to this notice. Copies of these comments are
available in the TSCA docket, OPPTS docket number 400072. The proposal
being put forth in this document is EPA's response to the SBA petition.
EPA received a similar request in a petition from the American Feed
Industry Association (AFIA) on February 14, 1992. AFIA requested an
exemption of Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 2048 from
TRI reporting. The general basis of this request is that SIC code 2048,
``Prepared Feeds and Feed Ingredients for Animals and Fowls, Except
Dogs and Cats,'' has such small releases of chemicals (primarily feed
additives) that the industry as a whole does not contribute information
that furthers the purposes of EPCRA and therefore the imposition of TRI
reporting on the feed industry is unfair. The AFIA petition suggested,
as an alternative to the requested SIC code deletion, EPA's adoption of
the approach proposed in the SBA petition.
EPA published this petition in the Federal Register (April 13,
1993, 58 FR 19308), and received a substantial number of comments.
These comments are available in the TSCA docket, OPPTS docket number
400077.
At this time, EPA has decided to focus on a revision of current
reporting requirements that would be applied equally to all industries
subject to section 313, as opposed to a revision restricted to target
industrial sectors or SIC codes. EPA believes the proposal put forth in
this document would effectively address the major points of the AFIA
petition. Based on the information provided in the AFIA petition and
results from EPA's analysis, approximately 50 percent of all of the
facilities reporting under SIC code 2048 will qualify for the threshold
modification being proposed (Ref. 4). EPA therefore considers the
proposal put forth in this document as a response to the AFIA petition.
II. Explanation for the Alternate Threshold for Low-Level Releases
and Transfers
A. General Approach
Congress intended that the data collected by EPA under EPCRA
section 313 be used to inform persons about releases of toxic chemicals
to the environment, assist the government, researchers, and the public
in the conduct of research and data gathering, to aid in the
development of appropriate regulations, guidance, and standards, and
for other similar purposes (EPCRA section 313(h)). Congress directed
EPA to make this information publicly available on a cost-reimbursable
basis through a computer data base, which EPA has done using the on-
line TRI system (EPCRA section 313(j)).
EPCRA section 313 established a list of more than 300 chemicals and
20 categories for which TRI reporting is required (EPCRA section
313(c)). Facilities in SIC codes 20-39 which manufacture, process, or
otherwise use over certain threshold amounts of a listed chemical must
annually report their releases of such chemicals to EPA and the States.
However, Congress recognized that this statutory framework need not
remain immutable should EPA's experience in collecting data under TRI
indicate that certain revisions to the reporting structure may be
warranted. In directing and authorizing EPA to maintain and manage the
TRI program, Congress also provided EPA with authority to revise the
nature of and manner in which TRI data is reported to and collected by
the Federal government.
In particular, Congress provided EPA authority to add or delete SIC
codes (section 313(b)(1)(B)), apply the reporting requirements to
additional facilities (section 313(b)(2)), add chemicals to or delete
chemicals from the TRI list (section 313(d)), revise the reporting
thresholds (section 313(f)(2)), modify the reporting frequency (section
313(i)), and prescribe such other regulations as may be necessary to
carry out the Act (section 328). In providing EPA these authorities,
Congress also recognized that EPA may see fit to tailor any such
revisions to specific facility or chemical, a broad category of
facilities or class of chemicals, to all or only some forms submitted
to EPA, or to a specific or more general geographic area.
In the spirit of this broad statutory mandate, and Congressional
recognition of the need for flexibility given changing national needs
and priorities, EPA has already announced its intent to significantly
expand the scope of the TRI program. EPA's proposed rule to add 313
chemicals and a chemical category to the list of reportable chemicals
established under EPCRA section 313(c) (January 12, 1994, 59 FR 1788)
is expected to add an estimated 28,000 new reports to TRI based on the
current threshold levels. In addition, EPA is in the process of
identifying and evaluating additional industry sectors for inclusion in
TRI reporting. The addition of industry sectors beyond the current
manufacturing sector is expected to substantially increase the level of
current reporting.
EPA recognizes that the addition of this new information to TRI is
expected to carry significant reporting costs to industry, as well as
Federal and state costs to manage and provide the data to the public.
Nonetheless, given existing national and local concerns over chemical
management practices, consistent with its statutory authorities, EPA
believes that these anticipated expansions, and their attendant costs,
are necessary to provide the public more complete information on
significant chemical uses and releases.
However, EPA also believes that its years of experience with the
collection of TRI data allow EPA to propose certain changes to the
nature of the reporting obligations imposed on industry without
compromising EPA's duty to collect and disseminate relevant information
to the public on chemical releases. EPA has examined whether some of
the information currently collected under TRI as presently structured
may be of lesser ``value'' than some of the new reports expected to be
received as a result of EPA's efforts to expand TRI. In particular,
many of the forms currently submitted report volumes of zero for
releases and transfers. Additionally, there are forms that report zero
volumes for all elements on the form. EPA believes that the space that
such reports consume in the data base and the effort necessary to
submit them would be better applied to those additional reports that
contain positive values for releases and transfers of toxic chemicals.
This proposal attempts to balance additional data needs with the burden
to supply such data. EPA believes that it is possible, and consistent
with its authorities under EPCRA, to create an alternative reporting
threshold applicable to those facilities which annually release on
transfer off-site (for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal) less
than a specified amount of a listed TRI chemical. EPA further believes
that this alternative reporting threshold, if implemented as proposed,
will not result in a significant loss of data on chemical releases.
By creating such an alternative reporting threshold, the number of
TRI reports annually submitted to EPA could be reduced by and estimated
20,500. This would result in a cost savings to both government and
industry, and would offset some of the expected added costs associated
with the anticipated expansions of the TRI program. Today's proposal
attempts to balance the additional data needs represented by EPA's TRI
expansion efforts with the burden to supply such data.
The proposed revision of the manufacture, process, and otherwise
use thresholds described below is based on EPA's analysis and comments
received during the pre-proposal process. As part of the pre-proposal
process, which included a consideration of the comments received on the
SBA Notice, EPA held a public meeting on February 16, 1994, to present
its analytical findings and open discussions regarding reduced
reporting for low volume releases and transfers. Comment was taken from
a variety of positions. Results from EPA's preliminary analysis are
presented in an issues paper, Toxic Release Inventory--Small Source
Exemption (January 27, 1994) (Issues paper), and can be obtained in the
TSCA docket, OPPTS docket number 400087 along with copies of the
testimony presented at the Public Meeting.
Based on EPA's analysis and comments received, EPA believes that
reducing the number of TRI reports by raising reporting thresholds for
those facilities having low-level amounts released and transferred will
help EPA, states, and the reporting community to focus their attention
and resources on reducing chemical uses and releases that are of
greatest concern. Therefore, EPA is proposing the development of an
alternative threshold based on a category of facilities that have
releases and transfers below a specified amount. EPA believes that this
optional, alternative threshold will help balance costs (current and
anticipated) that are associated with providing TRI information. This
analysis is discussed further in part C of this section.
B. Description of Proposal
EPA is proposing that certain facilities may take advantage of a
higher reporting threshold than those set out in 40 CFR 372.25 for any
listed toxic chemical, if the sum of amounts of that chemical released
and transferred (but only for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal)
for that facility is below 100 pounds per year.
The revised thresholds would apply to a category of facilities on a
per chemical basis for which the sum of the amounts described above is
below 100 pounds per year. The alternate manufacture, or process, or
otherwise use thresholds for each of the chemicals meeting the ``low-
level release'' category would be an amount equal to or greater than 1
million pounds per year. If a facility meets these conditions, then
that facility would not be required to file a Form R report for the
reporting year for each chemical for which these conditions are met.
A facility would make several determinations to ascertain if it
could take advantage of the higher alternate reporting threshold. The
facility would first determine if it was a ``covered facility''
pursuant to 40 CFR 372.22. Currently, a facility is a ``covered
facility'' for purposes of EPCRA section 313 reporting if it: (a) Has
10 or more full-time employees, (b) is in SIC codes 20 through 39, and
(c) manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses a listed toxic chemical
in excess of the applicable statutory thresholds. EPA is proposing to
amend the last condition to include those facilities which elect to
apply the alternate reporting thresholds under the proposed 40 CFR
372.27. Therefore, a facility applying the alternate threshold would
still be considered a ``covered facility'' under 40 CFR 372.22.
Once a facility makes this determination, it would then estimate
the sum of its releases and transfers (for purposes of treatment and/or
disposal) for each listed chemical manufactured, processed, or
otherwise used at the facility. If this sum is below 100 pounds per
year, the facility could then apply the higher alternate reporting
threshold of 1 million pounds to determine its reporting obligation for
that chemical, provided that it also meets the concomitant
certification and recordkeeping requirements. A facility eligible for
and choosing to apply, the alternate revised threshold, would only be
required to file a certification statement and maintain certain records
in support of this certification. The facility would not be required to
file a full Form R report for that chemical.
To take advantage of the revised thresholds, a facility would be
required to: (a) Submit in writing an annual certification, indicating
that the chemical for which the alternate threshold applies was
released and transferred for the purposes of treatment and/or disposal
in the sum of an amount less than 100 pounds per year; and (b) maintain
and make available upon request accurate records substantiating the
calculations supporting the release and transfer determination.
C. Explanation and Rationale for Proposal
Current reporting thresholds for manufacture, process, or otherwise
use of listed section 313 chemicals are set forth in EPCRA section
313(f)(1). EPCRA section 313 does not provide EPA with direct authority
to establish a reporting threshold under section 313(f)(1) based solely
on amounts of estimated chemical releases. EPCRA section 313(f)(2)
does, however, provide EPA authority to revise the established activity
threshold amounts in section 313(f)(1).
The Administrator may establish a threshold amount for a toxic
chemical different from the amount established by paragraph (1).
Such revised threshold shall obtain reporting on a substantial
majority of total releases of the chemical at all facilities subject
to the requirements of this section. The amounts established under
this paragraph may, at the Administrator's discretion, be based on
classes of chemicals or categories of facilities.
Today, EPA is proposing to define a category of facilities based on
the volume of chemicals released. By establishing a class of chemicals
or category of facilities, a threshold modification associated with
that class or category can be applied selectively. Facilities having
total releases less than a certain amount for one or more chemicals
would constitute a category of facilities. This category would then be
eligible to take advantage of a revised manufacture, process, or
otherwise use threshold for that specific chemical. In this way, only
those facilities that fit within the category, and relevant chemicals
at those facilities, would be affected.
EPA believes that it is appropriate to base the category
determination on releases and transfers (for the purpose of treatment
and/or disposal only). Although other elements on Form R may have
significant volumes associated with them, EPA believes the combination
of releases and such transfers on Form R approximate a facility's
actual and/or potential environmental loadings. EPA believes that the
proposed aggregate release level of less than 100 pounds represents an
optimum balance between the need to limit the loss of TRI information
made available to the public while eliminating reporting of data that
is of lesser utility to the public. Based on 1991 data, an estimated
20,500 forms, or approximately one quarter of all Form Rs submitted,
would qualify for the alternate threshold. As indicated in Table 1
below, the number of reports affected increase at a relatively
proportionate rate as the aggregate release level for the category
increases. However, above the 100 pound category level, the volumes of
releases and transfers (for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal)
depict a notable increase from 200,000 to 1,400,000 pounds for the
respective category levels of 100 and 250 pounds. Results between the
100 and 250 pound category levels also indicate a significant increase
in total waste generated, as well as in the number of counties with
resultant decreases of information. These results indicate a natural
break in the data indicating a point of balance between the two
objectives of reducing the reporting burden and continuing to provide
information of the greatest utility to the public. The selection of the
alternate threshold for manufacture, process, or otherwise use of 1
million pounds represents a compromise that seeks to provide those
facilities with aggregate releases and transfers below 100 pounds per
chemical with an effective exemption from Form R reporting, while
recognizing that even the most ``well-controlled'' facilities would
find it difficult to manage chemicals in amounts of nearly 1 million
pounds per year and only incur aggregate releases and transfers of
below 100 pounds per year.
As noted above, EPCRA section 313(f)(2) requires that any revision
to the current reporting thresholds continue to capture a substantial
majority of total releases of the chemical. EPA believes this
requirement should be interpreted as applying to each listed chemical
or category, and not to total releases for all chemicals nationally.
EPA believes such an interpretation is consistent with the intent of
Congress.
The Administrator may modify these threshold amounts for a
particular chemical, provided the revised threshold results in
reporting on a substantial majority of the aggregate releases of the
chemical at facilities subject to this section, but it would not
necessarily require reporting from each facility (Ref. 2).
The analysis described in the Impact on Reporting discussion below
indicates that there would be an almost complete loss of reports on a
very limited number of chemicals with very low volumes of releases and
transfers based on an alternate reporting threshold below the 100 pound
release level. This is confirmed by similar results conducted on the
1992 data set which is also provided in the Impact on Reporting
discussion. However, EPA believes that the proposed annual
certification requirement, if implemented as proposed, would serve to
maintain reporting on a substantial majority of releases of all
chemicals that may be affected by the proposed alternate reporting
threshold, including those discussed below in the unit titled Impact on
Reporting.
Annual Certification. EPA is proposing that each qualifying
facility which chooses to apply the revised manufacture, process, or
otherwise use thresholds must file an annual certification statement in
lieu of a full Form R report. The proposed annual certification would
provide an indication that the sum of amounts released and transferred
for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal for each listed chemical
for which the alternate threshold is being applied did not exceed 100
pounds. This information can be made available in the same manner that
the information reported on Form R is made available. Currently,
facilities releasing less than 100 pounds may indicate on Form R that
they released from 1 to 10 pounds and 11 to 499 pounds. This is known
as a ``range report.'' The certification statement would act as the
functional equivalent of a range report of zero to 99 pounds for
combined releases and transfers for treatment and/or disposal. In this
way, information on a substantial majority of both releases and
transfers for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal would be
maintained, which would satisfy the statutory intent of EPCRA section
313(f)(2). EPA also believes that this approach would address several
of the concerns addressed by comments during the pre-proposal process.
During the development of this proposal and at the February 16,
1994 Public Meeting, EPA received a number of comments regarding a
certification requirement. Some of the commenters favor a one-time
certification by a facility that releases and transfers are within the
limits established for the alternate threshold. The facility and
chemical information would be recorded, and if there are changes in
amounts released or transferred which would no longer allow the
application of the alternative threshold, then full reporting would be
reinstated.
Other commenters support an annual certification. These commenters
contend that an annual certification has the effect of continued
verification that releases and transfers are below the level
established for a facility category. These commenters believe that
without an annually submitted certification statement, reports for
prior years would have to be compared with each consecutive reporting
year to identify a potential non-reporter. Any attempt to verify if
non-reporting may have occurred would require a follow up activity.
Comments also assert that an annual statement helps to ensure that
operators are aware of specific chemical uses and releases, thereby
promoting good housekeeping practices. Additional comment in support of
an annual certification statement described some state programs that
currently survey facilities that reported in prior years but did not
submit reports for the year under review.
After considering these comments, and the language of section
313(f)(2), EPA believes that an annual certification statement best
addresses the statutory mandates and the public's right-to-know. EPA
believes that the proposed annual certification will provide
information relating to the location of facilities manufacturing,
processing, or otherwise using these chemicals, that the chemicals are
being manufactured, processed or otherwise used at current reporting
thresholds, and that chemical releases and transfers for the purpose of
treatment and/or disposal are below 100 pounds per year (i.e., within a
range of zero to 99 pounds per year). This provides a sufficient
indication of the potential volume of releases and such data can be
made available to the public in the same manner as current Form R data.
An annual statement will assist users of TRI data in distinguishing
facilities which changed their chemical uses, and therefore were no
longer required to report, from those that were required to, but did
not report. An annual certification would assist those states that do
not have the resources to survey facilities operating in their state as
well as the public that use the data.
Finally, EPA believes the proposed annual certification
requirements would foster continued attention to chemical management
practices and provide a locational tool vital to any compliance program
or other interested party. EPA believes it necessary to receive some
type of specific indication that a facility was taking advantage of the
alternate threshold annually to assist in any compliance monitoring and
enforcement efforts.
EPA is interested in receiving comment on this approach and on
alternatives, for example, requiring a certification statement every 3
or 5 years as opposed to annually. EPA would also like comment on the
elements contained in the certification statement. In particular, are
the elements appropriate for such a certification statement, and are
all such elements necessary and sufficient? The elements EPA is
proposing can be found in the amendment to the regulatory text of
Sec. 372.85.
Recordkeeping. EPA is also proposing that each facility taking
advantage of the alternate threshold be required to maintain and make
available upon request records for a period of 3 years from the date of
the submission of the certification statement. These records would
provide substantiation that an appropriate threshold determination was
made and that estimated releases and transfers, for the purpose of
treatment and/or disposal, were below 100 pounds for that reporting
year. This documentation is necessary for any compliance effort
verifying the claims made by a facility taking advantage of the
alternate threshold.
Impact on Reporting. In developing this proposal, EPA analyzed TRI
data to determine the impact of various options on the number of Form R
reports that would no longer be received by EPA, amount and nature of
chemical release information that would no longer be available to the
public, and savings to industry, EPA, and State governments due to the
reduced reporting and data management costs. EPA's preliminary analysis
was contained in an Issues Paper made available at the Public Meeting
held on February 16, 1994 (Ref. 3).
After the public meeting, EPA conducted additional analysis to
estimate the impact on reporting of the creation of an alternate
reporting threshold for a category of facilities for which annual
releases and transfers off-site for the purpose of treatment and/or
disposal were reported as below certain threshold levels, ranging from
zero to below 5,000 pounds.
The following analytical results are based on 1991 and 1992 TRI
data. These are the only data sets that contain the information on
releases and transfers for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal
plus the elements reported under the Pollution Prevention Act needed to
calculate the impact of the alternate threshold being proposed by this
document. A summary of the major findings for the volume-based category
options considered are provided below:
Table 1.--Summary of Analytical Findings (Alternate Reporting Threshold Based on Releases and Transfers*)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Counties with
Threshold Level No. of Reports Volume Release and Percent of Total Volume Total Waste 91-100 % Loss of
(pounds) Affected (1,000) Transfers* Affected Release and Affected (million Percent Total Waste Release and
(pounds) Transfer* pounds) Transfer* Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0/NA 10.2 0.0 0.00% 1,203.7 3.3% 0
10 16.2 35,000 0.00% 1,687.3 4.9% 36
100 20.5 200,000 0.01% 2,260.7 6.3% 52
250 26.2 1,400,000 0.03% 3,059.7 8.5% 94
500 33.0 4,000,000 0.1% 3,864.3 10.7% 141
1,000 38.9 8,400,000 0.2% 5,583.8 15.5% 177
5,000 50.1 36,200,000 0.8% 7,786.7 21.6% 254
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Release and transfers for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal. (Data taken from 1991 reporting.)
EPA estimates that a total of 20,500 forms reported releases and
transfers, as defined by this proposal, within the range of zero to 99
pounds based on both 1991 and 1992 data. For 1991, these forms
originated from an estimated 10,200 facilities, of which 3,600
facilities would have met the ``low-level release'' category
determination for all chemical reports submitted. For 1992 reporting,
the 20,500 forms affected by the alternate thresholds originated from
an estimated 10,600 facilities, of which 3,800 facilities would have
met the ``low-level release'' category determination for all chemical
reports submitted.
The amounts reported for releases and transfers as defined by EPA's
proposal for the 20,500 forms totaled approximately 200,000 pounds for
1991 reporting and 164,200 pounds for 1992. This represents less than
1/100th of 1 percent of the total (4.5 billion) pounds reported for
releases and transfers for treatment and/or disposal for 1991. Results
for 1992 data are basically the same. Those Form R reports that
indicated a range code of B, which represents a range between 11 and
499 pounds in any of the data elements used to make the ``low-level
release'' category determination, were not counted. For the purpose of
data management, a midpoint value is assigned in places where a range
code is reported. The value assigned to range code B is 250 pounds. A
report that submitted a range code of B in any element used to make the
``low-level release'' category determination, regardless of the amounts
submitted in the remaining elements, would appear to be over the 100
pound category level. Therefore, the following results of EPA's
analysis could underestimate the number of reports impacted in cases
where actual amounts released or transferred for the purpose of
treatment and/or disposal were below 100 pounds and the corresponding
report indicated a range code of B. Based on 1991 data, approximately
4,600 Form Rs reported a range code indicating volumes within the range
of 11-499 pounds for at least one element being used to define the
category.
The total wastes volumes (amounts defined by releases and transfers
for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal plus the Pollution
Prevention Act reporting elements) associated with the 20,500 forms
totaled approximately 2,260,700,000 pounds. This represents
approximately 6.3 percent of the total 36 billion pounds reported by
all forms for 1991. Total waste volumes associated with the 20,500
forms estimated to be eligible to apply the alternate threshold for
1992 was 6,105,300,000 pounds, which represents approximately 16.7
percent of total waste reported for all forms.
EPA's analysis found that, based on 1991 data, 15 chemicals would
no longer be reported on Form R to the Agency. In 1991, these 15
chemicals were reported on a total of 26 Form Rs. The total amounts
released and transferred for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal
from these 26 forms was less than 350 pounds.
Based on 1991 data, the 15 chemicals for which most or all of the
information on Form R would no longer be reported are presented below
with the corresponding number of reports submitted per chemical and the
total pounds released and transferred for the purpose of treatment and/
or disposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Name Number of Reports Total pounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha-Naphthylamine 2 10
4-Aminobiphenyl 1 4
C.I. Food Red 15 4 46
C.I. Solvent Yellow 3 2 15
2-Chloroacetophenone 1 2
2,4-Diaminoanisole 1 85
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine 2 4
Heptachlor 1 5
Isosafrole 1 10
Methyl Hydrazine 2 1
Michler's Ketone 1 3
P-Anisidine 3 26
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2 82
2,6-Xylindine 2 21
Zineb 1 5
Total 26 319
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From these numbers, it can be seen that these are chemicals for
which very low releases and transfers are reported nationally. A
similar analysis was conducted on 1992 data. Results from the 1992
data, indicate that 7 chemicals would no longer be reported on Form R
with a ``low-level release'' category determination of less than 100
pounds. These 7 chemicals were reported on a total of 14 TRI reporting
forms, with total amounts released and transferred for the purpose of
treatment and/or disposal of less than 300 pounds.
Based on the 1992 data, the 7 chemicals for which Form R would no
longer be filed are presented below with the corresponding number of
reports submitted per chemical and the total pounds released and
transferred for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal for each
chemical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Name Number of Reports Total Pounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha-Naphthylamine 2 10
4-Aminobiphenyl 1 3
Cupferron 1 79
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine 3 8
p-Anisidine 3 31
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 1 87
2,6-Xylidine 3 59
Total 14 277
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Alternative Options
The following four options are being presented for comment as
alternatives to EPA's proposal. The first three options are constructed
in the same manner as EPA's proposal, except the amount of ``low-level
releases'' presented by the sums of releases and transfers for the
purpose of treatment and/or disposal per chemical per year are: (1)
Less than 500 pounds, (2) less than 10 pounds or, (3) zero (or not
applicable). The fourth alternative that EPA is considering creates a
facility category based on amounts reported for total waste generation.
1. Category: less than 500 pounds per year. This option would allow
facilities that meet current reporting requirements but that have a
chemical or chemicals for which the sum of amounts released and
transferred for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal is below 500
pounds, to apply a higher reporting threshold to that chemical or
chemicals. As described in unit B above, the alternate thresholds for
manufacture, process, or otherwise use would be applied on a per
chemical basis. The alternative reporting threshold would be equal to
or greater than 1 million pounds.
Based on 1991 data, EPA estimates that a total of 33,000 forms
reported total releases and transfers for the purpose of treatment and/
or disposal of less than 500 pounds. The combined total reported for
releases and transfers for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal by
these forms was approximately 4,000,000 pounds. This represents
approximately 1/10th of 1 percent of the total 4.5 billion pounds
reported for such releases and transfers for 1991. The total waste
volumes (sum of amounts released and transferred for the purpose of
treatment and/or disposal plus the Pollution Prevention Act reporting
elements) associated with these 33,000 forms totaled approximately
3,864,300,000 pounds. This represents approximately 10.7 percent of the
total 36 billion pounds reported by all forms for 1991.
An alternate threshold applied to a category of less than 500
pounds is estimated to result in 20 chemicals which would no longer be
reported on Form R. These 20 chemicals were reported on 37 forms with a
national total of 1,814 pounds of releases and transfers for treatment
and/or disposal based on 1991 data. The 20 chemicals for which most or
all of the information on Form R would no longer be reported are
presented below with the corresponding number of reports submitted per
chemical and the total pounds released and transferred for the purpose
of treatment and/or disposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Name Number of Reports Total Pounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha-Naphylamine 2 10
4-Aminobiphenyl 1 4
4-Aminoazobenzene 1 441
p-Anisidine 3 26
2-Chloroacetophenone 1 2
C.I. Food Red 15 4 46
C.I. Solvent Yellow 3 2 15
2,4-Diaminoanisole 1 85
1,2-Dibromo-3- 2 290
Chloropropane
Dichlorobromomethane 1 200
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine 2 4
p-Dinitrobenzene 1 164
Heptachlor 1 5
Isosafrole 1 10
Methyl Hydrazine 2 1
Michler's Ketone 1 3
Propyleneimine 6 400
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2 82
2,6-Xylidine 2 21
Zineb 1 5
Total 37 1,814
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A facility category based on the sum of amounts released and
transferred for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal of less than
500 pounds will certainly allow many more facilities to apply for the
alternate threshold. Based on 1991 reporting, approximately 40 percent
of those forms submitted would be eligible. However as can be seen from
referencing Table 1, these additional forms account for a significantly
larger amount of release, transfer, and total waste generation data
that would no longer be available.
2. Category: less than 10 pounds per year. This option would allow
facilities that meet current reporting requirements but that have a
chemical or chemicals for which the sum of amounts released and
transferred for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal is below 10
pounds, to apply a higher reporting threshold to that chemical or
chemicals. As described in part B above, the alternate thresholds for
manufacture, process, or otherwise use would be applied on a per
chemical basis. The alternative reporting threshold would be equal to
or greater than 1 million pounds.
Based on 1991 data, EPA estimates that a total of 16,200 forms
reported total releases and transfers for the purpose of treatment and/
or disposal of less than 10 pounds. The combined total reported for
releases and transfers for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal by
these forms was approximately 35,000 pounds. This represents less than
1/100th of 1 percent of the total 4.5 billion pounds reported for such
releases and transfers for 1991. The total waste volumes (sum of
amounts released and transferred for the purpose of treatment and/or
disposal plus the Pollution Prevention Act reporting elements)
associated with these 16,200 forms totaled approximately 1,687,300,000
pounds. This represents approximately 4.9 percent of the total 36
billion pounds reported by all forms for 1991.
An alternate threshold applied to a category of less than 10 pounds
is estimated to result in 9 chemicals which would no longer be reported
on Form R. These 9 chemicals were reported on 12 forms with a national
total of 44 pounds of releases and transfers for treatment and/or
disposal based on 1991 data. The 9 chemicals for which most or all of
the information on Form R would no longer be reported are presented
below with the corresponding number of reports submitted per chemical
and the total pounds released and transferred for the purpose of
treatment and/or disposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Name Number of Reports Total Pounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha-Naphylamine 2 10
4-Aminobiphenyl 1 4
2-Chloroacetophenone 1 2
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine 2 4
Heptachlor 1 5
Isosafrole 1 10
Methyl Hydrazine 2 1
Michler's Ketone 1 3
Zineb 1 5
Total 12 44
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is apparent from these numbers that a facility category of less
than 10 pounds would impact a subset of the information reported by
those reports comprising the less than 100 pound category.
3. Category: zero pounds or not applicable. This option would
create a category of facilities based on the sum of amounts released
and transferred for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal of zero
pounds or not applicable. As described in EPA's proposal, the alternate
manufacture, process, or otherwise use thresholds would be applied on a
per chemical basis for those listed chemicals where the sum of amounts
released and transferred for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal
from a facility was zero pounds or not applicable. The corresponding
alternate threshold would be equal to or greater than 1 million pounds.
A report may indicate not applicable in such cases where a release
is not associated with a particular medium for a given chemical. An
example of this could be a constituent that is part of an aqueous waste
and remains in solution with all releases directed to a receiving
stream where there are no direct releases to land. In this case,
elements on the form pertaining to land releases would not apply.
EPA estimates that a total of 10,200 forms reported releases and
transfers, for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal, of zero or not
applicable. These forms originated from an estimated 6,100 facilities,
of which 1,900 facilities would have met the ``low-level release''
category determination for all chemical reports submitted.
By definition, no amounts were reported for releases and transfers,
for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal, by the 10,200 forms.
However, these forms do have total wastes volumes associated with them.
An estimated total of 1,203,700 pounds were reported by the 10,200
forms for the Pollution Prevention Act reporting elements for 1991.
This represents approximately 3.3 percent of the total 36 billion
pounds reported by all forms.
Form Rs reporting total releases and transfers for treatment or
disposal equal to zero pounds or not applicable would by definition not
impact the continued collection of a substantial majority of releases
for the chemical reported.
4. Alternate threshold based on total waste generation. This
alternative creates a category based on the total of all volumes
reported. Reporting elements included in the total waste generation
option include information collected under section 6607 of the
Pollution Prevention Act such as amounts treated on-site, amounts
recycled on-site and off-site, and volumes used for energy recovery on-
site and off-site. This information was first publicly made available
in reports submitted for reporting year 1991. The rationale for using
this approach is that the data set collected currently is much broader
than the data set collected under TRI prior to 1991 and provides more
information on the TRI chemicals being managed by reporting facilities.
Setting a category designation by only the volume of releases and
transfers for treatment and/or disposal results in the loss of the more
detailed waste management and source reduction efforts both current and
projected. There can be situations in which low volumes of releases in
any given year are still associated with large volumes of the TRI
chemicals in waste that are treated, recycled or burned for energy
recovery. For example, the zero level represented by Alternative 3
above results in a loss of reporting of over 1 million pounds of waste
management activity.
One purpose of the Pollution Prevention Act is to help users of the
data understand the details of facility waste management and source
reduction practices. This reporting also encourages facilities to focus
attention on both the current and future potential for release
reductions as well as source reduction opportunities.
Presented below in Table 2 are data taken from 1991 indicating the
impact of a facility category based on total waste generation at
various levels.
Table 2.--Summary of Analytical Findings (Alternative Reporting Threshold Based on Total Waste Generation*)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Counties with
Category Level No. of Reports Volume Total Waste 91-100% Loss of
(pounds) Affected (1,000) Affected (million Percent Total Waste Total Waste
pounds) Generation* Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0/NA 6.3 0.0 0.0% 0
10 10.0 0.02 0.0% 13
100 13.0 0.15 0.0% 24
250 16.7 0.94 0.0% 52
500 21.3 2.66 0.01% 89
1,000 25.7 5.86 0.02% 117
5,000 34.8 28.81 0.08% 171
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Total waste generation includes releases and transfers plus the Pollution Prevention Act data. (Data taken from
1991 reporting.)
Based on these figures, it is evident that a cut-off level for
defining the category of facilities eligible for the revised threshold
based on total waste generation would have to be set at a higher level
than one based only on releases and transfers (for the purpose of
treatment and/or disposal only) to achieve a similar reduction in the
number of Form R reports. For example, in order to eliminate the
submission of an estimated 20,500 reports based on a release and
transfer category definition, the cut-off level for eligibility would
be 100 pounds. See Table 1 above. To achieve a similar reduction in
number of reports, an estimated 21,300 reports, based on a total waste
category definition, the cut-off level for eligibility would have to be
set at 500 pounds. See Table 2 above.
A disadvantage of establishing a category of facilities based on
total waste generation is that it provides a much higher standard for
facilities to meet in order to take advantage of an alternate
threshold. In addition, establishing a category based on total waste
generation would require the facility to complete all of the
calculations on Form R for a given chemical. This would further
diminish the savings in time and resources in preparing these
calculations which would be provided by this proposed rule. Finally,
EPA would have to carefully consider whether an alternate manufacture,
process, or otherwise use threshold of 1 million pounds would be
sufficient to effectively exempt those Form R submissions.
III. Other Approaches Considered
EPA requested comment in the SBA notice on alternative approaches
to the development of a TRI reporting exemption based on releases and
transfers. Numerous suggestions were submitted, and alternative
approaches for modifying current reporting were considered. These
approaches fall within four main categories: (1) Modifications to the
manufacture, process, or otherwise use thresholds based on classes of
chemicals or categories of facilities (being proposed in this
document); (2) general revision to the manufacture, process, or
otherwise use thresholds; (3) altering the frequency of reporting; and
(4) other administrative changes, such as a revision of the article
exemption.
1. Threshold modifications based on classes of chemicals or
categories of facilities. The approach put forth in EPA's proposal is a
threshold modification for a facility category based on amounts
released and transferred for the purpose of treatment and/or disposal.
Another option that falls within an approach based on classes of
chemicals or categories of facilities is that put forth in SBA's
petition. For the purposes of organizing discussion in this section,
SBA's approach will be referred to as a List Division.
List Division. The SBA petition proposed dividing the list of
section 313 reportable chemicals and applying different exemption
levels to each set of chemicals. The two primary principles behind a
list division would be to set a lower reporting threshold for those
chemicals thought to pose greater potential hazard concerns, and to
ensure that reporting on a substantial majority of releases would be
retained for lower volume chemicals. SBA asserts that one benefit of
such an approach is that it could eliminate a significant number of
reports on ``high volume'' chemicals while preserving reports on
``highly toxic'' chemicals released in low volumes. The results of
EPA's analysis are presented in Appendix B-1 of the Issues paper (Ref.
3).
Comment received on the SBA Notice addressed the impact of and
basis upon which a list division could be created. Some commenters
suggested that the list division proposed in the SBA petition was
unfounded, and that adopting the Reportable Quantity (RQ) scheme
associated with the reporting of extremely hazardous substances (EHS)
under EPCRA section 304 would be a more supportable approach because
the methodology that distinguishes among chemicals already exists. The
classification scheme used to determine reporting obligations under
EPCRA section 304 divides the list into chemicals having RQs of 1, 10,
100, 1,000, and 10,000 pounds, depending on the chemical. The
application of these values to the TRI listed chemicals could create as
many as five classes of chemicals with each having a different release
and transfer level. Many of the TRI listed toxic chemicals do not have
RQ values assigned to them. This approach would add multiple levels of
complexity to the TRI reports. In addition, EPA has received comment
regarding the lack of conclusive data supporting a division of the
currently listed chemicals to adequately address concerns of
carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and general hazards that may be posed
from continued low-level releases that might go unreported if a
reporting modification is made. In addition, EPA believes that creating
different categories with varying levels assigned by chemical would
further complicate an attempt to provide a reduction in burden
associated with TRI reporting. It is EPA's intent to develop a
reporting modification that can be implemented as simply as possible,
while preserving the utility of the TRI data.
2. Revision of the otherwise use threshold. EPA has authority under
section 313(f)(2) to revise the manufacture, process, or otherwise use
threshold amounts. An upward revision of any of these amounts would
eliminate reports from those facilities that manufacture, process, or
otherwise use a listed chemical below the revised activity threshold
level.
Form R does not request information on amounts manufactured,
processed, or otherwise used for the chemical being reported. However,
the amounts of listed chemicals otherwise used by TRI facilities can be
estimated based on analytically plausible assumptions. For this reason,
EPA conducted an analysis on an estimated change in the otherwise use
threshold. The description of this analysis and the associated findings
can be found in Appendix B-2 of the Issues paper (Ref. 3).
One benefit of this approach is that it is simpler to implement and
enforce compared to revisions based on sums of volumes reported on Form
R, such as that described as an Alternative Threshold Modification.
Identifying the amounts otherwise used, manufactured, or processed is
one of the first pieces of information a facility develops as part of
its compliance determination.
A disadvantage of this approach is that it is much less selective
in its ability to equate an effective exemption with a report of
relatively low volume of releases. For example, raising the otherwise
use threshold from 10,000 to 25,000 pounds could eliminate an estimated
18,000 reports. However, the release information contained in any such
report could range from zero to 25,000 pounds per year because certain
uses may result in environmental releases of all quantities used.
3. Altering the reporting frequency. Section 313(i)(A) provides EPA
authority to modify the current annual reporting frequency. Such a
modification cannot increase reporting to be more often than on an
annual basis. Such a modification can be applied either nationally or
to a specific geographic area, to the following: all toxic chemical
release forms, a class of chemicals or a category of facilities, a
specific toxic chemical, and a specific facility. By reducing the
frequency of reporting, facilities would not be subject to an annual
reporting requirement, but might be requested to maintain activity
information for non-reporting years and submit this information during
a reporting year. For example, a class of facilities may be identified
as operating in a very similar manner with little chemical use or
release changes. For these facilities, it may be sufficient to have
Form R reports submitted less frequently than on an annual basis. It
could also be possible to define a category of facilities, similar to
the alternate threshold modification described above, and make their
reporting frequency ``0'' years, thus effectively exempting these
facilities from reporting.
Under section 313(i), to propose a revision of the current
reporting frequency, EPA must meet certain conditions. One such
condition requires EPA to notify Congress 1 year prior to initiating
rulemaking procedures, in addition to making certain findings and
meeting a substantial evidence standard of review. EPA believes that
such an approach could unduly lengthen the time required to implement
the alternative threshold provision.
4. Revision of the article exemption. Comments on the SBA notice
included suggestions to revise the article exemption, 40 CFR 372.38(b),
so that the absence of releases from ``articles'' would no longer be a
condition for retaining the article status of materials processed or
used at a facility. Currently, if a toxic chemical is released from the
normal processing or use of an item at the facility, then that item
cannot be considered an article, unless all such releases are recycled.
By eliminating the release condition within the article definition,
more items could be considered as articles and the listed chemicals
associated with them would not be counted toward reporting thresholds.
EPA does not believe that elimination of this release criterion is
appropriate nor does it provide an effective alternative for
establishing a specific low volume, released-based approach for
reducing the current level of reporting burden.
IV. Request for Comment on the Issues Listed Below
EPA requests comment on any aspect of this proposal. However, EPA
requests specific comment as detailed in the following paragraphs.
Should an alternate reporting threshold based on low-levels of
releases and transfers carry with it a provision that would require
some period of full Form R reporting prior to taking advantage of the
alternate reporting threshold? This provision would apply to reporting
by new facilities added either by a change in chemical activity or
inclusion of additional industry sectors, or by adding chemicals to the
section 313(c) TRI list. Such a provision could be useful for
establishing a ``baseline'' of activity that would provide reporting on
all of the elements contained on Form R prior to accepting an annual
certification.
EPA would like to hear from those states that have adopted EPCRA
and EPCRA-like laws regarding how adopting an alternate threshold such
as that being proposed would affect their program.
Would states find an alternative reporting threshold based on zero
releases and transfers more difficult to enforce than an alternative
reporting threshold based on another release level (e.g., 10-500
pounds)?
EPA requests comment on the potential loss of Pollution Prevention
Act data that would result from adopting a facility category approach
defined by amounts released and transferred for the purpose of
treatment and/or disposal at any level.
EPA requests comment on the effectiveness, in terms of providing a
reduction in the current level of reporting burden with the need to
continue to collect data on and promote total waste management, of
establishing a facility category based on amounts reported for total
waste generation.
EPA requests comment on any activity that has focused on reports of
low- level releases, specifically for such reports that would be
effected by this proposal.
V. Rulemaking Record
All documents related to this rulemaking (reference docket number
OPPTS-400087) are available to the public in the TSCA Nonconfidential
Information Center (NCIC) from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The NCIC is located at EPA headquarters, Rm.
NE-B607, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
VI. References
(1) Memo, ``Significance of Small Source Releases in Total Releases
and Transfers for TRI Chemicals - Preliminary Data Tables - 1988 TRI
Data,'' Kevin Bromberg to Mary Ellen Weber, Environmental Protection
Agency, February 28, 1991.
(2) U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. ``Conference Report
No. 962,'' 99th Cong., 2nd Session. 296 (1986).
(3) USEPA/OPPT. Toxic Release Inventory--Small Source Exemption,
(Issues Paper). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
(January 27, 1994).
(4) SIC Code 2048 Analysis.
VII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),
the order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action that
is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also referred to as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth
in this Executive Order.
EPA's economic analysis estimates that 20,500 reports submitted on
Form R for the currently listed chemicals would be eligible for the
certification as a result of the proposed alternative reporting
threshold outlined in Unit II.B. of this preamble. This would result in
savings of $26 million per year for affected facilities, and $680,000
per year for EPA.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this proposed rule is ``significant.''
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the Agency must
conduct a small business analysis to determine whether a substantial
number of small entities would be significantly affected by the
proposed rule. Because the proposed rule would result in cost savings
to facilities, EPA certifies that small entities would not be
significantly affected by the proposed rule.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request document has been prepared by EPA (ICR
No. 1704.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information
Policy Branch, (Mail Code 2136), EPA, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC
20460 or by calling (202)260-2740.
This collection of information has an estimated reporting burden
averaging 27 hours per response and an estimated annual recordkeeping
burden averaging 4 hours per respondent. These estimates include time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
The burden for this reporting activity will be subtracted from the
Form R information collection when that ICR (No. 1363) is renewed.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch, (Mail Code 2136), EPA, 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC
20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372
Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Toxic chemicals.
Dated: July 15, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 372 be amended as
follows:
PART 372--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 372 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.
2. In Sec. 372.10, by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 372.10 Recordkeeping.
* * * * *
(d) Each person who determines that they may apply the alternative
reporting threshold as specified under Sec. 372.27(a) must retain the
following records for a period of 3 years from the date of the
submission of the certification as required under Sec. 372.27(b):
(1) A copy of each certification submitted by the person under
Sec. 372.27(b).
(2) All supporting materials and documentation used by the person
to make the compliance determination that the facility or
establishments is a covered facility under Secs. 372.22 or 372.45.
(3) Documentation supporting the certification submitted under
Sec. 372.27(b) including:
(i) Data supporting the determination of whether the alternative
reporting threshold specified under Sec. 372.27(a) applies for each
toxic chemical.
(ii) Documentation supporting the calculations of the quantity of
each toxic chemical released to the environment or transferred to an
off-site location.
(iii) Receipt or manifests associated with the transfer of each
chemical in waste to off-site locations.
3. In Sec. 372.25, by revising the introductory paragraph to read
as follows:
Sec. 372.25 Thresholds for reporting.
Except as provided in Sec. 372.27, the threshold amounts for
purposes of reporting under Sec. 372.30 for toxic chemicals are as
follows:
* * * * *
4. By adding a new Sec. 372.27 to read as follows:
Sec. 372.27 Alternate threshold and certification.
(a) With respect to manufacture, process, or otherwise use of a
toxic chemical, a covered facility may apply an alternative reporting
threshold of 1 million pounds per year if the facility calculates that
it would have reported releases of less than 100 pounds per year of the
toxic chemical, as a combined total of the following:
(1) Releases pursuant to Sec. 372.85(b)(15), and
(2) Transfers, but only for the purpose of treatment and/or
disposal, pursuant to Sec. 372.85(b)(16).
(b) If the facility determines that it may apply the alternative
reporting threshold specified in paragraph (a) of this section for a
specific toxic chemical, the facility is not required to submit a
report for that chemical under Sec. 372.30, but must submit a
certification statement including the information required under
Sec. 372.85(c). The facility must also keep records as specified in
Sec. 372.10(d).
(c) Each certification statement under this section for activities
involving a toxic chemical that occurred during a calendar year at a
covered facility must be submitted on or before July 1 of the next
year.
5. In Sec. 372.85, by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follow:
Sec. 372.85 Toxic chemical release reporting form and instructions.
* * * * *
(c) Alternative threshold certification statement elements. The
following information must be reported on an alternative threshold
certification statement pursuant to Sec. 372.27(b):
(1) Reporting year.
(2) An indication of whether the chemical identified is being
claimed as trade secret.
(3) Chemical name and CAS number (if applicable) of the chemical,
or the category name.
(4) Signature of a senior management official certifying the
following:
I hereby certify that for each toxic chemical listed in this
report, the combined releases and transfers (for the purpose of
treatment and/or disposal only) were less than 100 pounds for this
reporting year and that the chemical was not manufactured,
processed, or otherwise used in amounts equal to or greater than 1
million pounds during this reporting year.
(5) Date signed.
(6) Facility name and address.
(7) Mailing address of the facility if different than paragraph
(c)(6) of this section.
(8) Toxic chemical release inventory facility identification number
if known.
(9) Name and telephone number of a Technical Contact.
(10) SIC code(s).
(11) Latitude and longitude.
(12) Dun and Bradstreet Number.
(13) EPA Identification Number(s) (RCRA I.D. Number(s).
(14) Facility NPDES Permit Number(s).
(15) Underground Injection Well Code (UIC) I.D. Number(s).
(16) Name of parent company.
(17) Parent company's Dun and Bradstreet Number.
[FR Doc. 94-18449 Filed 7-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
