Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

• You are here: EPA Home
• Toxics Release Inventory Program
• TRI Phase 3
• Issue Paper #3

Issue Paper #3

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

---

TRI-Phase 3: Expansion of the EPA Community Right-to-Know Program to increase the information available to the public on chemical use

INTRODUCTION AND STATUS REPORT

This issues paper is one in a series designed to report back to stakeholders on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) project currently known as TRI-Phase 3. The project, conducted by the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), arose out of initial discussions about the possible expansion of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) to include facility-level chemical "use" information, such as materials accounting data. While the Agency has broadened the project and is looking at other vehicles in addition to TRI, this issues paper will continue to refer to the project as TRI-Phase 3. The Agency finds that materials accounting, which is a method for tracking the amounts of toxic chemicals moving through a facility, has promise for filling in Right-to-Know gaps that have been identified in the present TRI data. EPA considers Right-to-Know to be among its most effective strategies for improving environmental performance, and appropriate expansion of Right-to-Know tools is an Agency and Administration priority. EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in September 1996 to announce its intention to develop a proposed rule for collection of chemical use information, and to solicit comment on TRI-Phase 3 issues. This third issues paper is being released in conjunction with the ANPR, and is intended to provide additional detail on a variety of subjects.

The TRI-Phase 3 began in 1993 and an initial issues paper and public meeting were held in 1994. Agency review accelerated on August 8, 1995, when the President directed the Agency to develop and implement "an expedited, open, and transparent process" for consideration of Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) reporting of "information on the use of toxic chemicals at facilities, including information on mass balance, materials accounting, or other chemical use data" [1 - August 8, 1995 Memorandum to the EPA Administrator, issued in conjunction with Executive Order #12969.] . EPA submitted a progress report to the President on October 2, 1995. This was followed by release of a second TRI-Phase 3 issues paper on October 4, 1995, to describe preliminary Agency findings and positions for stakeholder consideration. A public meeting was held on October 18 and 19, 1995 to provide a forum for public comments on materials accounting. The meeting included presentations by 28 speakers, with attendance by over 145 stakeholders from industry, labor, the environmental community, other federal and state agencies, and the general public. The main goal of this third issues paper is to describe some of the messages heard by EPA at the October, 1995 public meeting, and to describe modifications made in evaluation plans in order to address them. It also provides an update on the current status of the project and provides an orientation to the issues for new stakeholders joining the discussion.

It is important to point out that it is not intended to provide a comprehensive summary or a formal response to comments.

EPA evaluated the public comments provided at the second public meeting, along with those submitted after the meeting using Issue Paper #2 (IP#2) as a frame of reference. As a result, Issues Paper #3 (IP#3) follows a similar outline. Special emphasis was placed on identifying areas of agreement and disagreement among stakeholder groups on existing issues, and on finding new topics that had not been previously raised. EPA is committed to fully understanding all of the issues, all of the concerns, and all of the questions raised by materials accounting. After reviewing the most recent comments the Agency is more confident that it has a definitive list of the issues that need to be examined, so that additional evaluation can move forward. EPA believes that there is merit in materials accounting information, and that some type of role for the federal government needs to be considered. The Agency is aware of the complex and controversial nature of chemical use information, and seeks to balance careful evaluation with steady forward movement for the project. In addition, EPA wishes to clarify that the purpose of this project is not to promote "Toxics Use Reduction" as a federal policy. This issue is described in more detail on page 14.

BACKGROUND: TRI RIGHT-TO-KNOW EXPANSION ISSUES

The collection of data from facilities has been a routine component of various environmental laws and regulations implemented over the last 25 years. In 1986, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act took a new approach to data collection with the creation of the Toxics Release Inventory, a publicly accessible database. TRI consists of relevant information on a set of toxic chemicals collected from a select universe of facilities, put into a searchable computer database open to the public. It marked the entry of environmental data into the "information age", and created a national awareness that strategies based on information can create a powerful driver for environmental improvement. TRI motivates firms to reduce pollution without the prescriptive qualities of command and control regulations.

TRI is widely viewed as a success story. Several of the commenters at the October 1995 public meeting considered it important to make this point. Barbara Carroll, representing the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) stated that "TRI is a public policy success story". John Chelen of the Unison Institute called TRI "one of the singular successes of the EPA". Bob Kalish of Dow Chemical stated that "Dow credits the current TRI reporting system for effectively focusing our efforts on waste and emission reduction programs." Given this success, there has been tremendous interest in expanding TRI to include additional facilities, chemicals, and a more comprehensive data set. EPA has a strong commitment to the concept of Right-to-Know, and to a goal of enhancing the TRI program. The Agency is committed to collecting the right set of information, on the right group of chemicals, from the right group of facilities.

The TRI-Phase 3 project originated out of EPA stakeholder discussions held in 1993 about the possible creation of a "Chemical Use Inventory" (CUI). EPA initiated the discussions based on increasing awareness that "use" is an important category of information that could be helpful to theAgency for chemical screening and priority-setting under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) [2 - This initiative resulted in a project to expand collection of use data under the TSCA "Inventory Update Rule"(IUR). EPA is preparing a proposed rulemaking on IUR amendments. While this is a separate project, EPA is reviewing the question of appropriate linkage between the two efforts. ] . Environmental and public interest stakeholders were also interested in the concept of facility-level chemical use data as a fundamental Right-to-Know issue, and recommended that the Agency initiate a project to put materials accounting data in the public domain. These stakeholders described TRI as the most logical place for this data, given its features and importance.

The idea of including materials accounting data in TRI did not originate in 1993. Rather, it has been an area of marked disagreement between stakeholders since the creation of TRI under EPCRA in 1986. Each new discussion brings improved stakeholder experience and understanding of the workings and benefits of TRI, as well as additional perspectives on unfilled gaps in the public's Right-to-Know. EPA believes that chemical use information, while controversial, touches on many fundamental issues worthy of public dialogue. It relates to many important themes such as: the role of government as a provider of information to promote and empower efforts to improve environmental performance; of building problem-solving capability at the community level; of creating accountability that allows flexibility; and of providing the information basis for "cleaner, cheaper, smarter" approaches. In summary, the promise of materials accounting raises important issues and questions that need discussion. Some of the issues are fundamental in nature, and will not just fade away. The challenge to EPA and to stakeholders is to create a constructive process for working through these issues.

This third issues paper uses IP#2 and the October 1995 public meeting as a departure point. Additional information on the background and origins of TRI-Phase 3 can be found in the two previous issues papers, the October 1995 report to President Clinton, and the September X 1996 ANPR. It is recommended that stakeholders new to TRI-Phase 3 review these previous reports. Copies of the ANPR can be obtained from the EPCRA Hotline or electronically through the EPA TRI Homepage. [3 - The EPCRA Hotline can be reached at 1-800-535-0202. EPA's TRI Homepage can be reached at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri. The ANPR is also available at http://www.epa.gov/docs/fdrgstr/epa-tri/1996.] The previous issues papers and reports, along with copies of stakeholder comments and the transcripts of the two previous public meetings, can be obtained via visits to or written requests to the OPPT Non-Confidential Information Center. [4 - The TRI-Phase 3 Docket number is OPPTS-400106 . Information from the previous Administrative Record #AR-128 has been placed into this new docket. It also contains Issue Paper #1 (9/2/94), Issue Paper #2 (10/4/95), and the Report to President Clinton (10/1/95). It is maintained at the EPA Non-Confidential Information Center (NCIC), Room B607 Northeast Mall. Hours are 12 noon to 4:00pm daily. The phone number is 260-7099, and the e-mail address is oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov. ] . Appendix 1 of this third issues paper (IP#3) also provides details from IP#2, such as a definition of materials accounting, references to the two state laws that require materials accounting, and data element options for stakeholder review.

COMMENTS ON EPA'S FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING

TRI-PHASE 3 ISSUES

EPA described a three-step approach for this project in Issues Paper #2. Preliminary results and findings were also described. In response, stakeholders submitted a variety of comments about the framework and the available evaluation results. This section shows the original framework (See Table 1) for reference purposes, then highlights significant stakeholder comments, and concludes by showing a revised framework (See Table 2). EPA organized the revised Step 2 issues into five major categories. The categories were then used for developing questions to solicit comments for inclusion in the ANPR.

STEP 1 ISSUES:

The purpose of Step 1 was to consolidate and reframe stakeholder comments in support or opposition to materials accounting (MA) into two basic lists: 1) a list of "TRI gaps" portraying the underlying information needs described by environmental and public interest groups that might be filled by MA data; and 2) a list of "concerns" reflecting problems reported by industry and trade association groups with materials accounting and the TRI-Phase 3 project. In general, stakeholders supported this fundamental step. For example, comments submitted by Dupont stated that "the decision to reframe the underlying issues more clearly was a sound one." Commenters focused most of their attention on providing additional detail on the gaps and concerns. Highlights are described below.

1) COMMENTS ON THE RIGHT-TO-KNOW INFORMATION GAPS

Environmental stakeholders: These groups reiterated the importance of the data gaps and provided additional details on how MA data could serve to fill them. For example, Carolyn Hartmann of the US Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) asserted that while MA data is not the only measure of pollution prevention, it is an important part of a more complete accounting system. She stated that: "Without a better and more complete accounting system there is little hope for the public to actively engage companies in a dialog about how to achieve increased pollution prevention with increased flexibility." She went on to say that communities and environmental groups were not opposed to flexible approaches, but needed an accounting system to confirm and track gains. Mark Dorfman of INFORM provided a hypothetical example of the value of use information with data from a New Jersey facility. A community group reviewing TRI data from a local facility might skip over the chemical anthracene, given facility releases of only 67 pounds for 1991. However, access to materials accounting data would show that 34 million pounds of anthracene were coming through their community as raw material and product. Dorfman indicated that this type of information might initiate some follow-up conversation between the community and the plant on the safeguards in place while those materials are being transported.

TABLE #1 EPA's Original Framework for TRI-Phase 3 Evaluation (including Step 1 results).

Step #1 Evaluate the 1994 public meeting comments to identify the underlying Right-to-Know questions. Turn these questions into TRI gap categories. In addition, identify and categorize industry concerns with TRI-P3. Results of Step 1 are shown below: ·Original "TRI Gaps" viewed as important by environmental stakeholders #1) Need for information on the flow and use of toxics at a facility. #2) The need for tracking toxics in products. #3) TRI is an inadequate tool for looking at occupational issues. #4) The need for a "scorecard" to promote and track pollution prevention/source reduction efforts. #5) Lack of a ledger check on TRI estimates. #6) The need for TRI to serve as a better tool for regulatory integration efforts. #7) Others (research and priority-setting, and improving the accountability of industry and government.) ·Original "Categories of Concern" about TRI-Phase 3 as reported by industry stakeholders #1) EPA should not focus on use - it is not an appropriate predictor of exposure, and use reduction is not an appropriate goal. #2) Materials accounting would create an excessive burden - it is costly to collect and it puts confidential business information (CBI) at risk. #3) Materials accounting is of limited utility, and presents counting problems not seen with releases. #4) EPA lacks authority to collect MA or worker exposure information.

Step #2 Take the TRI gap categories from Step 1 as the starting point for additional analysis. ·Perform an inventory to see if data already exist that can fill these gaps. If there are data, are they accessible to the public at the national level? ·Evaluate the gaps: do they represent data needs of the public, states, industry, EPA, others? ·Examine the gaps in light of TRI's mission in support of EPCRA and the Pollution Prevention Act goals. Do they match? ·Evaluate the experience in New Jersey and Massachusetts, where chemical use information is already available. Do their data fill the gaps? What difference has having these data meant in those states? ·Explore what it takes to fill the gaps. Identify sets of data elements as options for additional discussion by stakeholders.

Step #3 If there is a federal role in collecting this information, and EPA can identify the data elements to provide the necessary information, what are the options and relevant statutes for going about collecting it?

A variety of comments supported the need to track source reduction progress. For example, Kevin Mills of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) emphasized the need for new measurement tools to move the focus of activities upstream and put pollution prevention first. He stated that government's role is not micromanaging changes in products or processes, but instead to "illuminate and incentivize pollution prevention opportunities in an effort to create real alternatives to narrow end-of-pipe pollution control strategies". Ed Hopkins of Environmental Action (EA), citing public interest in knowing more about toxics in products, stated that materials accounting seemed to be a good way to get a start on better information in this area. He stated that TRI serves principally as a tool for people to ask better questions, and for industry itself to get better answers to those questions. Hillel Gray of the National Environmental Law Center (NELC) also addressed the product issue, stating that no group currently had access to good information on the quantities of toxic chemicals that may be dispersed via the product stream. In summary, Ed Hopkins of Citizens Action stated that "EPA has done a good job in identifying those areas where TRI has fallen short". EPA's review of the latest round of comments did not uncover any new types of gaps.

Industry stakeholders: Several industry commenters challenged the existence, importance, or relevance of various TRI gaps. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce submitted comments (on behalf of 39 other company and trade association signatories) stating that; "We do not believe that these `gaps' exist". Comments submitted by the American Petroleum Institute (API) questioned the validity of the gaps, and suggested that EPA's framework gave undeserved legitimacy to the perceived information needs. Don Theissen of 3M stated that it did not make sense "to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to try to confirm the quality of TRI data or to provide a scorecard approach to promoting and tracking pollution prevention and source reduction data". Larry Fisher of Allied Signal stated that the "Real gap lies between the purported P2 (pollution prevention) value of the data and the real value of the data to our business viability". The Electronics Industry Association (EIA) and the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) also submitted comments that questioned the public's need for MA data. For example, the EIA comments included the statement that "The case has not been made that materials accounting data will have a high value for the general public". The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) stated that "EPA has failed to provide specific, concrete examples of the benefits that will presumably arise from the proposal."

2) COMMENTS ON THE INDUSTRY CONCERN CATEGORIES

Industry stakeholders: Industry and trade association comments provided additional detail and emphasis on previously identified concerns, and raised several new considerations as well.

One primary concern mentioned by many industry commenters was the premise for chemical use reporting. Barbara Carroll of CMA stated that "Chemical use reporting is based on the false premise that use of a chemical at a facility is a good indicator of exposure and that all chemical use is harmful and should be eliminated" She went on to state: "..chemical use reporting places inappropriate emphasis on chemical use reduction and not on risk reduction which is where the focus needs to be". Other concerns mentioned frequently in industry comments were loss of confidential business information (CBI), and excessive cost (comments on these two topics are discussed in greater detail in the "Preliminary Findings" section) In addition to amplifying existing concerns, industry comments raised the following two new criticisms:

EPA needs to explain how TRI-P3 fits with other Agency and Administration priorities.

Several groups, such as the National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA), 3M, API, and the EIA stated their view that TRI-P3 did not appear to fit with other EPA and Administration initiatives. The most common examples mentioned were the EPA one-stop reporting initiative, and the Administration reinvention goal of cutting recordkeeping paperwork by 25% Commenters stated that EPA needed to explain how TRI-P3 fit within these larger initiatives, and that a lack of fit should cause EPA to rethink the project. In addition, EIA stated that with an Administration commitment to cut paperwork by 25%, the Agency needed to carefully evaluate the relative merit of a new MA reporting requirement.

EPA has not addressed Agency resource implications.

Barbara Carroll of CMA commented that assimilation of MA data into meaningful indicators of source reduction would increase government workload, and that EPA would need more resources to do this. CMA stated that this issue had not yet been discussed by EPA in either of the issues papers. CMA suggested that EPA needed to address how EPA would meet these increased demands given government-wide resource limitations. Nancy Ekart of Eastman related resource needs to priority-setting as well. She stated her view that given limited resources and other right-to-know needs, that the public would be better served if the Agency spent its resources in providing information on the 90-95% of all U.S. toxic releases that are not currently reported on the TRI.

·Environmental stakeholders: Some environmental groups challenged the industry claims and concerns. For example, John Chelen of the Unison Institute questioned the burden of MA reporting: "How much extra work can there be to compile data that any responsible facility manager needs to know anyway in order to optimize plant operations and safety procedures?" Concerning CBI issues, Chelen stated "..what is the true risk to a fast moving international firm from data that is more than two years old by the time it is released?" Hillel Gray of NELC and Kevin Mills of EDF responded to the industry focus on risk by stating that TRI emissions fail to illuminate many sources of risk such as transportation risks, toxics in products, occupational exposures, and other steps in the life cycle; and that use data is helpful for looking at these areas. Ed Hopkins (CA) disagreed with industry statements that MA data should not be made public - in effect industry was saying "trust us but we're not going to provide the materials to track us."

However, environmental groups did express general support for some of the concerns raised by industry, such as the need to protect CBI, and the need to streamline reporting. For example, Jeff Thomas of OMB Watch agreed that loss of CBI was an important concern, but supported the use of various methods to protect the data while still allowing public access. Ed Hopkins (CA) stated that while he preferred process level reporting, he understood CBI concerns and would thus be willing to see facility reporting as an acceptable alternative. Carolyn Hartmann (USPIRG) stated that she empathized at some level with industry about the overall level of required reporting. In general, the environmental groups were more confident that industry concerns could be successfully addressed.

STEP 2 ISSUES

The purpose of Step 2 is to take the core issues from Step 1 and to then explore their different aspects in more detail. In general, stakeholders did not take issue with the topics listed by the Agency in IP#2; rather they suggested additional areas for review. Comments are described further below:

Environmental stakeholders: EPA did not find specific comments that addressed Step 2 issues.

Industry stakeholders: While Issues Paper #2 did include discussion of industry concerns such as CBI and cost issues, these were not explicitly listed in Step 2 as areas for evaluation. Industry comments indicated uncertainty as to how industry concerns fit into the framework, and how they would be factored into Agency decisionmaking. Dupont pointed out the need to expand the scope of Step 2 "to house issues of concern to the regulated community that require additional analysis". EPA reviewed industry comments from the perspective of developing a list of topics to add to Step 2. An unranked listing of the new categories is described below:

1) The usefulness of MA information to the public. Several commenters suggested that a clear case had not yet been made for the utility of the information to the public. For example, Mitch Press (Dupont) stated that their Chambers Works facility in Deep Water, New Jersey was the largest chemical manufacturing facility in the state, and had MA information on hand (they are covered by the NJ law), but that they had received little or no interest for the data from citizens groups and panels in their community. David Isaacs of EIA claimed that use information did not provide communities with information to address fundamental concerns such as "Am I safe?". The EIA also suggested that the Agency needed to evaluate how disclosing MA data to the public would assist in the goal of P2.

2) The role and location of TRI-Phase 3 within the larger examination of environmental reporting policy now under way at the Agency. This issue was also raised by many industry stakeholders. Stakeholders are interested in policy aspects, such as how the project relates to streamlining efforts, as well as specifics, such as how timeframes for the different projects will be coordinated. The issue of whether existing agency information can fill data gaps is also of interest, and is already listed in Step 2.

3) The relationship between use volume and risk. CMA stated that chemical use is not important from a risk management perspective. The EIA stated that the EPA issue papers were "notable for the absence of any serious discussion of risk and exposure, or the manner in which its proposed approach would reduce risk to the public or the environment."

4) Practical obstacles inherent in the collection and dissemination of MA data.

Commenters mentioned a variety of practical issues and questions on how MA reporting would work. There are many questions about product reporting issues, and the measurement of source reduction. Several groups also raised industry-specific issues (e.g., would auto manufacturers need to report on the metal content of cars, since they are the product?) These practical issues need to be addressed in more detail.

5) Meaning of the NAS study for TRI-Phase 3. Nancy Ekart of Eastman Chemical provided comments on the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) study on materials accounting, and the meaning of these findings for the TRI-P3 project. The study, titled: Tracking Toxic Substances at Industrial Facilities: Engineering Mass Balance versus Materials Accounting was performed under the auspices of the National Research Council (NRC) and was published in 1990. Others, such as Alcoa, the American Forest & Paper Association, and the AAMA also mentioned the findings of the NAS study and had questions about whether EPA should pursue a pilot study. While the Agency acknowledges that the study is important, the fact that it was performed before the new Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) data elements were added to TRI also needs to be taken into consideration. API referred to NAS conclusions addressing the need to assist the public in understanding MA data and recommended that EPA address this issue as well.

6) Confidential Business Information (CBI) issues. Concerns about CBI were expressed by a cross-section of commenters. The Agency is and has been fully committed to reviewing this issue, and will place it on the Step 2 list to avoid any misunderstandings about this commitment.

7) Cost issues. Cost issues were also raised by many stakeholders, and the Agency has a similar commitment to understanding cost issues.

STEP 3 ISSUES

The purpose of Step 3 is to explore more fully the options for a federal role in collecting and disseminating materials accounting data. EPA has begun its review of this issue, including issues surrounding statutory authority. As discussed in Unit I(b) of the ANPR, EPA believes that it has a broad array of statutory authorities available to it to require reporting of chemical use data as described in TRI-Phase 3. However, until EPA determines the course of action to follow, and which, if any, data elements it intends to add, any discussion of specific statutory authority is preliminary. Comments from stakeholders were as follows:

Industry stakeholders:

Most industry commenters vociferously challenged the legal authority of EPA to expand TRI to include MA data elements. Many of the comments contained details on the legislative history of EPCRA and included analyses and assertions on existing authorities. The Society for the Plastics Industry (SPI) stated that EPA needed to provide a detailed and specific accounting of its claimed statutory authority for TRI-P3. Several commenters such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA) objected to this issue being placed later in the evaluation process, and urged EPA to resolve this issue upfront. CSMA suggested that a demonstration of legal authority was "the appropriate Step 1". API stated that EPA needed to describe a legal basis on which it would proceed with rulemaking far more specifically, before expending additional Agency or public resources on this initiative.

Environmental stakeholders:

Environmental groups were more confident about legislative authority. For example, John Chelen of Unison stated that "EPA's authority is not really at issue. Under the mandate provided by the umbrella of legislation including EPCRA, TSCA, PPA, and other acts, EPCRA can call for much more information in a more timely manner than is being suggested here." In addition, several groups raised government role issues separate from the subject of legalauthority. They suggested that EPA should explore the option of having federal facilities report MA data with their TRI forms. The Working Group on Community Right-to-Know (WGCRTK) urged EPA to begin collecting use data from federal facilities under Executive Order 12856, and indicated that some federal facilities were already beginning to collect such data. In addition, EDF suggested that vendors covered by the 1995 executive order specifications should also report MA data, so that the government's buying power is used "to help encourage source reduction leaders".

In summary, EPA has revised the framework based on comments received at and following the October 1995 meeting. Table #2 presents the revised framework.

COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY FINDINGS.

Issue paper #2 included sections on 12 different areas where the Agency reported preliminary findings based on early evaluation. Stakeholders provided a variety of comments in response. Highlights of these comments are described below under each topic. EPA recommends that new stakeholders review IP#2, as full discussion of the original Agency findings is not included here.

·No EPA data sources were found that fully address the identified TRI gaps.

IP#2 described the results of a preliminary look at EPA data sources to determine whether any existing sources might provide chemical use information. Many industry comments addressed this issue, with a broad consensus that EPA needed to look again more closely at existing databases. These commenters favored data integration from existing sources as the "right approach" for filling data gaps. Industry stakeholders took issue with EPA's preliminary finding that no existing data matched the TRI gaps. They were more confident that data to fill the gaps was already being collected under existing reporting requirements. The CMA stated that the data gaps were really an internal EPA data management problem, that should not be solved by an increase in industry reporting. The EIA commented that a determination of whether the TRI gaps can be filled by information already on hand should be a "threshold question" before proceeding further with the project. Similarly, the AAMA stated that efforts to streamline the EPA data gathering process to eliminate unnecessary reporting should precede any effort to expand data elements, so that any other data gaps uncovered during streamlining could be addressed. Several industry commenters supported the idea of EPA improving public access to useful data that is already being collected.

Environmental groups also supported the general idea of consolidating data reporting, but did not believe that it should precede work on TRI-P3. For example, Paul Orum of WGCRTK stated that "Concerns about duplicative reporting programs can be addressed through the key identifiers and one stop initiatives without delaying work on adding chemical use data to TRI". Carolyn Hartman stated that there was a general need for streamlining, but that MA data would fill an extremely important gap that is not being met. Mark Dorfman (INFORM) expressed the view that MA data itself was key to elimination of redundant data, and that it created the potential for current reporting to be reduced down to a single reporting form.

TABLE #2 EPA's Revised Framework for TRI-Phase 3 Evaluation (including Step 1 results). (New items are redlined)
Step #1 Evaluate the 1994 public meeting comments to identify the underlying Right-to-Know questions. Turn these questions into TRI gap categories. In addition, identify and categorize industry concerns with TRI-P3. Results of Step 1 are shown below:
·Revised "TRI Gaps" viewed as important by environmental stakeholders (no new items) #1) Need for information on the flow and use of toxics at a facility. #2) The need for tracking toxics in products. #3) TRI is an inadequate tool for looking at occupational issues. #4) The need for a "scorecard" to promote and track pollution prevention/source reduction efforts. #5) Lack of a ledger check on TRI estimates. #6) The need for TRI to serve as a better tool for regulatory integration efforts. #7) Others (research and priority-setting, and improving the accountability of industry and government.)	·Revised "Categories of Concern" about TRI-Phase 3 as reported by industry stakeholders #1) EPA should not focus on use - it is not an appropriate predictor of exposure, and use reduction is not an appropriate goal. #2) Materials accounting would create an excessive and costly recordkeeping burden. #3) Public release of materials accounting information will put confidential business information (CBI) at risk. #4) Materials accounting is of limited utility, and presents counting problems not seen with releases. #5) EPA lacks authority to collect MA or worker exposure information. #6) EPA needs to explain how TRI-P3 fits with other Agency and Administration priorities. #7) EPA has not addressed agency resource implications.
Step #2 Take the TRI gaps and industry concern categories from Step 1 as the starting point for additional analysis.
1) Questions about the Premise for and Utility of Chemical Use Information ·Evaluate the gaps: do they represent data needs of the public, states, industry, EPA, others? ·Evaluate the usefulness of MA information to the public. ·Examine the gaps in light of TRI's mission in support of EPCRA and the Pollution Prevention Act goals. Do they match? ·Evaluate the experience in New Jersey and Massachusetts, where chemical use information is already available. Do their data fill the gaps? What difference has having these data meant in those states? ·Evaluate and describe issues surrounding the relationship between use volume and risk. ·Explore the meaning of the NAS study for TRI-Phase 3. 2) Agency-wide Environmental Reporting Issues ·Perform an inventory to see if data already exist that can fill these gaps. If there are data, are they accessible to the public at the national level? ·Examine and describe how TRI-Phase 3 fits into the larger examination of environmental reporting policy now under way at the Agency. 3) Impacts on Confidential Business Information (CBI) ·Evaluate CBI issues. 4) Cost Estimates ·Evaluate cost issues, including those related to Agency resource issues. 5) Technical Collection and Interpretation Issues ·Explore what it takes to fill the gaps. Identify sets of data elements as options for additional discussion by stakeholders. ·Examine the practical obstacles inherent in the collection and dissemination of MA data.
Step #3 If there is a federal role in collecting this information, and EPA can identify the data elements to provide the necessary information, what are the options and relevant statutes for going about collecting it?

Ken Geiser, speaking on behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) stated that streamlining and expansion were both part of a major period of thinking about the role of information. He stated "..our agenda needs to be about reducing the burden of reporting on American industry at the same time that we more systematically gather data that is going to be effective for the future at really truly giving us a picture of what is going on in industry. And I do want to argue, of course, that materials accounting is a fundamental piece of that.".

Few specific data sources were identified in comments for EPA follow-up. The data mentioned most often as potentially useful was the emergency planning data from EPCRA Section 311 and 312. Section 311 requires a one-time reporting of either Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for hazardous chemicals at a facility, or submittal of a listing of such chemicals instead. Section 312 requires annual submittal of a "Tier 1" form, which contains summary statistics about the different categories of chemicals stored at a facility. A "Tier 2" form provides chemical-specific data, and can be filed in lieu of tier 1 forms. For both Section 311 and 312, data is submitted to a statewide body called a SERC (State Emergency Response Committee), a local group called an LEPC (Local Emergency Planning Committee) and the local fire department. Citizen requests for data are addressed to these groups. Citizens, LEPCs, SERCs, and local fire departments can also request additional data (Tier 2 data) for each hazardous chemical, but the requestor must in some cases provide a reason for needing the information for each facility. Appendix #2 includes three tables summarizing Section 311, Section 312, and a breakdown of relevant state requirements. Due to state data requirements and preferences, chemical lists are more often submitted to satisfy Section 311, and Tier 2 forms are more often submitted to meet Section 312.

Richard Lattimer of the Eli Lilly Company presented comments on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) recommending that EPA continue to fine-tune Tier 2 reporting and include the ability to make this information even more available to the public. Curt Wells of Reynolds Metals Company suggested that Tier 2 data could be made available to EPA for incorporation into a nationwide database. Steve Austin of General Electric Plastics suggested that EPA look at the TSCA Inventory Update Rule, International Trade Commission data, and Superfund excise tax reporting as sources that could provide chemical manufacturing quantities. Other data sources suggested by stakeholders for Agency follow-up included: Section 112r of the Clean Air Act Amendments, Department of Transportation regulations, EPA air and water permits, and the OSHA Hazard Communication standard. EPA does plan to evaluate this issue in greater detail.

·EPA agrees that there is a need to be able to quantify pollution prevention (P2) performance.

In IP#2, EPA described the source reduction language in the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), and provided a series of conclusions showing the need for materials accounting data if all source reduction techniques described by the Act were to be measured. While no comments were found that directly challenged these conclusions, many comments addressed the issue of source reduction measurement and the role of MA data.

Comments provided by PhRMA stated that wastes alone were the proper focus for P2 measurement, and that TRI already addressed wastes. PhRMA also took issue with the need to quantify source reduction stating that P2 reporting "should remain qualitative as they are reported in Section 8.10, because quantification will be frustrating, time consuming, noncomparable, and misleading". Richard DiMenna of Rohm & Haas also took the position that existing waste data was sufficient for P2 measurement purposes (his comments are described in the section on TRI). Don Theissen of 3M raised a measurement issue concerning the "list" nature of TRI. He stated that because it treats all reportable chemicals as equal, it fails to measure substitution strategies where a more toxic TRI chemical such as benzene is replaced with a less hazardous alternative such as cyclohexane. PhRMA raised a similar, but industry-specific P2 measurement concern. Drug approvals required by FDA include specifications on how a drug is manufactured. Since subsequent manufacturing changes in raw materials, equipment, or methods require firms to obtain supplemental FDA approval, the pharmaceutical industry focuses on P2 during the initial drug development stage. If P2 is built in at the very beginning, with limited changes once underway, how would it show up on a P2 scorecard? AAMA comments stated that the underlying implication in the TRI-Phase 3 discussion about measuring source reduction is that current P2 efforts are failing. The AAMA added that systematic analysis of this information was needed, and recommended that the Agency prepare biennial reports under Section 6608 of the PPA as a vehicle to inform additional discussion.

Shelley Hearne of the Pew Charitable Trusts described research that she previously conducted on data needs for pollution prevention. The research suggested that data on changes in three activities were needed for measurement:

1) the generation of nonproduct output [5 - The NJ MA reporting term "Non-product Output" describes the quantity of a toxic chemical which is generated as a result of a production process prior to storage, handling, treatment or disposal that is not intended for use as a product. ] , per unit of production

2) the use of hazardous substances, per unit of production; and

3) the amount of hazardous substances in commercial products.

Mark Dorfman of INFORM discussed P2 measurement in detail, and described a number of ways that MA data could be used for this purpose. One way would be to look at efficiency of chemical use. Does the amount of non-product output per pound of input of chemical increase, decrease, or stay the same over time? Alternatively, does the input amount of a particular chemical per pound of primary product increase, decrease, or stay the same? A related measure might be to look at the distribution of the output. Does the amount of input per produced product go up or down? Or does the amount of input present as an impurity in product, or in waste, change over time? Dorfman indicated that these types of measurements would be most appropriate for looking at individual facility performance over time. However, he indicated that if caveats were made, there would also be utility in looking at these types of measurements across facilities that are making the same product. The caveats would limit conclusions, but would provide a useful screening tool. Such comparisons could be used for prioritization and further follow-up with facilities to see why they are not appearing to be making as much progress as other facilities. Dorfman indicated that there was a need to get an accurate measurement of source reduction

progress nationwide. He stated that the existing waste generation numbers from TRI are flat, leading to conclusions that source reduction progress is not really occurring on a national scale.

One important P2 measurement and policy issue raised by industry stakeholders was the assertion that EPA's interest in materials accounting was to promote "Toxic Use Reduction" (TUR). For example, EIA stated: "In effect, the Agency is transforming the definition of pollution prevention to mean toxics use reduction." Barbara Carroll (CMA) stated: "EPA has consistently sought to narrowly focus pollution prevention on toxic use reduction". Don Theissen (3M) stated that "the fundamental goal of this project is toxic use reduction, which would be achieved by stimulating pressure on manufacturers to force their reduced use of a chemical, no matter whether there are risks involved in those uses or not". Other industry speakers viewed use reduction more as a materials substitution issue. For example, Bob Kalish of Dow stated: "We believe that market forces alone are a sufficiently powerful incentive to reduce the use of toxics since those who can utilize substances that are not regulated as toxics can realize a competitive advantage." Environmental stakeholders did express interest in use reduction strategies. Mark Dorfman (INFORM) stated that just as TRI spurred companies to develop release and transfer goals, an expanded TRI might promote voluntary reductions in chemical use. He emphasized that this meant innovation for improving products for a certain market, not just stopping use, or eliminating product lines. Shelley Hearne of the Pew Charitable Trusts, stated that the Trusts' pollution prevention goal "is to reduce the use and production of highly persistent toxic substances which adversely affect the environment and public health". EPA views use reduction as an issue that would benefit from additional stakeholder discussion. However, the agency does not consider TRI-Phase 3 to be a vehicle for changing pollution prevention definitions, or for creating new policies on use reduction. Additional discussion is provided below:

EPA would like to make it clear that it has no formal position on "Toxic Use Reduction" (TUR). Agency pollution prevention policy is governed by the environmental hierarchy described in the PPA, with source reduction as the preferred option. The PPA describes five categories of source reduction techniques, and the statute contains no stated preference for any one technique over another. None of the five techniques explicitly calls for a strategy that relies solely on reducing the use of toxics, and the PPA statute contains no mention of the term "Toxic Use Reduction". EPA's approach to source reduction reflects the importance of considering materials and processes and products. EPA's goal is to promote the overall practice of source reduction, and to improve the ability to measure source reduction, including all techniques listed in the PPA. The agency acknowledges, as does industry [6 - Industry comments on TRI-Phase 3 acknowledge that use reduction can occur when certain source reduction techniques are used. For example: -CMA stated "While reducing waste at the source can, in some instances involve reducing chemical useage, toxic use reduction and source reduction is not the same thing." -EIA stated that source reduction "may include reduced reliance on the use of hazardous substances". -AFPA stated "..many facilities already have implemented major reductions or other alterations in chemical use".] , that implementation of a listed source reduction technique may sometimes also result in use reduction. In addition, EPA views source reduction as being about innovation, and EPA does not consider it appropriate to discourage development and dialogue on source reduction techiques, even if they do involve use reduction.

In summary, the Agency is aware of "Toxic Use Reduction" but it does not intend to use the TRI-Phase 3 project as a vehicle for promoting "TUR" or for changing the definition of pollution prevention. The Agency has a preference, but it is for source reduction over the other environmental management approaches, consistent with the PPA. EPA does not recognize TUR as a separate technique with any special preference over the other source reduction techniques listed in the PPA. In general, EPA believes that the actual selection of any specific source reduction technique is a decision best made on a case-by-case basis at the facility level.

One reason for industry concern about Toxics Use Reduction appears to be a belief that materials accounting reporting would result in an overly simplistic tracking of whether use volumes are going up or down. EPA does believe that in some cases, measures derived from the materials accounting data might also be useful to better portray specific aspects of performance. EPA is interested in further discussion of options and issues on this subject, and the ANPR contains several questions to solicit further comment.

·Product issues are important and are very relevant to tracking source reduction.

While environmental stakeholders indicated strong support for tracking toxics in products issues and considered it a key aspect of TRI-P3, industry stakeholders questioned its value and claimed that it would lead to confusion. Richard Lattimer (PhRMA) took the position that information about outputs from individual facilities would not add up to an ability to track toxics in products. PhRMA comments stated that "Form R cannot provide the information because it is impossible to categorize the downstream use in a meaningful way." The group provided an example where all output from one company facility might serve as the raw material input for another facility. Should it be considered a product? PhRMA also stated that a TRI-based system would not include information from products that are imported from outside the US.

Several comments reflected possible misunderstandings about what type of product data might typically be included in a materials accounting scheme. For example, several comments suggested that it would include collection of information on how products are manufactured. Other statements suggested that MA data could reveal the chemical content of products. A few commenters complained that reporting on chemicals that have undergone reactions (eg rubber chemicals, or polymers) in final products could be misleading to the public.

The agency wishes to clarify these concerns. Based on how reporting works in New Jersey and Massachusetts, materials accounting would be expected to provide volume data on the amount of a given toxic going into the facility-wide product stream. Data on how the product is manufactured, or the names of specific products, would not be reported. TRI chemicals that are transformed (i.e. the molecular structure is altered by the process to form a new substance) would be classified as "consumed on site", not as products. The category "shipped off site as (or in) product" would apply to the case where listed toxic chemicals remain primarily in the product (or in a mixture with another chemical or chemicals) after manufacturing or processing of the reported chemical (or another chemical).

Steve Austin of GE Plastics encouraged EPA to clearly define the questions and issues related to toxics in products and articles to enable stakeholders to develop options for obtaining the desired information. EPA agrees that additional definition of product reporting is needed, along with additional discussion of how such data could be used.

·The existing TRI cannot reliably quantify P2.

By and large, industry stakeholders did not challenge EPA's assessment that there were limitations involved with using the existing TRI data to quantify source reduction. Instead, their comments sought to make the case that these limitations would not be cured by adding materials accounting data to TRI. Richard DiMenna of Rohm and Haas provided detailed comments on this issue, and raised the following points:

-Source reduction can be calculated from existing TRI data using the following two formulas:

· _(Form R 8.1-8.7)_prior x Production Ratio = Expected Waste

· Expected waste - _(Form R 8.1 through 8.7)_current = Source Reduction [7 - DiMenna described these formulas as follows: "By summing the amounts of chemicals managed by the various waste management methods reported for the prior year--the data in Column A of sections 8.1 through 8.7 of Form R -- and multiplying it by the production ratio/activity index reported in 8.9, one can calculate the expected quantity for the current year. By subtracting the actual current year quantities reported in Column B of Sections 8.1 through 8.7 from this expected quantity, the source reduction quantity is calculated. ]

-MA data may also be silent on source reduction techniques such as substitution, since once a facility stops using a listed chemical (or reduces use below the TRI reporting threshold) it drops out of the system. In addition, substitution may occur but involve reformulation at a sister facility.

-Variables such as changes in estimation methods or changes in instructions can also impact MA reporting schemes.

-Limitations related to production indexing accuracy are inherent to measuring production level, and are not related to the current TRI data elements or chemical use data.

According to DiMenna "..there probably is not a simple data set that can provide a perfect measure of source reduction". He took issue with the degree of quantification sought by EPA, pointing to other areas of TRI where accuracy, completeness, and certainty of data have been circumscribed in order to balance burden with benefit, and noting that this had not prevented TRI

from becoming a success. He recommended the following improvements short of materials accounting:

-Promulgate rulemaking to define "waste stream" for Section 8 reporting to assure consistency among reporters.

-Include expanded guidance and a more detailed definition of production ratio/activity index to more appropriately capture source reduction concepts, and

-Make wider use of calulated source reduction quantities, including publication in the TRI annual report of the calculated source reduction quantities for all tables containing chemical quantities in waste streams and making calculated source reduction data available as a calculated field in the TRI database.

API also suggested that MA-based source reduction measures would be affected by the same limitations as the current TRI indicator. Dupont stated that discussion was needed to identify better methods of using existing databases such as TRI, with "minor modifications" as necessary, to accomplish measurement goals. The Goodyear Company submitted comments stating that lack of EPA guidance on the definition of the required items for Section 8 of Form R could be part of this problem, and suggested that EPA should provide this guidance before taking on TRI-P3.

Andy Opperman, commenting on behalf of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), stated that TRI was unable to effectively measure pollution prevention for three reasons:

-It is unable to distinguish between reduction activities that occur before and after pollution generation,

-It accounts for variations in production to a limited extent (using the production ratio or activity index), and

-It does not provide data on chemical use relevant to source reduction influences (changes

in inputs, or changes in amounts shipped as or in products).

Shelley Hearne (Pew) also addressed TRI limitations in detail and reported findings based on a study involving thirty case studies of New Jersey facilities. The study found that "a clear perspective on pollution prevention progress is rarely elicited from the TRI data alone". One important conclusion of the study was that facilities doing pollution prevention did not receive

credit for their achievements when evaluated only by TRI data. Hearne listed the following six limitations of TRI for measuring pollution prevention progress:

-Uncertain validity of TRI-generated Non-Product Output (NPO) values.

-Validity of normalized NPO is suspect because of the unreliability of production data.

-TRI Post-generation waste data may fail to measure pollution prevention impacts when NPO is independently related to production or use.

-The TRI does not presently offer any indices capable of measuring quantities of hazardous substances used at a facility and therefore, it cannot effectively gauge reductions in toxics use.

-Significant false negative rate for TRI Section 8.11 on facility's source reduction status.

-Accumulation of all TRI indicators may often give a confused perspective on a facility's pollution prevention progress.

Hearne concluded that materials accounting data can enhance the TRI for purposes of pollution prevention measurement.

Lessons from the New Jersey and Massachusetts experience.

-Massachusetts

Bob Ruddick of the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) commented on a variety of topics related to industry experience under the Massachusetts Toxic Use Reduction Act. He took issue with the view that the law has been a success, and also that use reduction is a major goal of the Massachusetts law. He asserted that much of the activity required by the law concerns planning and internal information gathering efforts, and that these activites are valuable and do not expose use data to potential loss. He indicated that his organization is concerned about loss of CBI under the law and has offered an amendment to improve the available protection by changing the reporting ranges that are currently used. Ruddick also stated that on balance, the public nature of the data has been more of a hindrance to the core value of the program to his members. While he did not provide examples, he did state that he considered the public data to have been mischaracterized by some groups.

Ken Geiser, representing the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), described the lessons learned to date after collection of use data for four years. His comments can be summarized by five major points:

1) The Massachusetts experience demonstrates that toxic chemical use data can be effectively collected from industrial facilities and managed by state agencies.

2) Toxic chemical use data provides significant benefits to state agencies, industrial firms, and the general public. These include:

-improved public and governmental understanding of the volumes and patterns of toxic chemical use,

-improved capacity to target state resources,

-better basis for measuring progress in pollution prevention,

-improved toxic chemical management in firms, and

-a better basis for promoting technology transfer among firms.

3) There is a public constituency for toxic chemical use data and both government and

non-governmental organizations can use the data to promote public health and environmental protection.

4) While there are industrial costs to collecting and reporting this data there are also savings that are associated with improved materials accounting and these benefits can outweigh the costs.

5) Confidential business information can be effectively protected by conventional trade secret protections.

Geiser also addressed other issues, and these are discussed elsewhere in the preliminary findings section.

-New Jersey

Andy Opperman (accompanied by Mike Aucott) provided comments on behalf of the NJDEP. He reported that the collection of MA data has provided a very useful tool for the NJDEP. A primary use of the data has been as an independent audit and validation of the TRI data, and screening for gross discrepancies between inputs and outputs has been an effective way to flag errors, including those for releases and transfers. He indicated that facilities have also used the data internally for auditing and revision of TRI estimates. The end result is improved accuracy and quality of the TRI database. The NJDEP views materials accounting as an essential part of pollution prevention planning, and Opperman stated that perhaps the greatest benefit of MA data collection is that it serves to highlight areas of potential cost savings and environmental benefit. The data can be used to provide an estimate of production efficiency, and has also played an important role in New Jersey's facility-wide permitting project.

Opperman also reported on cost, CBI, and P2 scorecard issues, and these are discussed later in the paper in the preliminary findings section. He concluded by stating that the benefits from a national level materials accounting program would be likely to be similar to the benefits that have been derived from TRI.

Materials accounting provides essential information.

Environmental stakeholders provided strong support for the utility of MA data. As reported earlier in this report, they mentioned issues such as: creating accountability to support flexible approaches, tracking source reduction progress, and improving community-level capability for looking at transportation-related issues. Most industry stakeholders accepted the basic utility of materials accounting data: for example PhRMA stated that: "Materials accounting is valuable for facilities to conduct as part of a successful environmental management system." In addition, Bob Kalish (Dow) stated that "material accounting has applicability in certain limited situations". However, they generally qualified their support by stating that the value of the data could only be realized by those at the facility.

PhRMA indicated a willingness to participate in the development of a program to promote the value of materials accounting information in the context of a successful facility environmental program. Similarly, the 3M company stated: "We have no objection to EPA encouraging the use of materials accounting and other pollution prevention tools voluntarily. Our objection lies in EPA rules mandating methodology and resource allocation." John MacEntyre Allen, representing Conpro Corporation, a developer of computer-based performance management systems, submitted comments that "the principal goal of materials accounting should be to develop performance indicators, showing where the results of pollution prevention will be the greatest". Allen provided examples of indicators such as a rank ordered graph of pounds wasted per product, or environmental costs per product to show where attention should be focused. He suggested that such indicators be accompanied by a tabulation of eco-efficiency of products as a cross check to prevent shifting of impacts between media.

Shelley Hearne (Pew) described materials accounting data as an effective complement to TRI for the purposes of measuring P2. She provided four basic reasons:

-Combining the data set allows both Non-Product Output (NPO) and use changes to be monitored.

-Use data may offer independent verification of production data.

-Time-independent process efficiency measures (MA can be used to determine process efficiency values that reflect all historical improvements at a facility)

-Multiple perspectives can be assessed.

Other than suggestions to look further at EPA databases and to improve the capability of the existing TRI, no true alternative approaches to materials accounting were identified by stakeholders.

·Materials Accounting should be viewed as within the Right-to-Know.

Industry commenters did not support public access to MA data, and questioned the value of the data for the public. For example, the EIA stated: "public disclosure of materials accounting data does not meet the test of good public policy. The case has not been made that MA data will have a high value for the general public. Even the most sophisticated members of the public are not in the position to evaluate the complex mix of tradeoffs which go into source reduction decisions. EPA should evaluate the relative priority of MA data in the mind of the public." In response to a question at the public meeting, Mitch Press indicated that Dupont was not against sharing the information with the community, but that they would like to see it done without regulation. Don Theissen (3M) stated "If there are problems with the degree of the public's knowledge of TRI chemicals in their communities, EPA should be looking for ways to strengthen the LEPCs". API called for further discussion on what constitutes legitimate right-to-know information, describing MA data as falling into a "gray area" of information that does not correspond to valid community needs.

On the other hand, environmental stakeholders strongly supported putting MA data in the public domain. For example, USPIRG stated: "We believe that materials accounting data is a fundamental part of the public's right-to-know about toxics. Communities have a right-to-know about toxics traveling through and stored in their neighborhoods. They need this information to better understand chemical accident potential and to participate meaningfully in accident prevention in their neighborhoods...Without a better and more complete acccounting system there is little hope for the public to actively engage companies in a dialog about how to achieve increased pollution prevention with increased flexibility...When provided with better information the communities can become better partners in figuring out how to improve our environmental policies to the benefit of all parties". Ed Hopkins (CA) stated that materials accounting information should be made public, and that this would lead to a higher level of scrutiny and better questions asked about the information than otherwise.

·Performance measures derived from materials accounting.

Several commenters supported the need for performance indicators as part of TRI-Phase 3, and no commenters raised specific objections. Don Theissen of 3M suggested that EPA could call for a calculated source reduction amount on Form R. Paul Orum (WGCRTK) stated that a measure of source reduction was one of the two most important data elements for TRI-Phase 3. Mark Dorfman of INFORM also recommended that EPA include the amount of waste prevented by source reduction in pounds as a data element.

John MacEntyre Allen (Conpro) submitted comments indicating that performance indicators in general were beginning to be incorporated into international standards. Mr. Allen is a member of the US Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to the International Standards Organization (ISO) Technical Committee 207 for Environmental Performance (ISO 14,000). According to Allen, "ISO 14000 specifies that organizations certified to the standard will have an ongoing Environmental Performance Evaluation (EPE), using performance indicators such as those developed from materials accounting". He stated that any organization certified to ISO 14,000 should be able to generate the type of information suggested for TRI-Phase 3.

Facility vs Process reporting and the role of normalization

No comments suggested that EPA redirect its efforts to look at process level reporting. Several industry comments did state that process level reporting would be too burdensome, but that facility reporting would not allow the source reduction insights of interest to environmental groups. As stated by Larry Fischer (Allied Signal) in order for the data to be useful to environmental groups, it would have to be reported at a level of detail harmful to those obliged to do the reporting. Normalization was discussed at length in comments by Rohm & Haas and PhRMA. They agreed that the production index affected the ability of the existing TRI to quantify source reduction, but asserted that normalization is necessary for source reduction measurement of any type. Following this logic, a system based on materials accounting would have the same limitations. These commenters provided support for the need to improve normalization.

Occupational issues

A variety of stakeholders addressed occupational issues. In general, industry stakeholders were opposed to the concept of using TRI to address this topic. They suggested that the occupational data gaps should be (or are being) addressed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). For example, Dupont suggested that the issue be deferred to the agencies with direct jurisdiction over workplace safety, that their input should be gathered as part of the Step 2 process, and be made available as part of the docket /administrative record. The 3M company submitted comments which distinguished between the more serious issue of occupational exposure versus releases into the workplace environment, and stated that exposure is appropriately addressed by OSHA and NIOSH. The 3M comments asserted that using the TRI list of chemicals for this purpose was arbitrary, since some are on the list only for their environmental hazards. The AAMA and API stated concern about creation of a new category of "potentially exposed" employees. [8 - EPA suggested in Issues Paper #1 that employers already have to classify workers to determine who should be trained under OSHA's Hazard Communication standard (1910.1200). EPA suggested that the same definitions might be used for TRI-Phase 3. The definitions from the OSHA standard are as follows: "Employee means a worker who may be exposed to hazardous chemicals under normal operating conditions or in foreseeable emergencies. Workers such as office workers or bank tellers who encounter hazardous chemicals only in non-routine, isolated instances are not covered." "Exposure or exposed means that an employee is subjected to a hazardous chemical in the course of employment through any route of entry (inhalation, ingestion, skin contact or absorption, etc) and includes potential (e.g. accidental or possible) exposure." ]

Several environmental stakeholders provided statements supporting the utility of MA data for looking at occupational issues. In addition, Rex Tingle of the AFL-CIO focused on occupational issues in his submitted comments. He stated that the TRI is a valuable and effective diagnostic tool for the prevention and control of toxic pollution in the workplace and the environment. He went on to state that the AFL-CIO viewed the ability for workers to know what chemicals are present in their community and workplace as a fundamental right. Tingle stated that the type of information under discussion for TRI-Phase 3 is not being collected by any government agency, and that the EPA not only is the correct agency to fulfill this information gathering role, but has the legal authority and responsibility to collect such data. He submitted a list of seven data elements that expanded the Option C elements listed by the Agency (These are listed in the options section). Because the data elements are all general in nature, he asserted that the information should already be available in some form. As a result, he did not believe that collection of the data would involve significant burden. Tingle stated that this information would be useful to workers and unions, because it would be helpful in identifying and prioritizing toxic chemicals for follow-up. He indicated that it would help to focus limited resources for appropriate training, education and outreach. He thought it would lead to a more comprehensive worker understanding of how occupational exposures impact with environmental issues. He went on to say that such data would be useful for all stakeholders as well. He listed the following examples:

-Industry (chemical manufacturers) could use the data to develop cost-effective customer assistance programs, could look at exposure patterns, and could gain insights on what works best for particular industries and customers.

-Industry could use the data to develop more effective product stewardship programs and for better identification of issues for industry-wide approaches.

-Government agencies could use the data to identify and prioritize facilities for assistance on chemical-specific outreach programs. They could develop more current estimates on numbers of affected workers for selecting chemicals for review and standard-setting.

-Lastly, such data could help all stakeholders to look more closely at the correlation between pollution prevention and the reduction of worker exposures.

EPA has discussed the TRI-Phase 3 project with its occupational agency partners, and will be receiving written statements to place in the record. NIOSH has provided a response in support of EPA's efforts to expand the Community Right-to-Know program to gather chemical use information, including occupational exposure indicator options. NIOSH stated that "Occupational exposure data and estimated numbers of workers exposed are critical to NIOSH surveillance efforts to assess the magnitude and extent of occupational illnesses, deaths, and exposures to hazardous agents. The proposed data collection would be useful for this purpose." NIOSH also indicated that such data would be helpful for setting priorities for policy and document development, risk assessment, and epidemiological research.

NIOSH described previous and current efforts to gather similar information. NIOSH conducted two surveys, one from 1971-1974, and another from 1981-1983 to gather descriptive health and safety information, including patterns of exposures, from a sample of 5000 workplaces selected to represent most sectors of the American workforce covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act. NIOSH described the decade-old data from these surveys as of "questionable relevance", but stated that they remain the best available source of information on potential occupational exposure. NIOSH reported that it continues to collect exposure data through its Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) program and through industry-wide studies. NIOSH concluded its statement by stating that these programs, while important, do not provide a "systematic, ongoing collection and analysis of surveillance data". NIOSH stated that "The proposed data collection by EPA would be useful to NIOSH as a source of current data complimentary to those sources already in place; it would not duplicate any systematic data collection by NIOSH".

·Confidential Business Information (CBI) issues.

Stakeholder comments, and the public meeting discussions, helped to clarify the set of issues related to CBI concerns. Larry Fischer of Allied Signal provided an overview of industry positions on the issue and described the results of two studies that looked at CBI concerns. Fischer made the analogy between gathering sensitive business information and completing a jigsaw puzzle; he considered MA data to be more valuable than other data, similar to corner and border puzzle pieces. He commented that CBI issues were often not appreciated at the facility level where environmental reporting was done, and cited his own previous lack of awareness as representative of many plant-level personnel.

Fischer reported on the results of a 1993 study performed by the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) for the CMA, and provided a copy for the administrative record. While a comprehensive review is beyond the scope of the issues paper, a few of the important findings are as follows:

-The most frequent customers for industrial intelligence gathering were overseas firms.

-The customers wanted the information more for learning about their competitions economics (e.g. basis for prices) rather than for learning about process technology.

-Data from permit applications and statutes requiring reporting of comprehensive, site specific manufacturing detail pose the greatest potential for compromising competitiveness.

Fischer also discussed preliminary findings from a CBI study performed by Kline & Company for the CMA. The study involved two steps. The first step involved gathering conventional public information such as Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act permit data along with available technical references to create a first level facility profile. The second step added materials accounting data (using the New Jersey forms DEPE-113, DEQ-114, and DEQ-094) to create a second level profile. The Kline study (which was submitted to the agency on 2/22/96) concluded that the materials accounting data enhanced the ability to estimate operating rates, which in turn can be used to look at such competitive indicators as market share changes, cost positions, and manufacturing efficiency.

Other industry comments echoed many similar points. Don Theissen (3M) stated that CBI was 3M's greatest concern with TRI-Phase 3. He stated that "Even if on its face such TRI materials accounting data does not appear to be detailed enough to jeopardize our trade secret positions, EPA must realize that it becomes yet another critical piece added to other publicly available information (much of it from environmental reporting) over which we have little control". PhRMA comments included a list of six adverse effects that public reporting of use information could have on the pharmaceutical industry, and the NRPA provided a similar list for the petroleum refining industry. The EIA stated that the Kline study raised "potentially major" problems, and called for a more thorough analysis of confidentiality protection before the Agency proceeds with TRI-Phase 3.

Discussion provided insights on conditions that can lead to or alleviate CBI concerns. For example, Mitch Press of Dupont was asked about the CBI claims experience of the Chambers Works facility in New Jersey. He stated that no claims had been made, and in response to a follow-up question about any special factors that might explain this, he reported on several possible reasons. For example, he stated that the facility was huge, with over 600 products, and that some toxic chemicals might be used in 80 or 90 different products. This would make it more difficult for a competitor to pick apart and make sense of the data. Other possible factors include the use of "common" chemicals, and maturing products. He indicated that a new product, or a major process change associated with a competitive advantage would be the types of situations that might trigger CBI claims for several years.

Environmental stakeholders shared a general concern about loss of CBI, but were less certain about the magnitude and frequency of the problem. John Chelen (Unison) recognized CBI as a legitimate concern that needed to be addressed, but stated that he could not point to any egregious

examples where materials accounting reporting has hurt industry. No commenters indicated that the existing TRI data serves as a source for any type of economic "espionage".

Andy Opperman of NJDEP provided the most recent CBI statistics for the New Jersey Community Right to Know Progam. For 1993, 5 of 695 facilities (0.7%) made CBI claims, and these addressed 34 (1.2%) of the total of 2,749 chemical records submitted by facilities covered by the law. He indicated that these rates have been very consistent since 1987.

Comments and questioning during the presentation made by Ken Geiser (on behalf of the Massachusetts DEP) also raised some interesting points about CBI issues. He stated that a total of 14 firms have sought trade secret protection over four years of reporting in Massachusetts. Because this includes two large manufacturers, it translates to 22% of the use volume amount reported to the state for 1993. When broken down by the category of use, the 1993 data showed that 79% of manufacturing use volume was covered by CBI, 20% of processed use volume, and only 3% of otherwise used volume. According to Geiser, the state interprets these figures to mean that the trade secret protection system is working for those who need it - chemical manufacturers. Geiser stated that it also "says that in the areas where manufacturing is not the issue, firms are more than willing to provide that information, and to use it, and to allow it to be used in the public sector". In an exchange of questions about CBI concerns and the electronics industry, Geiser stated that 14 firms had made CBI claims in the state, and that of the 12 he could recall, none was an electronics company. According to Geiser, this should not be surprising: while the electronics industry has many business interests to protect, the large volume TRI chemicals used in the industry are fairly ubiquitous through most of the firms. While David Isaacs of the EIA did not agree with some of Geiser's assumptions, the useful point from the discussion was that CBI should not be viewed as a blanket problem across all industry sectors, and that looking at sectors might provide some ideas for solutions to CBI issues.

·TRI-Phase 3 Cost issues

Stakeholders provided additional information, ranging from general to specific, on cost estimates and issues for materials accounting reporting. CMA referred to preliminary results of a CMA survey of facilities in Massachusetts and New Jersey that indicated that the reporting burden would "potentially double". The WGCRTK took the position that existing TRI-P3 cost estimates were too high, and referenced data from a voluntary joint EPA/SOCMA/CMA project as a basis for this opinion. The project, which includes a 16 page form covering a variety of data types including use and worker data is reported to take 10 hours to complete. The data is used by OPPT for the TSCA program. Kevin Mills of EDF stated that the greatest cost would be related to data collection, and that efficient material use by facilities is worth the investment in collecting the data for better management. He went on to say that without this kind of perspective the cost estimates are somewhat misleading. John MacEntyre Allen (Conpro) submitted information that contained a general estimate on the potential level of savings that can occur by using materials accounting data for ongoing environmental performance evaluation. The estimate for a chemical process company, was "as much as one half of one percent of sales each year" ($1 million on $200 million in sales).

Don Theissen of 3M provided additional detail on potential costs. For "more complex" facilities, he provided estimates of $0.5 million for first year costs, and $0.2 million for following year costs. For "less complex" facilities, he provided estimates of $64,000 as first year costs, and $24,000 for following years. He estimated that the total cost to 3M for national reporting would amount to $11.2 million the first year, and $4.4 million following years.

Ken Geiser reported on the Massachusetts DEP experience with costs, and said that it has been "somewhat hard" to assess actual costs for MA reporting under the TURA law, because it merges both data collection and pollution prevention planning activities. He stated that they believe that the burden is well covered by the amount of savings that are achieved through better management of chemicals and pollutants. The 29 firms considered for the Governor's awards experienced an aggregate savings of $2.3 million in chemical purchasing savings, and another $1.5 million in compliance by better tracking of materials and pollution prevention activities.

Andy Opperman (NJDEP) also pointed out another cost issue - the link between current TRI reporting and materials accounting. He stated that facilities already use materials accounting data in some way because TRI reporting is currently triggered by use/manufacture volumes (10,000 pounds/25,000 pounds respectively). While the level of effort would vary, some sort of basic system must be in place to collect this trigger data, and this needs to be factored into cost estimates. He also provided cost information from a New Jersey pilot project, which involved evaluation of the impact using materials accounting data for P2 planning on a sample of 42 facilities. Of the 42 facilities, 29 found net cost savings, with 16 providing dollar estimates. The aggregated amount of estimated savings was $6.34 million, for an average of $400,000 per facility. If the ratio of 16 to 42 is extrapolated to the approximately 700 facilities covered by the law, the statewide savings amounts to $106 million, or $151,000 per facility.

OPTIONS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

EPA provided several sets of data element options in Issue Paper #2. Few stakeholders commented specifically on the data element options. Mark Dorfman of INFORM indicated his preference for Option A for materials accounting inputs, and he recommended that EPA include the "amount in process units at the start of inventory (or start of year)" as well. He also preferred Option A for outputs. Curt Wells of the Reynolds Metals Company suggested that facilities report the amount of toxic chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used (equivalent to input option B), and that ranges be allowed to mask specific values. He suggested that toxics in products be estimated by subtracting emissions from the use figures, and that provisions be made for codes to allow facilities to explain numerical discrepancies such as materials used as catalysts or consumed in process. Paul Orum (WGCRTK) did not address the options, but did mention that he considered an output element on products as one of the two key data elements. Dorfman and Orum

both recommended a performance measure on the amount of wastes prevented by source reduction in pounds. As stated previously, Don Theissen of 3M supported the addition of a box for source reduction to Section 8 of Form R, and improvements in normalization. Richard DiMenna of Rohm & Haas suggested that EPA could use existing data to calculate source reduction quantities for publication in the annual EPA public data release report.

NIOSH also submitted comments that advocated selection of Option C for occupational elements. As described earlier, Rex Tingle of the AFL-CIO addressed the occupational indicator

data elements, and suggested additional data elements as well. These options included and expanded upon Option C. They are described below:

-Average number of employees (including contractors) at the facility during the past 12 months? (sample range from <20, to >1250)

-Number of employees (including contractors) potentially exposed to the chemical?

(sample range from 0 to >300)

-Are intermediate chemical(s) produced in the process hazardous? (Yes/no)

-Has exposure monitoring for this chemical occurred during the past 12 months? (Yes/no)

-Did monitoring results meet current federal, state, or professional occupational exposure requirements/recommendations? (Yes/no)

-Have workers received training on recognizing potential hazards associated with this chemical? (Yes/no)

-Are source reduction activities being reported in Section (8) expected to reduce worker exposure to toxics? (Yes/no)

NEXT STEPS - EPA'S PROCESS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF

TRI-PHASE 3 ISSUES

EPA's decision to issue an ANPR on TRI-Phase 3 provides the framework for further consideration of the issues. EPA recommends that stakeholders interested in participating in the public process for additional evaluation acquire a copy of the ANPR. As indicated earlier in the issues paper, it is available via the EPCRA hotline. Next steps for TRI-Phase 3 involve the following sequence:

Request for comments.

Stakeholders are encouraged to respond to the ANPR questions and to submit additional comments over the 90 day comment period. Stakeholders are also encouraged to review comments submitted by others.

Public meetings.

EPA will hold public meetings in Boston, Massachusetts and Baton Rouge, Louisiana to discuss the issues described in the ANPR. EPA published a Notice of Public Meeting announcing these meetings in September of 1996. Stakeholders interested in presenting at either of these meetings should contact Cassandra Vail (202-260-0675) for additional information on dates and times.

Additional EPA analysis.

EPA plans to perform additional analysis on the following issues.

-Comprehensive review of existing EPA data collection programs. EPA will take a closer look at existing databases to identify and evaluate relevant chemical use data already being collected by the Agency. EPA will look at the scope of facility and chemical coverage, and factors related to integration of the existing data into TRI. If promising candidates are found, strategies based on improving access to existing data might provide an effective alternative to new reporting requirements. The review will also address: linkages between TRI-Phase 3 and the TSCA Inventory Update Rule expansion; coordination with the Agency One-Stop Reporting initiative; and the potential for using materials accounting to integrate regulatory requirements.

-Evaluation of New Jersey and Massachusetts materials accounting programs. EPA will review the impact that materials accounting reporting has made in these two states. EPA will look at who is using the data and for what purposes. The Agency also plans to examine the state program experience with CBI in order to learn more about the effectiveness of various approaches to protect CBI, and the potential impacts that are associated with loss of CBI. EPA also plans to examine the economic effects of the state programs, including reporting costs and estimates of benefits from collecting, evaluating, and using the data.

-Evaluation of CBI issues. EPA also plans to examine the CBI issue in greater detail. The Agency will evaluate existing reports on this subject (e.g., the Kline Report), and will examine the relationship between specific data elements and the potential for loss of sensitive business information. EPA will also assess the adequacy and value of different mechanisms for protecting CBI.

-Review of occupational exposure indicator issue with OSHA and NIOSH. EPA will continue its consultation with its occupational agency partners to discuss the utility of occupational exposure indicator information, and whether it is appropriate for EPA to collect it and make it available via TRI. EPA will also review alternative options for making this information available to the public.

·Examination of Data Elements, Reporting Vehicles, and Formats. After public comments have been reviewed and EPA evaluations completed, the Agency believes that it will be in a better position to examine whether additional data element options are needed, and if so, what options should be considered, and what reporting vehicles would be most appropriate. The Agency believes that careful selection of data elements and reporting features is essential to optimizing the Right-to-Know value of chemical use information while avoiding reporting problems. EPA is open to development of new combinations of data elements, and intends to examine whether additional types of reporting options and data elements might play a role in addressing concerns. A new set of data element options would then be developed in conjunction with a proposed rule. The publication of a proposed rule would bring the project to the next stage of development.

CONCLUSIONS

The passage of EPCRA in 1986 set in motion a force that has changed how the Federal government, the states, those in industry, and the public approach environmental issues. Assuring a full and comprehesive Right-to-Know program is one of EPA's primary missions, and the Agency views it as a key strategy for sustaining and improving environmental performance into the twenty-first century. EPA believes that materials accounting has promise, and that the questions raised by the TRI-Phase 3 project are important ones that need discussion by the stakeholder community. EPA is confident that common sense approaches can be devised to enhance the Right-to-Know program, without adversely affecting industry competitiveness. Based on stakeholder input so far, EPA is more confident that it is aware of the questions that need to be answered. The job of evaluation can now move forward. The Agency looks forward to continued dialogue with and participation from stakeholders as the project continues.

APPENDIX 1

REFERENCE TO ISSUES PAPER #2 DETAILS

CURRENT DEFINITION OF MATERIALS ACCOUNTING

Materials accounting involves determining the quantity of a chemical at key junctures in its progression through a facility, using readily derived information such as invoice and product composition data. It is distinct from engineering mass balance, which is a more technically rigorous excercise that includes measurement of process streams.

EXISTING STATE LAWS ON MATERIALS ACCOUNTING

·Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA, M.G.L. c.211), 1989

·New Jersey Worker and Community Right-to-Know Act (PL 1984, c.315, N.J.S.A. 34:5A-1.1 et seq)

Pollution Prevention Act (PL 1991,c.235, N.J.S.A. 13:1D-35 et seq)

DATA ELEMENT OPTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDER CONSIDERATION

Input options
Set A	Set B	Set C
-Starting raw material inventory amount of the substance -Amount produced on site -Amount brought on site	-Amount manufactured -Amount processed -Amount otherwise used	-Total input amount

Output options

Set A

-Amount consumed on-site (chemically reacted in process) -Amount shipped off site as (or in) product -Ending raw material inventory amount -Amount stored on-site as or in product

Occupational Exposure Indicator Options
Set A	Set B	Set C
-Total number of workers at the facility	-Total number of workers at the facility -Number of workers "potentially exposed" to each TRI chemical	-Total number of workers at the facility -Number of workers "potentially exposed" to each TRI chemical -Whether exposure monitoring has been performed for this chemical during the year - yes or no. -Whether exposure monitoring has ever been performed for this chemical- yes or no.

Other supplemental options beyond full materials accounting

Waste-related source reduction performance measures -Amount of wastes prevented by source reduction in pounds. -Annual percentage (or index) reduction in total wastes. Normalization refinements -Procedure for weighting multiple chemical uses

---

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF EPCRA SUBTITLE B SECTION 311/312

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Table 1 - SUMMARY OF SECTION 311 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Feature	Details
Chemical scope	All substances defined as "hazardous" by OSHA in the "Hazard Communication Standard" -1910.1200(c). This is equivalent to all substances that require listing in Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). The definition does include some exceptions (e.g. for drugs, articles, some research materials, household materials, and agricultural items.)
Facility scope	All facilities using "hazardous substances" as defined above.
Reporting trigger	For routine reporting: -"hazardous substance" - use of 10,000 pounds or more. -"extremely hazardous substance" - 500 pounds or "Threshold Planning Quantity", whatever is lower. -In the case of a request - zero pound threshold.
Type of report	Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), or a listing (grouped by hazard category) of chemicals that require an MSDS.
Frequency of reporting	One-time reporting, with additional reporting of revised sheets within 3 months after a significant new information is added.
Content of report	According to 1910.1200(g), MSDSs must include the following data elements: -identity or trade name used on the label, -chemical and common names of ingredients determined to be health or physical hazards, -physical and chemical characteristics (eg vapor pressure, flash point) -description of physical hazards (potential for fire, explosion, reactivity) -description of health hazards (signs and symptoms of exposure, medical conditions which can be aggravated) -primary routes of entry -OSHA and other permissible occupational exposure limits -whether the chemical is listed as a potential carcinogen by NTP or IARC -generally applicable precautions for safe handling and use -generally applicable control measures, including engineering controls, work practices, or equipment -emergency and first aid procedures -date of preparation of MSDS or last change to it -name, address, telephone number for additional information
Organization receiving reports	LEPC, SERC, Local fire department
Availability to public	Available via written request to LEPC or SERC
Database capabilities	EPA is not aware of any state databases for MSDSs collected from facilities. Chemical lists may be included as part of state databases for Section 312 Tier 2 data.
General Comments	MSDS content provides important detail on chemical properties and hazards. However, content does not include volume of chemical use. Routine reporting of chemical lists is more common than submittal of MSDSs.

APPENDIX 2 CONTINUED

Table 2 - SUMMARY OF SECTION 312 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Feature	Details - Section 312 Tier 1 Report	Details Section 312 Tier 2 Report
Chemical scope	All substances defined as "hazardous" by OSHA in the "Hazard Communication Standard" - 1910.1200(c). Equivalent to all substances that require an MSDS.
Facility scope	All facilities using hazardous substances, that also meet the reporting trigger.
Reporting trigger	10,000 pounds for hazardous substances, 500 pounds for "extremely hazardous substances" (EHS)	Same, but zero pound threshold if requested.
Frequency of reporting	Once a year, due March 1.	Once a year if submitted in lieu of Tier 1 reports. Otherwise, upon request. (Note: Most states prefer to collect Tier 2 reports instead of Tier 1)
Content of Report	Both forms include: Facility Identification and address; SIC code; Dun & Bradstreet Number; Owner/operator name, address, phone numbers; Emergency contact, name, title, phone numbers; certification and signature; plus...
	Data is provided for five different categories of hazardous substance: ·Fire hazard, ·Sudden release of pressure hazard, ·Reactivity hazard, ·Immediate (acute) hazard, and ·Delayed (chronic) hazard. For each category, the following aggregated information is provided: -maximum amount on site (range code), -average daily amount (range code), -number of days on site, -general location,	For each reportable chemical, the following information is provided: -CAS number -Chemical name -Check all boxes that apply - pure, mix, solid, liquid, gas, EHS (if EHS, provide name) -Check all (of 5) hazard category boxes (same as Tier 1) that apply -maximum amount on site (range code) (exact amount in some states), -average daily amount (range code) (exact amount in some states), -number of days on site -Storage codes (container type, temperature, pressure) and specific location -Section for confidential information -Check showing optional attachments (site maps, site abbreviations)
Organization receiving report	State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) Local Emergency Response Committee (LEPC) Local fire department (LFD) with jurisdiction for facility	-Same if submitted in lieu of Tier 1 forms. -To respective group (within 30 days) if requested by a SERC, LEPC, or LFD. -Via LEPC or SERC if requested by another state or local official.
Availability to Public	Available via facility-specific written request to LEPC or SERC.	Available via facility-specific written request to LEPC or SERC. -Automatic - If the SERC or LEPC has the Tier 2 data in hand. -Discretionary - If the SERC or LEPC does not have the Tier 2 data on hand, requestor needs to include a "general statement of need". Data then provided within 45 days.
Database capabilities	States with computerized databases include Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. No integrated database exists.
General Comments	-The utility of Tier 1 data is limited, because the data is for aggregated volumes for the five hazard categories. Chemical specific data is not submitted. -The reported figure for days on-site is based on the individual substance within each category on-site the longest.	-Tier 2 data is potentially more useful, since it provides data for each substance. Its availability to the public is based more on a "need to know". -Requests must include the names of the facilities, and blanket requests (eg for county totals) are not allowed.

APPENDIX 2 CONTINUED

Table 3 - SUMMARY OF STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SECTIONS 311 AND 312. (Data is for 50 states plus District of Columbia and Puerto Rico)
Reporting requirement	EPCRA Provisions	State law statistics reflecting implementation of EPCRA and/or state laws on worker and community Right-to-Know.
Section 311	Requires submittal of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) or A listing of chemicals grouped by hazard category	6 states require that lists be provided. 41 states prefer that lists be provided. 1 state requires lists if >10 chemicals, otherwise prefers lists. 2 states prefer lists for SERCs and LEPCs, but MSDSs for local fire departments. 2 states give facilities the option of reporting either way.
Section 312	Requires Tier 1 reports as a minimum, but allows Tier 2 reports to be submitted in lieu of Tier 1. If Tier 1 submitted, Tier 2 reports are due upon request.	35 states require that Tier 2 (or equivalent state forms) be submitted. 16 states prefer that Tier 2 forms be submitted. 1 state requires that both Tier 1 and 2 forms be submitted.
General Comments	While law includes options, original emphasis is on MSDS and Tier 1 reporting.	States prefer chemicals lists over reporting of MSDSs, and Tier 2 data over Tier 1 data.

Local Navigation

• TRI Program
• Basic Information
• Where You Live
• TRI Laws and Regulations
• Browse TRI Topics

---

• How EPA obtains TRI Data
• TRI Reporting Assistance
• TRI-ME Reporting Software
• TRI Chemical List
• Frequent Questions

---

• State TRI Programs
• Tribes
• TRI Enforcement
• TRI Historical Archive
• International TRI

• EPA Home
• Privacy and Security Notice
• Contact Us