Update on the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Program

Update on the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Program February 2005

TRI National Meeting • February 8-10, 2005 • Included EPA, states, industry, and environmental groups • Hosted by Environmental Council of the States (ECOS)

State Priorities (as Reported by ECOS) • Funding • Partnerships • Oversight • Information Management • Previous weakening of Environmental Regulations

TRI Data Use • EPA emphasis on collection of quality data • EPA not responsible for data use • OPPTS Risk Screening for Environmental Indicators (RSEI) • Air and water risk screening based onlbs. of TRI substances • Regional Offices • Enforcement targeting • Waste minimization programs

TRI Data Use (Con’t) • Alarming use of data by RCRA office • Regulatory Development/ Options Prioritization • ID potential NPEP (National Partnership for Environmental Priorities) partners • Identify P2/Waste Min. Opportunities • Track GPRA progress • Use of TRI data is limited because it does not contain life-cycle data

TRI Data Quality/ Consistency • Recent addendum/corrections to ’98 Q&A • Monthly conference calls between regions to informally resolve differing interpretations • Discussion/request of FACA on guidance • Particular interest in Section (VIII) definitions

TRI Reports: eFDR • Discussion of pros/cons • Why can’t EPA make available in database form? • Environmental groups planning to “vacuum up” eFDR to make available in database form

TRI in Context • Background • Chemicals in the Economy • TRI History • TRI v. Hazards • Macro Trends • Overall releases decreasing over time • What is causing this? • Economic performance (shrinking economy/ overseas production) • P2/ Waste minimization/Raw material substitution • Good housekeeping • Non-TRI Releases and Transfers • Chemicals, sectors, sources not covered by TRI • Facilities below TRI reporting thresholds • Trends in Waste Management

TRI in Context (Con’t) • Sector Oriented View of TRI Reporting/Releases • Extractive • Manufacturing • Utilities and Supporting Industries • Waste Disposal • Geographic Distribution • TRI Chemicals of Interest • Trends in Releases • Factors Contributing to Trends • EPA Activities • Likely Chemicals Profiled: • Lead • Dioxins • Mercury • TCE • Toluene

EPA’s TRI Modernization Goals • Raise data quality • Data registries • Online real-time algorithms • Control cost of data input and correction • Increase the ability to integrate TRI data with other sources • Increase the ability to analyze TRI data • Speedup dissemination of data • Reduce the burden on TRI reporters • Meet the President’s management agenda/EGov initiative

Web Enabled TRI-ME Benefits (According to EPA) • Facilities will come to one spot for all their EPA business • Facility will no longer have to download and install software • Facilities no longer will have to maintain data on their PC • Facility data can be pre-populated • Users can enter data in one sitting (or period) and then be done with TRI for the year • Might eliminate or significantly reduce data revisions by providing immediate feedback • TRI-ME can become “smarter,” guiding users through the data submission process to make it easier and faster

Phase I Burden Reduction • Comments due March 11, 2005 • Estimated burden reductions are suspect • Minor changes • Eliminates latitude/longitude • Eliminates EPA program identification numbers (4.9 and 4.10) • Eliminates ‘Percentage of Total Quantity of Toxic Chemicals Contributed by Stormwater (5.3 C) • Streamlines code list for On-Site Waste Treatment Methods • Eliminates ‘Range of Influent Concentration’ • Allows reporting of waste treatment efficiency as a range instead of exact percentage • Streamlines on-site recycling process codes

Phase II Burden Reduction • EPA December 2003 white paper discussed 6 options: • Higher reporting thresholds for small businesses • Higher reporting thresholds for a category of facilities or class of chemicals with small reportable amounts • Expanding eligibility for the Form A Certification Statement • Creating a new, "No Significant Change" Certification Statement • Use of range reporting for Section 8 of the Form R • Other Options for burden reduction • Relief for facilities reporting zero releases on their Form R reports • Alternate year reporting

Phase II Burden Reduction (Cont.) • Converging on four options to be presented to Senior Management • Will include Form NS (No Significant Change) • August Proposal?

Metals Framework • ORD document undergoing SAB review • Final product may suggest need to reconsider previous PBT decisions relating to lead and other metals • While review could affect PBT status, could also have no impact once individual compound toxicity considered (e.g. recent NCI determination)

Other Miscellaneous • Current ICR expires January ’06 • Proposal likely in March • Expect to include very detailed burden analysis to facilitate evaluation of burden reduction • NAICS rule late spring; not effective until RY ’05 • RY ’04 forms coming out in March • April mailing

Update on the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Program