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)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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 on
lbs. 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