MapCruzin.com
RTK or Left-To-Wonder?
Recommended Reading

TRI Phase 3 Report to President Clinton

Source: EPA Administrator, Carol Browner

Report to President Clinton

Expansion of Community Right-to-Know Reporting

to Include Chemical Use Data:

Phase III of the Toxics Release Inventory

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Carol M. Browner, Administrator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Expanding the Community Right-to-Know about Toxic Pollution

Two laws -- the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 -- guarantee to all Americans the right to know about dangerous chemicals being released into our air, our land, and our water. The Right-to-Know program is widely acknowledged to be one of our nation's most common-sense, cost-effective tools for protecting public health and our environment. Since the program began, reported releases of toxic chemicals have declined by 42.7%.

The Clinton Administration has strengthened the public Right-to-Know by nearly doubling the list of toxic chemicals that must be reported, and streamlining the reporting process for small businesses. Work is underway to expand the facilities required to report and to add information about chemical use.

On August 8, 1995, in the face of Congressional proposals to scale back the Right-to-Know program, President Clinton acted to protect the public's Right-to-Know. The President issued the Federal Acquisition and Community Right-to-Know Executive Order requiring all government contractors to report to the public about toxic chemicals they release into the environment. Also on August 8, President Clinton directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to expedite proceedings expanding the kinds of facilities that must report to the public about chemical releases. And he asked EPA to consider collecting information about the industrial use of toxic chemicals on site, not simply the release of these chemicals into the environment. Gathering information about chemical use, also called "materials accounting, " is a widely used management tool that allows industrial facilities to account for the flow of materials throughout an industrial process. Such accounting provides a complete picture of how toxic materials are handled and managed - including how such materials are brought on site, produced, consumed, stored, recycled, released, or shipped out in the form of consumer product or waste product.

EPA's report, "Expansion of Community Right-to-Know Reporting to Include Chemical Use Data: Phase III of the Toxics Release Inventory," released October 2, 1995, outlines how collecting information about chemical use would play a vital role in public understanding of the environment. The report describes why this information is critical for communities to participate in environmental decisionmaking at the local level. Finally, the report summarizes EPA's plans to pursue this issue.

EPA believes that materials accounting provides a critical look at how toxic materials flow through a community to a facility, an understanding of how workers within the facility could be exposed, and an understanding of the final disposition of the toxic chemicals. Tracking the flow of toxic chemicals can play a critical role in helping industry to prevent pollution -- rather than cleaning it up after the fact.

EPA is strongly committed to moving forward with the effort to expand the community Right-to-Know program to include such chemical use information. Our process will include full opportunities for public comment, public meetings, and pilot studies.

President Clinton and EPA are committed to ensuring that Americans have a complete picture of toxics in their environment, and that they will continue to have the most reliable and complete information available to them. Only with this information at their disposal can the American people fully understand and participate in decisions that affect their health, their families, and their communities.

"In the next century, environmental protection must be driven by clear and measurable national goals. Economic, environmental, and social goals must be integrated so policies are mutually supportive, not conflicting. Performance will be measured by achieving real results in the real world, not by adhering to procedures."

"The power of information will be critical to the success of this new system. Better information will allow businesses to identify and eliminate inefficiencies that create pollution and reduce profits. Better information will enable government to avoid one size fits all' approaches and efficiently tailor solutions to problems. Better information will allow citizens to participate effectively in decisions that affect their families and communities."

Reinventing Environmental Regulation, March 16, 1995 by President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore

"The Community Right-to-Know Act does not tell companies what they can and can't produce. It doesn't require massive bureaucracy. It doesn't affect every company, just those in certain industries. It's carefully focused on a list of 650 specific dangerous toxins. About 300 of those have been added since this administration came into office. And over 100 of them are known to cause cancer. This law works."

Remarks by President Bill Clinton
Fort Armistead Park, Baltimore, Maryland on August 8, 1995

I. Introduction

On August 8, 1995, President Clinton directed the Environmental Protection Agency to expedite two major Right-toKnow initiatives. "So that consideration of these issues can be fully accomplished during this administration ...", the President directed the Administrator to expedite rulemaking proceedings on expanding the facility coverage of the Right-to-Know program and to develop and implement, on an expedited schedule, a process for consideration of reporting of use information under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). This report focuses on the process for proceeding with collection of use information.

Responding to the universal recognition that the Right-to-Know program has been the impetus for significant reductions in releases of toxic materials to the environment--in real terms, a 2.1 billion pound reduction or 42.7% of the releases reported in 1988, the President directed EPA to consider expanding the coverage of TRI to include additional industries and additional data, so that the same type of reductions could be achieved in other areas that impact our environment.

As stated in the President's directive: "The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 provide an innovative approach to protecting the public health and the environment by ensuring that communities are informed about the toxic chemicals being released into the air, land , and water by manufacturing facilities. I am committed to the effective implementation of this law, because Community Right-to-Know protections provide a basic informational tool to encourage informed community-based environmental decision making and provide a strong incentive for businesses to find their own ways of preventing pollution."

The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is considered one of the most successful instruments ever created for improving industry's environmental performance with regard to decreasing toxic wastes. TRI has encouraged pollution prevention progress by making information available to the public rather than mandating command and control type regulations such as setting emissions standards. The success of the program comes from the public and industry's use of this information to motivate and empower initiatives at all levels; from facility teams, to community groups, to trade associations, and state and local governments.

It is EPA's intention to move forward to meet the challenge of the President's directive. EPA believes that an expansion of the scope of TRI coverage for both facilities and data elements is critical to a comprehensive Right-to-Know program and is in keeping with the intent of Congress as they passed EPCRA. Expanding TRI to collect data on a wider range of facilities will broaden the coverage of the program and will provide information on other significant sources of toxic chemicals in our communities. This information in the hands of the government, industry, and the public will stimulate additional progress in reducing environmental releases.

EPA believes that materials accounting data provides a critical look at the flow of toxic materials through a community to a facility; an understanding of the processes, release patterns, and potential exposures within a facility; and an understanding of the final disposition of toxic materials, whether it be in a consumer product, shipped off-site as waste, or recycled back to the manufacturing process. It is EPA's position that materials accounting information is critical to enhancing pollution prevention initiatives being undertaken by the EPA. Furthermore, EPA believes that materials accounting data is certainly within the bounds and the spirit of Community Right-to-Know.

Accordingly, EPA will work towards assuring that complete materials accounting data is collected, and that the program is expanded to include additional facilities.

II. What is Materials Accounting?

Materials accounting is a commonly used management tool that allows industrial facilities to account for the flow or "use" of raw materials throughout an industrial process. The strength of materials accounting as a sound business tool is that it provides an accurate "accounting" for the use or loss of valuable, and often costly, raw materials. An accurate materials accounting program for any facility will identify where raw materials are being wasted or lost; areas where new materials are being created; and ultimately identify the amount of starting materials that goes into the final product, is shipped from the facility as waste, or has gotten "lost" and is unaccounted for in the process. Materials accounting provides a common sense business approach to understanding and managing toxic chemicals as they flow through an industrial process. Materials accounting can and does serve as a valuable tool for industrial facilities to assure the communities in which they are located that at all stages of use, toxic materials are being handled and managed in a responsible and safe manner.

While there are a number of ways to collect limited or partial materials accounting data, EPA believes that only a full materials accounting program can provide a comprehensive look at the presence and flow of toxics in and through communities. Although partial materials accounting may provide for specific quantitative checks on an individual process or activities within the facility, it lacks the ability to provide the comprehensive overview that is essential for the facility, its workers and the community to understand and evaluate the operations that impact their financial position, profitability, health and environment.

III. What are the Benefits of Materials Accounting?

The collection and use of full materials accounting data can provide significant benefits for the facility owner, the workers within the facility, and the community surrounding the site. Based on the experiences of the public and private sector with materials accounting, the following benefits appear evident.

Materials Accounting is a Good Business Practice. Many companies already collect materials accounting information as a good business practice. This information is fundamental for pollution prevention planning. Companies have saved money from reduced expenditures on raw materials, and improved chemical use, storage, and handling practices. Improved production unit efficiency also saves money by reducing the amount of wastes generated that must then be managed by recycling, treatment, and/or disposal. This information is used for financial planning and accounting purposes and to measure performance standards at a facility.

Measuring Source Reduction

Source reduction is the preferred approach for reducing the release of toxic materials into the environment. While the Federal government and the industrial sector have adopted source reduction as the method of first choice, neither the government nor industry have any universal system for measuring progress in the area. EPA is interested in source reduction measurements in order to measure progress toward the national goal established by the Pollution Prevention Act. EPA believes that source reduction measurement is critical to enhancing pollution prevention initiatives. For facilities, materials accounting allows a facility to analyze the decrease or increase in use of chemicals or generation of wastes in all of their processes. The ability to quantify source reduction allows a facility to assess source reduction techniques, to measure their successes, and to reduce raw materials costs.

Communities have the right to know that neighboring facilities are using and managing toxic chemicals responsibly. The ability to measure source reduction allows communities to be able to participate in local issues and work with local industries to decrease pollution in their communities.

Identifying Occupational Exposure Potential

A materials accounting approach could be designed to include data on occupational demographics within a facility. Industrial facilities do not presently report on the number of workers potentially exposed to toxic materials. In identifying how many workers can potentially be exposed to toxic chemicals on the job, information on occupational health issues can be enhanced. Employees and their families have the right to know the quantities of toxic chemicals to which they may potentially be exposed. Companies should also be interested in such information relating to the safety and well being of their employees. Current TRI release data may not represent actual amounts of toxics within the facility. For example, Dupont Corporation in Deepwater, New Jersey reported TRI releases/transfers of only 1,298 pounds of phosgene in 1991. A materials accounting program indicated that, in fact, more than 58 million pounds of phosgene was present within the facility for that same period of time. Phosgene is highly toxic. Acute inhalation exposure can cause severe respiratory effects or death.

Identifying Toxic Materials in Consumer Products

EPA does not currently collect information on the amount of toxic chemicals that are incorporated in consumer products. Knowing the amount of toxic chemicals in products allows the government, industry, and the public to conduct life cycle analyses, identifying the potential exposures to toxic chemicals in products during transport, storage, use, recycling, and disposal. Quantifying the amount of toxic chemicals distributed in commerce as products, provides critical information to understand and plan for the ultimate disposal of toxic chemicals in the environment. Cradle to grave chemical management is an increasingly important issue for protecting the environment for future generations. The fate of toxic chemicals entering the environment through disposal of consumer goods clearly affects the future health of our environment.

Following the Flow of Toxics In Communities

Communities have the Right-to-Know about and plan for the transport of toxic chemicals through their communities. This includes raw materials that enter the community by freight; toxic substances that are manufactured or used at the facilities; and toxic materials that leave the facilities as product or as waste. The presence of toxic chemicals at any of these stages can present situations for potential exposure to community members. Understanding this flow allows for planning and control that can minimize adverse situations.

Checking Data Quality

Materials accounting information provides a means for checking estimates of reported releases. The ability to compare the outputs of toxic chemicals with the input helps ensure that all flows of chemicals have been accounted for in the reporting process. This information aids in understanding the overall use and flows of a chemical at a facility and other quantities reported to TRI. General reporting errors may be reduced by using a materials accounting approach. This would reduce the burden to industry and government in correcting TRI reporting errors, resulting in a savings of both time and money.

IV. Why Materials Accounting is Central to a Right-to-Know Program

The families living and working in communities have a right to know about the chemicals and toxic materials that are present in the ambient environment, in the workplace, in waste management sites in their communities, and in the consumer products they use. The American public has learned from experience that the safety and quality of their environment is not to be taken for granted and that understanding and participation at the local level is critical to assuring the environmental integrity of their homes, their work sites, and their communities.

Publicly available materials accounting data is clearly the key to providing communities with the facility specific data that they need to participate as fully informed players in the local environmental debate. The data on inputs represents the materials passing through a community that can and have posed serious environmental threats. This same input data provides the community with information on what toxic materials are stored at the facility; what materials serve as the starting point for the industrial process and identifies areas where substitution may greatly decrease risk. Processing data, or what happens to chemicals within the facility is clearly a Right-to-Know issue for the workers who are potentially exposed throughout their work day. This data is also key to identifying areas where process inefficiencies may result from leaks or unnecessary releases. It is the source of information for worker Right-to-Know issues -- how many people are potentially exposed to what quantities of which chemicals in what concentrations? And at the tail end of the process, output and product data. How much waste is being generated as a result of the process? How much toxic material is entering the environment either as a direct waste stream or bound up in the final consumer or commercial product? After the "useful life" of the product, where will it end up and what will be the final disposition or availability of the toxic materials bound up in that product?

Based on extensive dialogue with stakeholders, EPA recognizes that while the concept of materials accounting and the benefits associated with materials accounting are relatively straightforward, there are some serious and legitimate concerns that need to be addressed and resolved. EPA believes that there are ways to balance and address these concerns without denying the American public access to information about industrial operation in their communities. The issues that EPA has identified thus far that need to be explored further include:

EPA is committed to developing and pursuing a course of action to resolve these issues and move forward with a program to collect appropriate materials accounting data.

V. Proposed Next Steps

The next steps in this effort will be guided by three critical considerations:

As discussed earlier in this report, there are clearly a number of significant issues that need to be resolved before EPA can move forward with a detailed proposal for collection of materials accounting data. As directed by the President, and in keeping with EPA's commitment to full and open participation in the development of the Right-to-Know Program , the Agency is proceeding in a number of ways.

EPA will hold a second public meeting on this issue on October 18 and 19, 1995. The purpose of this meeting will be to lay out EPA's position on materials accounting and to engage the public and private sector in a continuing dialogue to move forward. EPA will be issuing a paper prior to this public meeting that provides extensive details on the materials accounting issue and which summarizes the remarks and positions presented at an earlier public meeting. EPA will use the input from this meeting to choose among a number of options for proceeding with a materials accounting program.

Under consideration is the creation of a task force that would use the materials accounting collection programs from New Jersey and Massachusetts as pilot studies and their existing materials accounting data to more fully explore the uses, the benefits, and the concerns associated with materials accounting. This task force would join the experiences of the industrial community with the general public, states, the environmental community, and the federal government. This group would be charged with reporting back, with clear examples, the benefits and the obstacles to collecting and distributing materials accounting data.

EPA is also considering asking members of the Common Sense Initiative (CSI) to work with the Agency in exploring materials accounting data collection and use. In a 1990 report to EPA, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended EPA conduct a pilot study to test the feasibility of the national collection of materials accounting information. To date, EPA has not conducted a pilot study, and believes that there are data currently available from existing state programs, such as New Jersey and Massachusetts, that preclude the need to conduct such a pilot (For more detailed information on the New Jersey and Massachusetts programs, see Appendix B). The report also concluded that a materials accounting program can contribute to understanding chemical-use patterns from mass flows of toxic substances into and out of a manufacturing facility, and environmental releases; and would "aid in evaluating wastereduction efficiency and the setting of national priorities for waste reduction and chemical management practices."

EPA is considering working with one or more sectors of the Common Sense Initiative to undertake a pilot project to collect full materials accounting data from a sector and to explore the uses, the strengths, and the obstacles associated with materials accounting. A number of sectors have expressed interest in this effort and the Agency will be working with them over the coming months. The Federal sector is also under consideration.

EPA will present the issue of collecting materials accounting data to the Toxics Data Reporting Subcommittee of the National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). EPA hopes to gain insight from the group by engaging then in further exploration and pursuit of this issue.

In addition to these pilot efforts, EPA will also be actively exploring other regulatory and voluntary approaches, as well as any efforts needed to create principles for new legislation. EPA will also consider the option of independent or third party validation of submitted materials accounting data.

2. Legislative Authority

A broad array of statutory authorities are available to EPA to accomplish some or all of the goals described in this report. Some of the materials accounting data that would be valuable input data into a total materials accounting system is already being collected on TRI. These data allow EPA, facilities and the public to track releases and transfers of toxic materials and wastes. These particular data elements however fall short of allowing EPA or the public to assess quantitative progress in source reduction.

TRI itself could be expanded to collect additional information. For example, section 313(g)(1)(I) and (ii) could be used to collect information about a facility's manufacture, processing or other use of a chemical by requiring more detailed reporting on categories of use, and the amounts (in ranges) of the chemical present at the facility for each of those categories. EPA is also in the process of evaluating whether to refine the scope of TRI reporting on source reduction and waste management activities under the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA).

Environmental statutes other than EPCRA and the PPA may also be used to collect relevant materials accounting data. For example, section 8(a) of the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorizes EPA to collect data on the amounts of a chemical substance manufactured or processed by category of use, byproducts, worker exposure, and disposal methods. There are significant differences, however, between the scope of coverage for EPCRA and TSCA, as well as information access issues and facilities coverage issues. EPA is also exploring whether information currently being reported under TSCA or any other environmental statute could help meet the materials accounting goal.

In pursuing the issue of statutory authority further, EPA will aim to assure that the most appropriate statute or combination of statutes is selected, that duplication of information requirements are avoided to the maximum extent possible, and that in considering the Agency's authorities, EPA will identify areas where legislation may need to be enhanced or expanded.

3. Assuring a Comprehensive Right-to-Know Program

Since its inception in 1986, TRI and the Community Rightto -Know Program has had a significant influence on improving the environmental quality of this nation, decreasing environmental releases of toxic chemicals 42.7%. EPA believes that assuring a full and comprehensive Right-to-Know Program is one of the its primary missions. EPA is committed to assuring that this Program continues to move forward, ensuring that the public has a complete picture of toxics in the environment, and that they have the information available to them to understand and influence decisions that affect their lives, their families, and their communities.

After consideration of all input from the October 18-19, 1995 public meeting, EPA will develop and make public a plan and schedule for proceeding with this initiative. EPA will consider all regulatory and voluntary approaches, as well as pilot studies or programs to augment the Agency's activities.

VI. Other Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Right-to-Know Activities

Industry Expansion

EPA is currently examining options for expanding the universe of facilities required to report in TRI, by focussing on those industries where it can find evidence of significant releases of TRI-listed chemicals and which are related to manufacturing. Nearly every industry outside of the manufacturing SIC codes 20-39 was evaluated; this list of potential candidates has been narrowed to only those industries where data exists indicating releases occur, and which have large facilities that are expected to exceed TRI reporting thresholds.

EPA is committed to an open regulatory process, including sharing its data prior to proposal, and has held both formal and informal discussions with representatives of potential candidate industries, as well as other interested groups such as environmental and labor organizations. This dialogue has included two public meetings and focus group meetings dedicated to specific industries. EPA is currently anticipating publication of a proposal to add industries in early 1996. Appendix C includes a pre-proposal schedule and a list of major meetings on the issue.

Hazard Screening of the Initial EPCRA Section 313 Chemical List

When Congress passed EPCRA, the list of chemicals selected for reporting requirements under section 313 was taken from a combination of two state chemical lists used for state regulatory activities. Congress also included, as part of EPCRA section 313, a list of criteria for the purposes of adding or removing chemicals covered under the section. The original chemicals taken from the two lists had not necessarily been evaluated for these criteria previously to being listed for EPCRA.

EPA has a very active program that responds to petitions, either to list or delist reportable chemicals under section 313. The Agency has recently identified and added many new chemicals to the list by rulemaking. The Agency has also committed to a review of the initial list to determine if any currently listed chemicals do not meet the statutory criteria and to take any necessary action to remove the chemicals that do not satisfy the statutory criteria.

The review of the initial list is underway and the Agency expects to have results in January of 1996. Once this process is completed, the Agency will set a schedule for taking actions to remove any chemicals that do not meet the criteria from the list.

Federal Acquisition and Community Right-to-Know

Executive Order # 12969, Federal Acquisition and Community Right-to-Know, was signed on August 8, 1995. This Executive Order was issued to ensure that the Federal government purchases goods and services from contractors that report in a public manner on toxic chemicals released to the environment. The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to include in solicitations for certain contracts, a requirement for prospective federal contractors to certify that their manufacturing facilities will comply, and continue to comply for the life of the contract, with the EPCRA section 313 and Pollution Prevention Act section 6607 reporting requirements. To help implement this Executive Order, EPA is developing guidance to assist Federal agencies in amending their solicitation and contract requirements. EPA expects this guidance to be published in the Federal Register by September 29, 1995.

TSCA Chemical Use Inventory (CUI)

EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is in the process of developing an amendment to a current information collection rule (TSCA Inventory Update) to gather information that would promote a better understanding of potential exposures for use in preliminary risk screening of chemicals in commerce. Specifically, EPA is interested in gathering basic information on the industrial and consumer end uses of chemicals in commerce; the conditions under which they are used; and exposure related data, such as the number of workers that may be potentially exposed at manufacturing sites. This action will seek additional information from manufacturing facilities on many of the organic chemicals that exceed the reporting threshold of greater than 10,000 pounds--many more than the number of chemicals covered by EPCRA section 313. The work group is also considering adding inorganic chemicals to this data reporting and adjusting the reporting threshold to reduce the number of chemicals affected, as recommended by the General Accounting Office (GAO).

EPA has had numerous meetings with a variety of stakeholders on the Inventory Use Reduction (IUR) Amendments. A workshop was held in April 1995 to discuss the technical aspects of amendments being considered. In moving forward with CUI, EPA will make every effort to ensure that reporting requirements are not duplicated. EPA plans to use additional workshops to solidify the technical basis and content for a proposed rule, which is targeted to be published in the Federal Register by mid-1996.

APPENDIX A

Why TRI Does Not Measure Source Reduction

As required by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA), EPA collects information on Form R that includes the quantities of the toxic chemicals entering waste streams and released to the environment; and the quantities managed through recycling, energy recovery, treatment, disposal and release. The definition of source reduction in the PPA includes the reduction of an amount of a toxic chemical released to the environment or entering a waste stream prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal. An indication of the efforts being made to reduce or eliminate those quantities must also be reported pursuant to the PPA. The data currently collected on Form R provide limited qualitative information on source reduction activities, and only a simple quantitative indication of the success of those efforts. These data, however, cannot provide an exact quantification of the amount of the toxic chemicals prevented from entering waste streams due to the implementation of source reduction activities.

As currently collected, TRI data do not meet all of the goals and needs identified in the previous section of this paper. The information does not allow measurement or tracking of the amount of toxic chemicals incorporated into products simply because that information is not collected under TRI. The collection of materials accounting information would allow a verification of the TRI data that are currently reported. With this data, facilities would be able to compare the amount of the inputs of the toxic chemical to the amounts in product and nonproduct outputs, and determine whether the quantities reported as released or managed in waste streams are accurate and reliable.

The waste reduction numbers calculated with TRI data do not necessarily indicate that these reductions are the result of source reduction. For example, a study performed by Research Triangle Institute analyzing the materials accounting data collected by the New Jersey program shows no correlation between source reduction activities and a decrease of toxic chemicals in wastes as reported to TRI. The following sections provide a more detailed discussion on why TRI can only provide a broad indication of whether source reduction is occurring, but does not measure quantities of source reduction.

Using TRI Data to Assess Source Reduction

There are several methods which may use currently collected TRI data to assess the progress in pollution prevention. Most of the methods require the summation of the quantities reported for the toxic chemical as managed (including released, recycled, treated, and used for energy recovery [from EPA Form R, Part II, Section 8]); during the prior reporting year as well as the quantities for the present reporting year. Then, an index is used to normalize the quantities for changes in production levels which is necessary to determine the amount of the toxic chemical prevented from entering waste streams due to source reduction.

The amount of the toxic chemical expected to be managed in the reporting year is the sum of the quantities for the prior year multiplied by the production ratio. This calculation adjusts reported quantities for changes in production. If the expected amount is greater than the actual amount for the reporting year, it would be assumed that source reduction has occurred, especially if one or more source reduction activities were reported for the toxic chemical on the Form R.

The methods for such an analysis can vary, but all use the production ratio to normalize the quantities of the toxic chemical in waste streams. Many of the methods entail calculating an indicator number such as an index or percent change. Equations for these analyses may look similar to the following:

Index = 100 - (Current Year Quantities/Prior Year Quantities) X 100 Production Ratio

% change = (Prior Year Quantities x Production Ratio) - Current Year Quantities X 100 (Prior Year Quantities x Production Ratio)

While these analyses can yield an indicator of the progress in source reduction, they cannot provide an exact quantification of the amount of the toxic chemical prevented from entering waste streams because of several factors. These factors include: 1) the production ratio may not accurately reflect the relationship between changes in production level and the generation of wastes, 2) the aggregated production ratio may not be accurate in all situations; 3) there may be a delay between the time that the source reduction activity is implemented and the time that benefits are realized; and 4) it may not be possible to identify other activities that may result in reduction of waste quantities.

The production ratio may not accurately reflect the relationship between changes in production level and the generation of wastes.

Using the production ratio to normalize the quantities of the toxic chemical in waste streams assumes that there is a direct or linear relationship between production and the quantity of the toxic chemical in waste streams. A direct relationship between production and generation of wastes means that for each unit of production there is a corresponding unit of waste generated, displayed by the straight line on the graph. This assumption may hold for certain situations, but not all.

Due to economies of scale, one can generally expect that as the production level increases the amount of wastes per unit produced would decrease. Using total wastes produced verses production level, this relationship is represented by curve II on the graph. In this case, the amount of chemical expected to enter waste streams would be overstated if a direct relationship between production and waste generation is assumed when in fact such a relationship does not exist. When the amount of the toxic chemical expected to enter waste streams is overstated, the progress due to source reduction would also be overstated.

Some production processes may result in more wastes being generated per unit produced as the production level rises. For example, a facility manufactures parts which are degreased at the end of the process. When more parts are cleaned, the solvent becomes contaminated more quickly and may need to be replaced or recycled more frequently. The relationship between production and total generation of wastes would then be represented by curve I. In this case, the amount of the toxic chemical expected to enter waste streams would be understated, and the progress due to source reduction would also be understated.

The production index may not be accurate in all situations.

The production index currently reported on Form R is a facility-wide ratio covering all activities involving the toxic chemical. As an aggregate of several production lines, some accuracy will be lost when the ratio is calculated. When a facility implements a source reduction activity, that activity may be for one or more, but not all, of the production lines or activities involving the toxic chemical. The degree of source reduction success may vary for the different production units. Since the production ratio is a facility-wide aggregate, the changes in production specific to the activities for which source reduction was implemented would be averaged with the production changes for the other activities involving the toxic chemical. Also the amount of the toxic chemical used in a production unit will affect the aggregate number.

There may be a delay between the time that the source reduction activity is implemented and the time that benefits are realized.

When a facility reports that a source reduction activity has been implemented, that activity could have been implemented at any time during the reporting year. Obviously, an activity that is implemented in January will result in more of the toxic chemical being prevented from entering wastes than an activity implemented in November. Therefore, in situations where a source reduction activity is implemented late in the year, a better indication of the amount of the toxic chemical that is prevented from entering a waste stream due to that activity may be obtained by analyzing the subsequent reporting year's data.

It may not be possible to identify some activities that may result in reduction of waste quantities.

The discontinuation of a product line which uses a toxic chemical would appear to reduce the amount of wastes generated at the facility for that chemical, when in fact, no source reduction activities were responsible for the reduction. Currently, TRI does not require facilities to report the discontinuation of a product line. Conversely, if source reduction activities result in the complete elimination of the use of a chemical at the facility, no source reduction progress is reported to TRI, because the facility would no longer need to report on that chemical.

APPENDIX B

Summary of New Jersey and Massachusetts' Materials Accounting Data Collection Programs

In exploring the issue of adding materials accounting data to TRI, EPA examined the New Jersey and Massachusetts Pollution Prevention programs. Both states collect materials accounting data and are interested in measuring source reduction, but the methods they use are slightly different. New Jersey's pollution prevention program emphasizes reducing production-related wastes by improving production process efficiencies. Massachusetts emphasizes first the reduction of the use of toxic chemicals and then the reduction of the generation of toxic wastes.

Both states require that pollution prevention plans be developed and implemented at all facilities that use toxic chemicals above certain amounts. Both states also collect chemical use information and other output data for materials accounting not currently collected on TRI. The chemical use information is intended to be used by the facility to help them evaluate their production processes in the development of pollution prevention plans. Chemical use information used in conjunction with the output data aids in analyzing process efficiency. The following sections describe the reporting requirements of the New Jersey and Massachusetts pollution prevention programs.

New Jersey

Background and Reporting Requirements

New Jersey's materials accounting program is founded in the Worker and Community Right to Know Act (P.L. 1984, c.315, N.J.S.A. 34:5A-1.1 et seq.), which is administered by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) The Release and Pollution Prevention Report (RPPR or form DEQ-114) is an annual report required by NJDEP pursuant to the Worker and Community Right to Know Act (P.L. 1984, c.315, N.J.S.A. 34:5A-1.1 et seq.), the Pollution Prevention Act (P.L. 1991, c.235, N.J.S.A. 13:1D-35 et seq.), and the regulations adopted pursuant to these laws. The RPPR collects chemical use; related throughput activities such as chemicals consumed in process; and waste generation. This information provides the basis for the analysis of the input-output accounting of materials, and for explaining discrepancies in the accounting process. It also provides the information on which the development of the pollution prevention plan is based.

The New Jersey Pollution Prevention Act (NJPPA) of 1991 is also administered by the NJDEP. The Act requires industrial facilities in the manufacturing sector to prepare three documents: 1) the Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP), 2) the Pollution Prevention Plan Summary (PPPS), and 3) a pollution prevention progress report (PPPR) which has been incorporated into the RPPR. The Pollution Prevention Plan remains at the facility but must be available for inspection by NJDEP. The Plan Summary and the information collected on the RPPR are submitted to the NJDEP and are available to the public upon request from the NJDEP. The arrangement for some information to remain on site was to help alleviate industry's concerns about disclosing confidential business information. Very few CBI claims have been submitted to the NJDEP, 0.7 percent of reporting facilities claimed in 1993 claimed information to be confidential on 1.2 percent of the chemical reports submitted in 1993.

A pollution prevention plan is a detailed analysis of a facility's production process. The PPP contains five-year goals for reducing the use and/or generation of nonproduct hazardous chemical outputs . The PPP Summary is a synopsis of the five year reduction goals and the reduction methods used to achieve them. The PPP for the five "priority SIC codes" were required to be submitted for the 1993 reporting year. Their first pollution prevention progress reports are then due for the 1994 reporting year. The other 15 SIC codes required to report to the state of New Jersey are required to submit their PPPs for reporting year 1995, and their first PPPRs will be due for reporting year 1996. In the interim before PPPRs are due, the state requires that the quantities of source reduction be reported instead of annual percent reductions for use and NPO.

The goal of the planning process is to maximize the efficiency of the production process by reducing hazardous substance use and/or the generation of nonproduct output. Nonproduct output (NPO) is all of the outputs from a production process that are not included in the product, e.g. the wastes. By tracking and analyzing the quantity of chemicals used and wasted in the production process (referred to as materials accounting data) in production processes, the efficiency of the process can be measured and then used to identify the inefficiencies in the production process that can be addressed through changes and modifications of the production process. NJDEP feels it is most meaningful to measure efficiency on a process level (as opposed to facility level) because facilities often have more than one type of product.

Source Reduction Reporting

Nonproduct Output

As a basis for the quantification of source reduction, New Jersey collects information on chemical use and nonproduct output (NPO). NPO is defined as the quantity of a toxic chemical which is generated as a result of a production process prior to storage, handling, treatment or disposal that was not intended for use as a product. The production-related waste measurements are designed to help facilities identify source reduction opportunities related to the production process. New Jersey provides the following equation in their reporting instructions for calculating nonproduct output.

Source Reduction Measurement

In order to track and measure source reduction progress, New Jersey requires facilities to report on the RPPR the quantity of a chemical that has been reduced in use at the facility relative to the previous year levels due to substitution of another substance. The facility must also list the quantity of the substance that was used as a substitute.

In addition, reporting facilities not in SIC codes 26, 28, 30, 33, or 34 must report the quantity of the chemical (generated as nonproduct output) that was reduced in the reporting year relative to the previous year due to the following source reduction activities: reformulation or redesign of the product; process or procedure modifications; equipment or technology modifications; improved operations; or other miscellaneous reduction activities. These quantities are reported in pounds and are a direct measure of source reduction.

Facilities in the "five priority SIC codes:" SIC code 26, 28, 30, 33, and 34; report, in addition to the quantity of chemical reduced in use due to substitution, the percent reduction for use and the percent reduction for nonproduct output due to source reduction activities in place of the pounds of source reduction requirement. These SIC codes cover the following industries:

The percentage reduction in total facility-wide use and total facility-wide nonproduct output generation indicate the pollution prevention (source reduction) progress the facility has made toward the five-year pollution prevention goals established in the facility's pollution prevention plan. This percent reduction fulfills the pollution prevention progress reporting requirement of the program. The equations for calculating these percentages are provided in the reporting instructions. Annual percent reduction for use is calculated using the following equation:

Annual percent reduction for nonproduct output is calculated using the following equation:

A positive percent indicates that source reduction occurred, a negative percent indicates an increase in chemical use and/or the generation of NPO, and zero indicates that use and/or NPO stayed constant.

Although the equations used to calculate the percent reduction for use and generation of NPO may appear to be similar to the calculation discussed in section II, it is important to understand the differences in these equations. One key difference is that the equation used to calculate the quantity of NPO is not the same as that used to calculate the amount of waste under TRI. Also, the production ratio used in the New Jersey calculations is far more detailed than the production ratio required by TRI. Production ratios used for New Jersey reporting are calculated using process-level, chemical-specific data (use per unit of product produced and NPO per unit of product produced). This information was calculated for all process units included in the New Jersey facilities' pollution prevention plans. The method for aggregating process-level production ratios in New Jersey involves a weighting factor which takes into account the amount of the specific chemical required to produce various products.

In addition to the facility-wide percent reduction for use and NPO generation, facilities in SIC codes 26, 28, 30, 33, and 34 must also report source reduction progress on processes targeted in their pollution prevention plans. The information that is reported for each chemical in each process includes: annual percent reduction for use; annual percent reduction for NPO; and the pollution prevention techniques used in the reporting year. The reporting instructions provide the following equation for calculating annual percent reduction for use on a process level:

Annual percent reduction for NPO is calculated using the following equation:

No production ratio is required for these equations because the calculations are performed on a per-unit-of-product basis. New Jersey is phasing out the requirement for reporting pounds of source reduction and phasing in the annual percent reductions for use and NPO. The change in reporting requirements is related to the pollution prevention plan requirement. The required submission dates for the PPPs has been staggered for the various SIC codes. The first SIC code group required to submit their PPPs included Sic codes 26, 28, 30, 33, and 34. As the PPPs are submitted to NJDEP by the various SIC codes, their reporting requirements will change from pound of source reduction to annual percent reduction, in conjunction with the 5 year PPP goals.

Materials Accounting and the Mass Balance Equation

The materials accounting information collected by New Jersey provides a clear picture of toxic chemical use, and the flow of chemicals into a facility, through its processes, and into its waste streams and products. Materials accounting data not collected by TRI include: chemical inputs; quantity consumed in process; quantity in products; and waste stored on site. The reporting instructions provide a self verification of the materials accounting data reported on the RPPR through the use of a mass balance equation. The data elements reported to New Jersey that make up the mass balance equation are listed below. The self verification process in New Jersey is the same as the ledger check discussed earlier.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

A cost/benefit analysis was performed by NJDEP on 42 of the facilities that are required to report under the New Jersey Pollution Prevention Act. The majority of the facilities found cost savings resulting from the planning process. Some of the ways in which monetary savings can be realized include: the reduction of the quantity of chemicals needed in the production process; improved quality assurance practices which reduce the amount of unacceptable products being produced; and less waste needs to be handled, treated and disposed. When the cost savings that were quantified by facilities were projected across all the facilities required to report in New Jersey, an annual savings of $105 million was calculated.

Other pollution prevention case studies prepared by top U.S. business schools indicate that pollution prevention measures generally provide significant opportunities for direct and measurable savings for the company above and beyond the cost of implementing the pollution prevention measures. Many facilities have found savings that recouped their investments in less than a year.

A simple cost/benefit analysis, using estimated costs and potential benefits from the New Jersey Pollution Prevention Planning Process, projected that for every dollar spent on the entire process (including the facilities' costs and government costs to administer the program) a savings of at least $5 to $8 could be realized. This figure does not include other benefits such as reduced environmental and worker health impacts that would result from the pollution prevention opportunities.

Massachusetts

Background and Reporting Requirements

The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) of 1987 requires that large-quantity users of toxic materials 1) submit an annual Toxics Use Report (TUR) to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) and 2) engage in a planning process designed to help them uncover any opportunities to reduce their wastes and usage of toxic chemicals. The planning process must address each production unit in which a reportable chemical is used. Toxic use reduction techniques which a facility plans to use to achieve source reduction also need to be recorded in the plan. Under Massachusetts law, the preferred means of reducing the generation of toxic byproducts is "toxic use reduction." The TURA statute includes a goal of attaining a 50% reduction in byproduct generation state wide over a ten year period, using 1987 as the base year.

Massachusetts also uses a mass balance approach for collecting materials accounting data as a means for tracking and planning source reduction activities. This data is collected on their Toxic Use Report. A more detailed materials accounting is included in the Toxics Use Reduction Plans. It is intended to be used by the facilities to help plan source reduction activities in much the same way as in New Jersey, by improving production process efficiency. Massachusetts also encourages use reduction through chemical substitution, and product reformulation and redesign. As with New Jersey, the Massachusetts reporting requirements have not drawn a lot of CBI claims from industry.

Source Reduction Reporting

Byproduct

As a basis for the quantification of source reduction, Massachusetts collects information on chemical use and byproduct generation. Use is calculated as the sum of the quantities of the toxic chemical used in one of three ways: manufactured, processed, or otherwise used. These use categories are the same as those employed by TRI for calculating reporting thresholds. Byproduct is defined in the Massachusetts reporting instructions as "all nonproduct outputs by a production unit prior to handling, transfer, treatment, or release." This number "is equivalent to the sum of Part II, Section 8.1-8.8 of EPA Form R." The Massachusetts Toxics Use Report is considered incomplete if it is not accompanied by a completed Form R for each chemical. The calculation of byproduct is presented in the table below.

Summation of Part II, Section 8.1-8.8 of EPA Form R

The TUR requires the calculation of two indices: the Byproduct Reduction Index (BRI) and the Emission Reduction Index (ERI). These indices serve to show that byproduct generation and emissions are being reduced or increased compared to base year quantities. The byproduct reduction index measures the percentage of change in quantity of a toxic chemical generated as a byproduct per unit of product between the base year and the reporting year. The emissions reduction index is the percentage change in quantity of a toxic chemical emitted per unit of product between the base year and the reporting year.

1987, or the first year after 1987 that a facility is required to report, is the base year for these calculations. The base year provides a quantity of byproduct and emissions against which reductions can be compared. Year to year changes in byproduct and emissions are normalized by calculating the index per "unit of product." Some generally used units of product include pounds of product, square feet of product, gallons of product, etc. BRIs and ERIs are calculated at the production unit level.

A byproduct is defined as any nonproduct output of a listed chemical prior to handling, transfer, treatment, or release to the environment. This is the quantity defined in the above table. An emission is defined as any byproduct that leaves the facility boundary directly, or after treatment or recycling. From the table defining byproduct, the elements from Form R, Part II, Section 8 included in calculating emissions are: 8.1 - quantity released; 8.3 - quantity used for energy recovery offsite; 8.5 quantity recycled off site; 8.7 - quantity treated off site; and 8.8 catastrophic or one-time events. The indices are calculated using the following equations provided in the Massachusetts reporting instructions.

By collecting both the BRI and the ERI, Massachusetts can differentiate between and compare source reduction activities and waste management activities. The BRI indicates the progress made in reducing the generation of byproduct, whereas the ERI would indicate a decrease in waste releases due to a change in waste management practices and/or reducing the generation of byproduct.

Materials Accounting and the Mass Balance Equation

The materials accounting information collected by Massachusetts is considered partial materials accounting because it does not collect all of the information that is needed to provide a complete mass balance. Massachusetts does not collect the amount of chemical recycled on site and subsequently used on site, the quantity consumed in process, or the quantity of waste stored on site. Massachusetts supplements the information they collect on their Form S with information collected on the TRI form R. According to Massachusetts, it estimates the quantity recycled on site and subsequently used on site from TRI data. Massachusetts also indicates that it can infer this number, as well as quantity consumed in process from the difference between the inputs and the outputs.

The input data that Massachusetts collects is divided into the same use categories utilized by TRI for calculating threshold amounts: manufactured, processed, and otherwise used. The output data emphasizes the utility of the toxic chemical after it leaves the process, e.g., product or waste. Two output quantities are reported on the TUR: quantity of byproducts and quantity contained in product. The following mass balance equation is given in the Massachusetts reporting instructions.

In calculating the input quantity, Massachusetts asks that only first usage of a chemical in a production unit be reported and does not require the quantity recycled and subsequently used on site to be reported. This could result in a mass imbalance. The sum of the inputs could be less than the sum of the outputs. However, the quantity of chemicals recycled on-site and used onsite may be estimated as the difference between the quantity of outputs and inputs, if it is assumed (or known) that no chemicals are consumed in-process. By knowing the nature of the process and the chemicals involved, it may be possible to infer the quantity recycled and subsequently used on site from the information collected by Massachusetts.

Reporting if the chemical is consumed in-process is also optional in Massachusetts. The absence of this quantity in the mass balance equation may also result in a mass imbalance. The sum of the inputs could, in this case, exceed the sum of the outputs. However, the quantity of chemical consumed in-process may be estimated as the difference between the quantity of inputs and outputs, if it is assumed, or known, that no chemicals are recycled and used on-site. By knowing the nature of the process and the chemicals involved, it may be possible to infer the quantity recycled and subsequently used on site from the information collected by Massachusetts. By knowing the nature of the process and the chemicals involved, it may be possible to infer the quantity consumed in process from the information collected by Massachusetts. However, because the amount of the chemical consumed in-process, and the amount recycled on-site and used on-site are not reported, an accurate ledger check of the inputs and outputs is not possible using the Massachusetts data. It may also be impossible to know the values of these quantities in processes where both of these things occur because they will effect the equation in opposite directions and may end up canceling, or partially canceling each other out.

Benefit Analysis

MADEP, numerous companies across the state have found that TUR has helped them improve production efficiency, cut chemical purchase costs, improve worker health and safety, and reduce risks of chemical releases to the environment. Although EPA found no formal cost/benefit analyses for the Massachusetts Toxic Use Reduction Program, there have been many documented cases of cost savings resulting from pollution prevention plans reported to the state through the Governor's Award Program which recognizes companies that have achieved source reductions at their facilities.

Comparison of New Jersey and Massachusetts Programs

Materials Accounting

The table entitled "Data Elements of Materials Accounting Reported to TRI, New Jersey and Massachusetts" provides a listing of the different data elements collected by TRI, New Jersey and Massachusetts. From the table, the differences in the materials accounting data elements collected by New Jersey and Massachusetts can be compared. New Jersey and Massachusetts collect different data elements to calculate the quantity of input chemicals. The input data elements collected by both states do, however, achieve the goal of calculating total input quantities.

Massachusetts does not collect all of the output data elements that New Jersey collects. However, Massachusetts uses data from the EPA Form R, Part II, Section 8.1 -8.8 as part of their reporting requirements to augment the data collected on the Toxic Use Report. A balanced ledger check of the inputs and outputs cannot be performed using Massachusetts data because it does not collect all of the necessary information, such as chemicals consumed-in-process.

Pollution Prevention Planning

Both New Jersey and Massachusetts require facilities to report on pollution prevention planning and their pollution prevention (source reduction) progress. TRI has neither of these requirements. TRI only requires a facility to indicate if they are undertaking source reduction activities. EPA is interested in further investigating whether there is a relationship between requiring pollution prevention plans and increased source reduction progress resulting from this requirement. No definitive correlation has yet been made between the New Jersey and Massachusetts pollution prevention plan requirements and higher levels of source reductions in these states compared to states that do not require pollution prevention planning.

Source Reduction Reporting

Massachusetts and New Jersey reporting requirements collect more detailed source reduction information than TRI. New Jersey provides an absolute measure in terms of pounds of source reduction for some SIC codes and facility-wide and processeslevel reduction percentages for use and NPO generation for SIC codes 26, 28,30, and 34, while Massachusetts provides only the relative measure in terms of percentage of source reduction relative to the base year. TRI provides neither because it quantifies only waste and provides a non-quantitative indication of source reduction. It is more difficult to quantify source reduction using Massachusetts' indices and New Jersey's percent reduction for use and for NPO generation than to simply report the quantity of wastes not generated due to source reduction activities. Massachusetts' facilities report two reduction indices, BRI and ERI. These indices represent the percentage of change of byproduct or emissions per unit of product. These ratios indicate the progress, or regress, made in reducing emissions and byproduct generated. Massachusetts data does not, however, quantify the amount of byproduct and emissions reduction because only a percent is reported. In order to know the quantity of source reduction achieved, it would be necessary to know the quantity of emissions or byproduct generated in the base year to which the facility-wide percent changes applies. This methodology is useful for the Massachusetts program because their goal is to attain 50% reduction in byproduct generation statewide over a ten-year period relative to 1987 levels of byproduct generation and emissions.

New Jersey's process-level percent reduction for use and NPO generation are similar to Massachusetts reduction indices. New Jersey's instructions suggest use of an aggregate percent reduction for the entire facility, where the production ratio includes a weighting factor. Due to the weighting factor in the aggregated percent reduction, it would not be possible to calculate the quantity of source reduction even if the base year quantity were known. TRI does not require or suggest a weighting factor to be used in the calculation of the production ratio.

New Jersey's reporting requirements for the facilities not in SIC codes 26, 28, 30, 33, and 34, on the other hand, are less involved. A facility must report the quantity of reductions in the generation of a toxic chemical as nonproduct output in pounds for each of the following source reduction activities: reformulation or redesign of the product; process or procedure modifications; equipment or technology modifications; improved operations; or other miscellaneous reduction activities. All facilities must also report the quantity of a chemical that has been reduced in use due to substitution of another substance.

Data Elements for Materials Accounting Reported to TRI, New 

Jersey, and Massachusetts                                         
                                            
Inputs:
     Starting Inventory
     Brought On Site
     Produced On Site
     Manufactured
     Processed
     Otherwise Used
     Recycled On Site and subsequently Used On Site               
     
Outputs:
     Consumed In Process
     Shipped as (or in) Product
     
     Waste:
     Total Quantity Released

     On Site Releases to the Environment:                         
          Air Emissions
          Discharges to Surface Waters
          Discharges to Groundwater
          Underground Injections
          Releases to Land
          Waste Treatment On Site
          Energy Recovery On Site
          Waste Stored On Site (Ending Inventory as NPO)          
          Wastes Transferred to Off Site Locations for:           
               Treatment
               Discharges to POTWs
               Disposal
               Recycling
               Energy Recovery
               Ending Raw Material Inventory
          Catastrophic Events, One-time Events, and Non-routine Occurrences
Miscellaneous:
     Production Ratio
     Source Reduction/ Pollution Prevention Activities            
         (nonquantitative reporting of activities)                
     Pollution Prevention Plans

Previously Reported - Not Reported This Year
Use Reduction due to Substitution/Substituted Chemical
Materials Related Change
Reduction Index


                          APPENDIX C


                     TRI Industry Expansion

               Tentative Schedule (as of 9/12/95)



     Initial Focus Group meetings            May-June 1994

     Regional discussion                     February 23, 1995

     Initial State discussion                March 7, 1995

     Public meeting                          May 25, 1995

     Presidential Directive on expansion     August 8, 1995

     Additional industry meetings            Sept-Oct 1995

     OMB review begins                       Feb. 2, 1996

     OMB review completed                    March 19, 1996

     Publish proposed rule in FR             April 17, 1996


                 TRI Industry Expansion Meetings

Focus Group Meetings

Focus group meetings are intended to initiate a dialogue and engage interested parties in discussions regarding EPA's rulemaking and analysis activities. The meetings that have occurred served to inform different industry sectors about TRI expansion and to assist EPA in clarifying and refining its approach. The meetings also served as a forum for the exchange of information on processes specific to these industry sectors, and the use of TRI chemicals. Summaries of focus group meetings are included in the public docket. These meetings included:

ELECTRIC UTILITIES (May 23, 1994)

Attendees: Edison Electric Institute and representative utilities, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

POTWs (May 23, 1994)

Attendees: Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) Pre-Treatment Committee.

MINING (May 24, 1994)

Attendees: National Coal Association, American Mining Congress

AIRPORTS (May 26, 1994)

Attendees: Air Transport Association, American Association of Airport Executives, Airports Council International, National Air Transport Association, various airlines.

OIL & GAS EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION (June 10, 1994)

Attendees: American Petroleum Institute, American Gas Association, International Association of Drilling Contractors, Independent Petroleum Association

FREIGHT & WAREHOUSING (June 16, 1994)

Attendees: American Petroleum Institute, American Trucking Association, International Liquid Terminals Association, Steel Service Center Institute

ENVIRONMENTAL, LABOR, & ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (June 21, 1994)

Attendees: Clean Water Action, Council on Environmental Quality, Working Group on C-R-T-K, Environmental Law Institute, NAACP, NRDC, EAF, OMB Watch, AFL-CIO, EDF, WWF, Mineral Policy Center, George Meaney Center for Labor Studies, Native Tribal Environmental Network

COMMERCIAL WASTE TREATMENT & DISPOSAL (June 29, 1994)

Attendees: Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, National Association of Chemical Recyclers Additional Industry Meetings

EPA has continued to meet with many of the organizations listed above, and has shared data and other information as it becomes available these industries. In addition, EPA has held discussions with, among others, the Solid Waste Association of North America, American Warehouse Association, American Public Power Association, Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group, Environmental Technology Council, and representatives of individual companies.

Public Meetings

EPA has held two open public meetings as part of the rulemaking process. These meetings served as forums for the expression of opinions from diverse sources, and are an important part of the public record for this rule. The first meeting occurred on May 29, 1991. A second, and more focussed meeting, occurred on May 25, 1995. Summaries and transcripts of these meetings are available in the public docket. Additional meetings are anticipated during the public comment period following the publication of the proposed rule.

Consultative Groups

EPA has held public discussions under the auspices of the National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) and the Forum on State and Tribal Toxics Action (FOSTTA). These groups hold multiple meetings annually, and have dedicated considerable discussion to the expansion of TRI. These groups serve as forums for discussion and feedback with industry, environmental organizations, academics, and states.

References

Chemical Manufacturers Association, Analysis of Impact of U. S. Federal and State Reporting Requirements on Sensitive and Proprietary Company Information, July 1992.

INFORM, A Clearer view of Toxics: New Jersey's Reporting Requirements as a Model for the United States, INFORM, NY, NY, 1994.

Massachusetts, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, TURA PRIMER Massachusetts, September 17, 1993.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Prevention, 1994 Reporting Package.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Changes to Requirements for Calendar Year 1995 Reports Due July 1, 1996.

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Chemical Use Data: The Massachusetts Experience, March 10, 1995.

National Academy of Sciences, Tracking Toxic Substances at Industry Facilities: Engineering Mass Balance versus Materials Accounting, 1990.

New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, Early Findings of the Pollution Prevention Program Part 1: On-Site Reviews of Pollution Prevention Plans, February 1995.

New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Release and Pollution Prevention Report (RPPR or DEQ-114), July 1, 1995

Research Triangle Institute, Materials Accounting Data as a Supplement to the TRI: Assessing the Potential for Improving Pollution Prevention Measurement, Cooperative Agreement Draft Report, January 1995.

Toxics Watch/1995, State Databases, Use, Materials Accounting and Pollution Prevention in New Jersey and Massachusetts, 1995.

U. S. Code, Community Right-to-Know, Section 11023, Toxic Chemical Release Forms, [EPCRA Section 313] October 17, 1986.

U. S. Code, Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.

USEPA, Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Form R and Instructions, Revised 1994 Version

USEPA, 1993 Toxics Release Inventory Public Data Release, March 1995.

About MapCruzin - Privacy, Fair Use and Disclaimer - Advertise on MapCruzin.com

Home | Free GIS | Downloads | Parks & Public Lands | Books | Environmental Justice | News Archives
Free GIS Tutorial | Consulting | TRI 2004 MAPS | Recycle Reuse Business | Toxics Explorer
North Coast GIS | Contact/About Us | Redwood Ecotours | Global Positioning | EnviroRisk Map Network
Climate Collapse | Free GIS Tutorial | What is GIS? | Right to Know | Reimagination | Health & GIS | Shrubbed | Search 



Website maintained by

Michael R. Meuser













Copyright © 1996-2009 MapCruzin.com

All Rights Reserved

Visit us for Free GIS Maps and Resources