TRI Toolkit Q&A

The 50/50 joint venture is its own parent company (40 CFR 372.3).

The term facility includes all ‘buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary items which are located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites and which are owned or operated by the same person (or by any person which controls, is controlled by, or under common control with such person)’ (40 CFR Section 372.3). The joint venture is a separate facility because a 50/50 joint venture is its own parent company. As its own parent company, the joint venture is neither owned nor operated by the same person (or by any other person which controls, is controlled by, or under common control with such person) as the covered facility.

Big Oil Corporation is the highest-level U. S. parent company (40 CFR 372.3).

All establishments of a covered facility must report the highest-level parent company name. Therefore, in the instance described above, the newly sold establishment should use the parent name of the facility operator (i.e., the same parent name the rest of the facility is using.)

Two adjacent establishments, owned by the same parent company (as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 372.3) or operated by the same company constitute one facility under section 313. As such, the facility must consider their combined activities for threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations.

All covered facilities are responsible for EPCRA section 313 reporting obligations of the toxic chemical while the toxic chemical is at a facility, including while the chemical is in an on-site mobile recovery unit. Although this facility may not directly operate the mobile solvent recovery unit, the facility controls the unit’s operations while on-site because it has contracted or paid a fee for the unit’s services. Therefore, if the mobile unit recovers toxic chemicals from the solvents on-site the facility would include those toxic chemicals in its facility-wide release and other waste management calculations.If the mobile solvent recovery unit removes toxic chemicals from the facility for off-site recycling, the facility would report the amount of the chemicals sent off-site as an off-site transfer for recycling. However, the facility must account for any releases of the toxic chemical from the unit while it remains on-site. Finally, those toxic chemicals that are transferred off-site are considered processed and therefore, must be applied toward the facility’s processing threshold.

If all of the activities occurring at a site are occurring on the same contiguous or adjacent piece of land and are owned or operated by the same organization, the entire area is considered one facility. If the facility is a hazardous waste facility with primary NAICS code regulated under EPCRA section 313 and any portion of the facility is regulated under RCRA subtitle C, the facility meets the NAICS code criterion and must thus determine thresholds and calculate releases and other waste management amounts for all activities at the facility, even those not regulated under RCRA subtitle C.

The owner of the building must report on the ammonia if the threshold for ammonia is exceeded since he/she is operating the system. In this instance, the owner has more than just a real estate interest in the property. If both businesses are in covered NAICS codes and the owner is operating part of that facility, he/she should report.

The facility creating the waste containing the toxic chemical would report the toxic chemicals as an off-site transfer. Assuming the waste treatment units are neither owned nor operated by the facility creating the waste, the waste treatment unit is a separate facility. The waste treatment facility would only report if they manufacture, process, or otherwise use the toxic chemical in excess of the thresholds. In that case, the waste treatment facility would report any release or other waste management activities associated with the toxic chemical at its facility.

The NAICS code system classifies businesses on the basis of an establishment, which is generally a single business unit at one location. Many Section 313 covered facilities will be equivalent to an establishment. If the facility’s NAICS code is a covered NAICS code, the facility has met the NAICS code criterion for reporting under EPCRA section 313 (40 CFR Section 372.23). However, a reporting facility can encompass several establishments located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites owned or operated by the same entity. Therefore, a Section 313 facility can be a multi-establishment complex. To determine if a multi-establishment complex is a covered facility, the owner/operator must determine the complex’s primary NAICS code based on the relative value added of products and services provided by the various establishments. If the primary NAICS code for the facility is a covered NAICS code, the facility has met the NAICS code criterion (40 CFR Section 372.22(b)).

The covered facility, not the establishments, must report if the facility meets all of the reporting criteria. The threshold determination for manufacture, process, or otherwise use of the listed chemical must be made by adding the amounts of the chemical from appropriate activities of all the facility’s establishments.

To determine if a facility is covered by EPCRA section 313, the facility must determine if it meets the NAICS code criterion. To make this determination, the facility must report if those establishments that are in the covered NAICS codes have a combined value added of more than 50 percent of the total value added of services provided or products shipped or produced by the whole facility, or if one of those covered NAICS code establishments has a value added of services or products shipped or produced that is greater than the value added of any other establishment in the facility (40 CFR Section 372.22(b)(3)). If the facility determines that the establishments meet this test, the entire facility has met the NAICS code criterion. If the entire facility also meets the employee and chemical activity thresholds (based on all establishments at the facility), then the entire facility would be subject to EPCRA section 313 reporting.

No. The two processing plants are separate facilities because they are not located within the same, or adjacent, or contiguous physical boundary. Thus, their activities are not additive and neither would report for methanol because the processing threshold of 25,000 pounds has not been met by either facility.

Product value should be based on the total sales before taxes, not profits. Total product value includes the value of services provided, products shipped, and/or products produced. This includes a fair market value for inter-company transfers, including a reasonable proportion of overhead and profits. If the facility transports the products itself, the value of the transportation services should be part of the calculation of the total value of all production, shipments, and/or service. Taxes collected from customers and forwarded to local, state, or federal taxing authorities should be excluded from the calculation of product value. Taxes that are paid by manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers upstream of the facility and passed on to the facility in the price of goods and services it purchases should be included in the calculation of product value. The time period for calculating product value should be the reporting year in question.

In order to make the facility coverage determination, the facility must compare the value added of products shipped and/or produced at the two different establishments (i.e., agriculture versus the flour processing). The value added of the product produced at the agricultural establishment (not in a covered NAICS code) is the market value of all the wheat grain harvested during the reporting year. The value added of the product from the milling/packaging establishment (in a covered NAICS code) is the value added of the products shipped and/or produced minus the market value of the wheat grain used to produce the flour. In other words, you do not double count the value of the wheat grain as part of the value added of the products from the flour processing operation. If the value added of milled flour products is greater than the market value of harvested grain, then the facility’s primary NAICS code would be within a covered NAICS code and the facility would be subject to reporting under EPCRA section 313.

Yes. In determining the primary NAICS code, the facility should consider the value added of services provided by each establishment, including services provided by employees who work for that establishment at home or who service that establishment’s products at clients’ sites (see 40 CFR Section 372.22(b)(3)).

If individual establishments or groups of establishments report separately for one listed toxic chemical, they must report separately all covered activities, releases, and other quantities of the toxic chemical managed as waste. Therefore, if each establishment conducts a threshold activity with the toxic chemical, each establishment is also required to report separately for the toxic chemical even if the establishment had no releases or other waste management activities with the toxic chemical. Such establishments should make certain that they file a complete Form R including reporting the chemical activity information on Part I, Section 3 of the Form.

When a facility opts to file separate Form Rs for each establishment it should list in Part I, Section 4.5, of each Form R submitted the NAICS code only of the establishment being reported on that Form R. If the establishment’s NAICS code is not a covered NAICS code, that establishment can list their NAICS code. TRI-MEweb users cannot manually enter ‘NA’ or leave the field blank.

Report the Dun and Bradstreet Number for the facility. If a facility does not have a Dun and Bradstreet Number, enter ‘NA’ in Part I, Section 4.7. The corporate Dun and Bradstreet Number should be entered in Part I, Section 5.2 relating to parent company information. This process should be followed for both foreign and domestic parent companies. Part I, Section 5.3 and Section 5.4 relate to foreign parent company information.

They may have separate Dun & Bradstreet numbers, especially if they are distinctly separate business units. However, different divisions of a company located at the same facility usually do not have separate Dun & Bradstreet numbers.

No. While the DOE facility contains three operations that are administratively managed separately and are not located in close proximity to each other, they are considered one facility under EPCRA because the operations are located on contiguous and adjacent properties owned by DOE. These operations, if they are “distinct and separate economic activities [e.g., separate NAICS codes][that] are performed at a single location” are establishments under EPCRA section 313. Each establishment may file separate Form R reports as long as the threshold determinations are made based on the entire facility. If separate Form R reports are filed, the total releases and further waste management activities on these Form R reports must equal the aggregate for the entire facility. For the multi-establishment facilities, DOE must ensure that all EPCRA section 313 chemicals are covered and avoid multiple reporting on chemicals involved in intra-site transfers. For example, if Establishment A transferred an EPCRA section 313 chemical to Establishment B for on-site disposal, only Establishment B would report on the disposal of the EPCRA section 313 chemical. Establishment A would not report the on-site transfer of that EPCRA section 313 chemical to Establishment B.

If individual establishments or groups of establishments report separately for one listed toxic chemical they must report separately all releases and other quantities of the toxic chemical managed as waste. Therefore, in the case cited above, one establishment cannot report the off-site transport quantity of a toxic chemical in waste from the entire facility. Each establishment would have to report separately its percentage of the transfer quantity.

If individual establishments report separately for one chemical, they must report separately all releases of that chemical. Therefore, in the case cited above, one establishment cannot report the amount transferred off-site for further waste management from the entire facility. Each operation would have to report their percentage of the amount transferred off-site.

Since the facility has chosen to report separately as two establishments, rather than not answering that Section of the Form R, EPA recommends that establishment 2 check the block 3.3(c) for otherwise use as an ancillary use. The rest of the Form R can be filled out as if that second establishment had triggered reporting itself. If any further questions were to arise about activities at establishment 2, its required record keeping should indicate that the Form R is for treatment only and reflects releases and other waste management activities transferred to establishment 2 by other establishments.

Establishment A should report all releases and other waste management of the TCE up to the point at which the waste TCE was transferred to Establishment B. It would not, however, report the transfer of the TCE to Establishment B. Since there are only air releases of TCE from Establishment A, this establishment would report the amount of air releases in Part II, Section 5 and 8.1 of the Form R. Establishment B should report all releases and other waste management (including incineration) once the TCE is received from Establishment A. Establishment B would report any releases or other waste management in Part II, Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Form R. The on-site incineration would be reported in Part II, Section 8.6 of Establishment B’s Form R.

Provided that establishment C has no amounts of the toxic chemical involved in threshold or release and other waste management calculations, establishment C is not required to submit a report for that chemical.

Two establishments owned by the same corporation separated by a railroad constitute one facility for Section 313, since they are still physically adjacent to one another except for a public right-of-way. Therefore, reporting thresholds would be determined by the combined toxic chemical quantities processed, manufactured, or otherwise used at both establishments.

Under 40 CFR Section 372.3 the definition of facility means, ‘all buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary items which are located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites and which are owned or operated by the same person (or by any person which controls or is controlled by or under common control with such person). A facility may contain more than one establishment.’ Since both plants are connected to each other by a strip of land that is owned by the same parent corporation, they are contiguous and, therefore, are considered establishments of the same facility. This facility must make threshold determinations based on the combined amounts of listed toxic chemicals at both establishments. Both establishments may report together as the same facility or they may report separately provided that the sum of the releases of the establishments reflects the total releases of the facility and threshold determinations are based on activities at the entire facility.

The threshold applies to the total amount of the toxic chemical otherwise used during the reporting year that the mixture was created. The facility would count the entire 10,000 pounds and any amount added to the bath during that year toward the otherwise use threshold the first year. Only the amount of the toxic chemical added to the bath during the second year would be counted toward the otherwise use threshold determination for the second year.

Process is defined as ‘the preparation of a toxic chemical, after its manufacture, for distribution in commerce’ (40 CFR Section 372.3). The Agency interprets the activity of processing to be reportable when the toxic chemicals are initially prepared. Therefore, the amount of toxic chemicals mixed in Year 1 would be added to the processing threshold determination for Year 1.

No. Storage in itself of a toxic chemical is not considered a manufacturing, processing, or otherwise use activity and, therefore, is not subject to threshold determinations. However, the facility is required to include any amounts released or otherwise managed as waste that occur during storage of the listed toxic chemical, provided a threshold for the same chemical has been exceeded elsewhere at the facility. When the toxic chemical is used in January, the facility will include the amount of toxic chemical used towards the applicable otherwise use or processing threshold, whichever is appropriate, for that reporting year.

Yes. The total amounts of the listed toxic chemicals contained in the ore are considered toward the facility’s processing threshold in the year that the amounts undergo a processing step. For purposes of the EPCRA section 313 threshold determination, extraction is considered a processing step and all amounts extracted for preparation of a product to be distributed in commerce are considered processed in the year they are extracted.

For purposes of the EPCRA section 313 TRI threshold determination, amounts of a TRI chemical prepared for distribution in commerce are considered processed in the year that they undergo the processing step. Therefore, even though the pipes were not distributed into commerce until the following reporting year, the chemicals in the pipes would be counted towards the processing threshold for the year in which they were prepared for distribution.

Amounts of listed toxic chemicals contained in material or products that are sent off-site for sample testing are considered processed and these amounts must be considered toward threshold and release and other waste management calculations.

No. Facilities in NAICS code 221112 are only covered by EPCRA section 313 if they also combust coal or oil for purposes of generating electricity for distribution into commerce. Since Facility A does not combust coal or oil for distribution into commerce, it is not subject to reporting under Section 313.

No. Storage, in itself, would not meet an activity threshold under EPCRA section 313 (Note: the facility may have reporting requirements under other portions of EPCRA such as Sections 311 and 312). However, if the facility exceeds the manufacturing, processing, or otherwise use threshold for the same toxic chemical elsewhere at the facility, the facility must consider releases from the storage of the toxic chemical. The facility must also consider the amount of the Section 313 chemical in storage when calculating the maximum amount on-site during the year.

No. Only quantities of a toxic chemical actually manufactured (including imported), processed, or otherwise used during the reporting year are to be counted toward a threshold.

Since the facility is applying the 10,000 pounds of the EPCRA section 313 chemical to the mixture for a process-related activity in the first year, the facility would count this amount toward its otherwise use threshold for that reporting year. For the following reporting year, only amounts of the EPCRA section 313 chemical added to the bath during that year would be counted toward the section 313 “otherwise use” threshold determination.

For reuse systems, the amount considered for threshold determination purposes is the amount added to the system during the reporting year. If the system is completely empty and is started up during the year, a facility makes its threshold determination by adding the total amount needed to charge the system to any amount which is added to the system during the reporting year.

In such reuse systems, the amount of listed toxic chemical which must be applied toward the otherwise use threshold would include any quantity added as a result of start-up or total replacement of the contents of the reuse operation. If a reuse system is completely empty and is started up during the year, a facility must base its threshold determination on the total amount initially needed to charge the system plus any amount which is subsequently added to the system during the year. In this case, the 15,000 pounds of ammonia should have been counted towards the otherwise use threshold when it was first used to charge the old system and any ammonia added to maintain the level of ammonia in the old system should also have been counted towards the otherwise use reporting threshold in the year that it was added. If the facility is reusing ammonia from the old system by simply using it again in a new system this amount of ammonia would not have to be counted towards the otherwise use threshold because it should have already been counted towards that threshold. Once a chemical has been counted towards the otherwise use threshold, any further use of that listed chemical at a facility does not need to be counted again towards the otherwise use threshold.

For solvents in an on-site recycle and reuse system, the total amount of new toxic chemical added to the system during the reporting year is counted towards the otherwise use threshold. The amount of the toxic chemical that is re-circulated in the recycle/reuse system is not considered towards the threshold determination unless it is replaced.

No. The amount of solvent used in the adhesive would count toward the otherwise use threshold. Since the toxic chemical does not function as a component of the shoe, it would not be considered processed. Thus, the facility would file if it meets an otherwise use threshold for the toxic chemical in the adhesive.

If a solvent is not incorporated into a product distributed in commerce, then for the purposes of Section 313, it would be considered otherwise used. It would be subject to reporting if used in quantities exceeding the otherwise use threshold.

For threshold determination, the amount of the TCE in the solvent should be counted only once toward the otherwise use threshold, regardless of how many times the solvent is reused on-site. However, for release and other waste management calculations, the facility must consider the quantity of TCE recycled on-site each time it is recycled, and report the aggregate total quantity in Part II, Section 8.4 of the Form R. In addition, the facility would report the on-site recycling methods in Part II, Section 7C.

EPCRA section 313 toxic chemicals contained in process-related items and equipment used on-site must only be counted toward the otherwise use threshold for a given reporting year if the chemicals were newly brought into use at the facility during that year. Once a chemical has been counted towards the otherwise use threshold, any further use or recirculation of that listed chemical at a facility does not need to be counted again towards the otherwise use threshold unless it is replaced (40 CFR Section 372.25(e)). For example, lead contained in a process-related grinding wheel that is used on-site during a particular reporting year need not be counted toward the otherwise use activity threshold for that year if the grinding wheel was also used on-site during the previous reporting year. The amount of lead contained in any grinding wheel(s) newly introduced into use at the facility during the reporting year, however, must be counted toward the otherwise use threshold.

Yes. The facility considers the entire amount (45,000 pounds of MIBK) entering the recovery system toward the processing threshold regardless of the recovery efficiency of the process.

EPCRA section 313 listed toxic chemicals undergoing remediation are not included in threshold determinations because remediated chemicals are not manufactured, processed, or otherwise used. However, if a covered facility exceeds an activity threshold for a listed toxic chemical elsewhere at the facility, any releases and other waste management activities of the listed toxic chemicals undergoing remediation must be included in the facility’s release and other waste management calculations. In that event, a release does not include material already in a landfill but does include any material released to the environment or transferred off-site due to the remedial activity.

Yes. The use of EPCRA section 313 chemicals to remediate wastes is an otherwise use activity. The facility should include the EPCRA section 313 chemicals used when making its otherwise use threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations.

Since the toxic chemicals are not manufactured, processed, or otherwise used, no reporting threshold applies to the cleanup action. If the toxic chemicals are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used elsewhere at the facility and exceed a threshold, releases and other waste management activities from the cleanup must also be reported on the Form R. The quantities of toxic chemicals in the remediation wastes that are sent off-site for waste management are reported in Part II, Section 8.8. The intake water exemption does not apply since the toxic chemicals are not being used in a process activity and because the toxic chemicals in groundwater are not at background levels.

The “intake water/air” exemption of EPCRA section 313 (40 CFR 372.38(c)(5)) exempts the use of EPCRA section 313 chemicals present in air used either as compressed air or as a part of combustion. The quantity of EPCRA section 313 chemical present in the compressed air drawn from the environment would be exempt from threshold determinations. If that same chemical is present in air emissions only because it was in the compressed air fed to a piece of equipment or process, then it would also be exempt from release and other waste management calculations under EPCRA section 313.

Yes. Deicing runways would be considered an “otherwise use” activity (40 CFR Section 372.3). The facility, therefore, should count the amount of EPCRA section 313 chemical used in the deicing toward its otherwise use threshold. This would include any amount of the chemical recovered from the remediation of soil and groundwater from previous years, as well as amounts obtained from purchases.Any amount of the remediated toxic chemical that the facility does not use for a reportable activity (e.g., deicing runways) would not have to be counted towards the otherwise use threshold. However, all releases or other waste management of that remediated toxic chemical would be subject to reporting under EPCRA section 313 if the facility met a reporting threshold for that chemical elsewhere at the facility.

Yes. EPCRA lists have evolved since the statute was passed in 1986. As more information has become available on the hazards and toxicity of chemicals, EPA has responded by identifying chemicals to be added to or taken off the EPCRA lists; EPA expects to continue this activity. When chemicals are added to or taken off the EPCRA lists, EPA always publishes a notice in the Federal Register. The most recent list of EPCRA section 313 chemicals is accessible online at: https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/tri-listed-chemicals. You may also contact the EPCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346 to obtain information on the latest additions to or deletions from the list of EPCRA section 313 chemicals.

Although the statutory language outlines a delayed effective date provision, EPA interprets EPCRA section 313(d)(4) to apply only to actions that add to the list of toxic chemicals. As explained in the final rule deleting di-n-octyl phthalate from the EPCRA section 313 list, published on October 5, 1993 (58 FR 51785), the Agency believes that it may, in its discretion, make deletions effective immediately upon the determination that a chemical does not satisfy the listing criteria found in EPCRA section 313(d)(2). Since a deletion from the list alleviates a regulatory burden, and 5 U.S.C. Section 553(d)(1) permits any substantive rule that relieves a restriction to take effect without delay, EPA is authorized to delete chemicals from the list effective immediately. The Agency believes that the purpose of EPCRA section 313(d)(4) is to provide covered facilities with adequate time to incorporate newly listed chemicals into their data collection processes. Because facilities can immediately cease reporting on a delisted chemical, and since the chemical no longer satisfies the listing criteria, EPA has not specified a delayed effective date for deletions from the list of toxic chemicals under EPCRA section 313.

Covered facilities need not submit a formal written withdrawal request because the Agency does not enter a Form R received for a newly delisted toxic chemical into the TRI database. Facilities that submit Form Rs for that chemical will receive a Notice of Data Change informing the facility that the data on the Form R was not entered into the database due to the chemical’s deletion from the toxic chemical list. The Agency does not, however, remove from the database information from Form R reports submitted for years during which the toxic chemical was listed as an EPCRA section 313 toxic chemical.In the case where only certain forms of a toxic chemical are delisted, the Agency will not automatically exclude the Form Rs because the Agency cannot determine for which form of the chemical the threshold determinations and reported data were based. For example, non-aerosol forms of sulfuric acid were delisted on June 30, 1995 (60 FR 34182), making aerosol forms the only EPCRA section 313 reportable forms of sulfuric acid. In this case, without written clarification from the facility and review of the data submitted, the Agency cannot assume Form Rs submitted for sulfuric acid for reporting year 1994 represent reporting for only non-aerosol forms of sulfuric acid. Therefore, the Agency will enter the data as received, unless the facility submits a written revision or withdrawal request, as appropriate.

A petitioner should provide EPA with enough information concerning their request and as much credible scientific support documentation as can reasonably be developed to assist EPA in reviewing the petition. The following elements illustrate the type of information that would assist EPA in reviewing petitions: chemical identification, specific criteria elements, rationale, published literature citations, and unpublished information. The summary of the petition should include the following: name, address and telephone number of the petitioner, and a description of any organization that the person represents if applicable Actions requested (i.e., to add or delete chemicals). In the case of petitions to add a chemical or group of chemicals, the petition should identify which of the criteria in EPCRA section 313(d)(2) the chemicals meet. If more than one chemical is included, a tabular summary of the specific chemicals should be provided with associated chemical abstract service registry numbers (CASRN). The body of the petition should be chemical-specific and should be structured so that each chemical and its CASRN are listed at the heading of the paragraph or page that describes it. The associated information elements could be presented under the following subheadings: the action requested (i.e., to add or to delete); the specific criteria elements that the chemical meets; the justification or rationale for the action, including a statement explaining why the chemical meets or does not meet the stated criteria elements. A listing or attachment of the supporting documents should also be included with the petition. Depending on who is sending the petition, the petition should be sent to the appropriate address: Governor or Tribal Chairperson (or equivalent) Signed PetitionsAdministrator [Administrator’s name]US Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of the Administrator, Mail code: 1101A1200 Pennsylvania Ave Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20460 Petitions Not Signed by a Governor or Tribal Chairperson (or equivalent)Assistant Administrator [Assistant Administrator’s Name]Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Mail Code: 7101MUS Environmental Protection Agency1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20460 Additional information on the petition process is available in the February 4, 1987, Federal Register (52 FR 3479). Specific information on the metal compound category petition process is available in the May 23, 1991, Federal Register (56 FR 23703).

Yes. The EPCRA lists have evolved since the statute was passed in 1986. As more information has become available on the hazards and toxicity of chemicals, EPA has responded by identifying chemicals to be added to or taken off the EPCRA lists; EPA expects to continue this activity. When chemicals are added to or taken off the EPCRA lists, EPA always publishes a notice in the Federal Register. The most recent instruction booklet for completing the Form R contains the updated chemical list. To obtain information on the latest additions or deletions from the list of EPCRA section 313 chemicals contact the EPCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346.

Hydrogen sulfide is included on the TRI list of chemicals reportable under EPCRA section 313 (40 CFR Part 372, Subpart D). Beginning with the 2012 reporting year (reports due July 1, 2013), the Administrative Stay is lifted and facilities are required to submit TRI reports for hydrogen sulfide.Additional information regarding the lifting of the administrative stay on hydrogen sulfide is available at the following URL:https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/lifting-administrative-stay-hydrogen-sulfide.

The reporting requirements for hydrogen sulfide have not changed from those that have been in place since it was originally listed in 1993. Therefore, facilities should consider the following information in determining applicability:a) Hydrogen sulfide is not a chemical for which a lowered reporting threshold has been established. Therefore, it is subject to the standard activity thresholds of 25,000 pounds for manufacturing and processing and 10,000 pounds for otherwise use. b) Hydrogen sulfide is listed without a chemical qualifier; therefore, it is subject to reporting in all forms in which it is manufactured, processed, or otherwise used. c) For purposes of the de minimis exemption, the 1.0% level applies to hydrogen sulfide because it does not meet the Occupational Safety and Health Administrations definition of a carcinogen. Therefore, hydrogen sulfide is exempt in a mixture at a concentration lower than 1.0%. Additional information about the reporting of hydrogen sulfide and the lifting of the administrative stay are available at the following URL: https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/lifting-administrative-stay-hydrogen-sulfide.

On March 5, 2013, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register denying the petition to remove acetonitrile from the list of chemicals subject to TRI reporting requirements (78 FR 14241). After reviewing the available data on this chemical, EPA determined that acetonitrile does not meet the deletion criterion of EPCRA §313(d)(3). Specifically, EPA denied the petition because after a review of both the petition and available information, the Agency concluded that acetonitrile meets the listing criterion of EPCRA §313(d)(2)(B) due to its potential to cause death in humans.Further information about the petition is available at the following URL: https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/acetonitrile-petition.

There are many ways a facility can identify the EPCRA section 313 chemicals it has on-site. Here are some: (1) look for Safety Data Sheets (SDS); (2) look at acquisition and procurement records; (3) examine existing environmental permits; (4) review process engineering records; (5) look at chemical composition sheets provided by suppliers; and (6) utilize professional knowledge.

There are many ways a federal facility can identify the EPCRA section 313 chemicals it has on-site. Here are some: (1) look for Safety Data Sheets (SDS); (2) look at acquisition and procurement records; (3) examine existing environmental permits; (4) review process engineering records; (5) look at chemical composition sheets provided by suppliers; and (6) utilize professional knowledge.

The facility should consider 30,000 pounds of benzene (the 10,000 pounds in the cleaning solution plus the 20,000 pounds of benzene manufactured and sold) toward the facility’s processing threshold. When determining if a facility meets a chemical use threshold, owners and operators of covered facilities must consider each chemical use activity separately to determine if any one threshold has been met. For the purposes of EPCRA section 313, process means ‘the preparation of a toxic chemical, after its manufacture, for distribution in commerce...’ (40 CFR Section 372.3) A facility that creates a listed toxic chemical and then prepares it for distribution in commerce is both manufacturing and processing the listed toxic chemical and must consider the amount of the toxic chemical manufactured and processed towards both thresholds.

No. The facility does not have to report because it has not independently exceeded either threshold. Thresholds are considered separately for manufacture, process, and otherwise use of the same toxic chemical. Assuming that no individual threshold is met for chemical A (i.e., manufacturing, processing, or otherwise use), the facility does not trigger reporting for chemical A.

Yes. The facility has exceeded the manufacturing threshold of 25,000 pounds for the toxic chemical. Releases and other waste management from all activities including the 9,000 lb otherwise used of the toxic chemical at the facility are reportable.

Yes. Mercury retorted from wastes and subsequently distributed into commerce should be counted towards the 10-pound processing threshold (40 CFR Section 372.28(a)).

This manufacture of chemical B is below the manufacturing activity threshold of 25,000 pounds. However, after January 1, 1998, the facility would also be otherwise using toxic chemicals A and B. Included in activities covered by EPA’s revised interpretation of otherwise use is the disposal of a toxic chemical that is produced from the management of a waste that is received by the facility. In this example, because the facility received from off-site a waste containing a chemical that is treated for destruction (i.e., chemical A) and during that treatment produced and subsequently disposed of chemical B, the disposal of chemical B under EPA’s revised interpretation would be considered otherwise used as well as the treatment for destruction of chemical A. Because the facility disposed of, or otherwise used, 11,000 pounds of chemical B, the 10,000 pound statutory threshold for the otherwise use of non-PBT chemicals has been met. Thus, the facility would need to report all releases of, and waste management activities involving chemical B. If the facility treats for destruction more than 10,000 lb of chemical A, it would also report for this toxic chemical.

Yes. Fumigant use would be subject to the otherwise use threshold.

No. Covered facilities must only report on those toxic chemicals that they manufacture, process, or otherwise use in excess of the applicable activity thresholds. Because relabeling or redistributing the toxic chemical where no repackaging of the toxic chemical occurs is not manufacturing, processing or otherwise using the toxic chemical (40 CFR Section 372.3), the facility is not conducting a reportable activity. Therefore, it does not need to apply these toxic chemicals to the reporting thresholds.

A warehouse located within the physical boundary of a covered facility is part of the facility. Toxic chemicals manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at the warehouse are included in making threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations for the toxic chemicals.

Warehouse operations can require threshold determinations. Reporting thresholds are based on “manufacture,” “process,” or “otherwise use” of an EPCRA section 313 chemical at the facility. Repackaging (e.g., pouring the contents of a 55 gallon drum into smaller containers) for distribution into commerce (e.g., shipped off-site to another federal facility within the same agency) at a warehouse is considered processing and the repackaged quantities of the EPCRA section 313 chemicals must be counted in the facility’s “process” threshold determinations. Simply receiving, storing, relabeling, distributing, or reshipping pre-packaged quantities from a shipment of packages is not “manufacture,” “process,” or “otherwise use.”

Demolition of materials or equipment containing TRI toxic chemicals, by itself, is not a threshold activity. Any TRI toxic chemicals used to perform demolition should be counted toward the otherwise use threshold and any toxic chemicals coincidentally manufactured during demolition should be counted toward the manufacturing threshold. Therefore, if no TRI chemicals were used or manufactured during demolition and an activity threshold was not exceeded while the facility was in operation, the facility, while subject to TRI reporting, is not required to submit a TRI report.However, if the facility exceeded an activity threshold while in operation during the first three months of the reporting year or the facility exceeded an activity threshold based on the activities in the first three months coupled with any otherwise use of toxic chemicals to perform the demolition and any coincidental manufacture of toxic chemicals during demolition, then any releases and other waste management activities during those three months as well as during demolition activities would need to be reported on a TRI reporting form. Releases must be reported on the Form R unless the criteria are met for submission of a Form A Certification Statement in lieu of a Form R.

No. Facilities in NAICS code 221112 are only covered by EPCRA section 313 if they also combust coal or oil for purposes of generating electricity for distribution into commerce. Since the warehouse does not combust coal or oil, it is not subject to reporting under Section 313.

No. The SIC system assigned SIC codes to auxiliary facilities according to the primary activity of the establishment that they served. However, the NAICS system does not recognize the concept of auxiliary facilities and assigns NAICS codes to all establishments based on their own activities. For the purpose of establishing consistency with the NAICS classification methodology, EPA changed its interpretation of the applicability of TRI reporting requirements to auxiliary facilities. As a result, some auxiliary establishments will no longer be subject to TRI reporting. Because the warehouse assumes a non-covered NAICS code, it is not a covered facility.

The upper bound should be used if the person knows only the upper bound concentration. For the combination of three toxic chemicals, the owner/operator of the facility should split the upper bound among the three toxic chemicals based on the knowledge that it has, so the total equals 10 percent. If a range is available, using the midpoint or average is reasonable. In this case, if there is a range of 1 to 10 percent of a mixture of three toxic chemicals, the facility would divide the midpoint (5 percent) by three. Therefore, the facility would assume 1.33 percent of each of the toxic chemicals in the mixture. The owner/operator of the facility does not have to assume 10 percent maximum for each toxic chemical.

The facility should proportion the amount of chemicals so that their total percentage equals 99.9 percent, since each one cannot physically be present at 99.9 percent. The percentage could be divided equally among the four, unless the facility has some basis for proportioning them differently.

If the facility knows the upper and lower bound concentrations in a mixture (i.e., 80 and 20 percent), it should use the midpoint of these concentrations for threshold determinations. In this instance, 50 percent should be used because it is the midpoint between 80 and 20 percent.

The facility should subtract out the percentage of any other known components of the mixture to determine what a reasonable ‘maximum’ percentage of toluene could be (e.g., if the mixture contains 80 percent water then toluene can be no more than 20 percent). The facility then should use the midpoint of the ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ percentages in order to determine the pounds of toluene to apply toward the threshold. If no other information is available, the facility should assume that the ‘maximum’ is 100 percent.

If the facility knows only the upper bound concentration of the listed toxic chemical and has no other information about the concentration of the other components of the mixture, it should use this upper bound (i.e., 56 percent) for threshold determinations.

Because the reporting facility is manufacturing the toxic chemical mixture on-site, the facility is required to calculate the amount of the toxic chemical coincidentally manufactured during the reporting year based upon a reasonable estimate of the percentage of the toxic chemical in the mixture. This quantity is aggregated to determine if the facility exceeds the threshold for manufacturing.

No, a facility cannot estimate the concentration of a TRI chemical in a mixture by using zero as a lower bound concentration, even if the facility receives an SDS from a supplier stating that the concentration of a TRI substance is between zero and a stated upper bound. If an SDS shows zero as the lower bound of the concentration range, then the lower bound concentration is unknown, and the facility must use the provided upper bound for threshold determinations (40 CFR Section 372.30(b)(3)(ii)). Therefore, in the scenario above, since the facility only knows that the upper bound is 10 percent, it must calculate the amount of TRI chemical in the mixture based on the 10 percent concentration.

Yes. Since the facility is a covered facility, any covered activity of a listed toxic chemical will count toward an applicable threshold. Therefore, the toxic chemicals used during the construction phase would be counted toward threshold determinations. Releases and other waste management of a given toxic chemical, used during construction, would also be reported if, during the course of a reporting year, an activity threshold was exceeded for that toxic chemical. If the toxic chemical becomes a fixed part of the facility structure and is not process-related, then the structural component exemption may apply.

Threshold quantities for metal compounds are based on the total weight of the metal compound, not just the metal portion of the metal compound. The threshold quantities are determined by adding up the total weight of all metal compounds containing the same parent metal. However, release and other waste management calculations are based solely on the weight of the parent metal portion of the metal compounds. Note that there are a few metal compounds that are separately listed and are not counted in the metal compounds categories. For example, maneb (CAS number 12427-38-2) is a manganese compound that is a separately listed chemical and is not reportable under the manganese compounds category.

Yes. The conversion of one metal compound to another metal compound within the same metal compound category is considered the manufacture of a metal compound, which must be considered toward threshold determinations. This is identical to how threshold calculations are derived for listed toxic chemicals in non-metal compound categories. The unique aspect for metal compounds, as compared to non-metal compounds within a listed compound category, is how amounts released and otherwise managed as waste are reported. As stated in the final rule (62 FR 23850; May 1, 1997), ‘if a metal is converted to a metal compound or if a metal compound is converted to another metal compound, [...], a metal compound has been manufactured as defined under EPCRA section 313.’ However, provided that thresholds are exceeded, covered facilities are instructed to report only the amount of the parent metal contained in the metal compound for amounts released or otherwise managed as waste. If thresholds for both the elemental metal and its metal compounds have been exceeded, covered facilities have the option to submit one Form R that includes on their report the amounts of the elemental metal from the parent metal along with amounts of the metal portion from the metal compounds.

A compound that has constituents in two listed categories would have to be included under both categories when submitting a Form R. In the example indicated, the total weight of PbCrO3 must be included in determining the threshold for both lead compounds and in determining the threshold for chromium compounds. In reporting the releases and other waste management of lead, only the stoichiometric weight of the lead in PbCrO3 released or otherwise managed as waste would be included. Likewise, only the chromium in PbCrO3 that is released and otherwise managed as a waste would be included on the Form R.

Threshold determinations for metal containing compounds are made separately from parent-metal threshold determinations because they are listed separately under Section 313. In the scenario presented in the question, the facility would apply the quantity of the lead metal manufactured, processed, or otherwise used to the appropriate threshold for lead. The facility would apply the quantities of the lead chromate manufactured, processed, or otherwise used to the appropriate threshold for lead compounds and would apply the quantities of the lead chromate and other chromium compounds manufactured, processed, or otherwise used to the appropriate threshold for chromium compounds. However, a facility may, once a threshold has been met individually, combine the parent metal and its metal compounds for reporting. In completing the Form R, only the weight of the parent metal (not the entire compound weight) is to be considered.

Only elemental metals without a chemical qualifier can be reported with their associated metal category compound on a combined Form R report. Elemental metals with qualifiers that are only reportable if they are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in a specific form(s) cannot be reported with their associated metal compound category on the same Form R. For example, a facility that exceeds an activity threshold for both zinc (fume or dust) and zinc compounds must not report both zinc (fume or dust) and zinc compounds on the same Form R. Additional information on reporting metal category compounds and their parent metal can be found in the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms and Instructions.

To determine if a facility meets an applicable threshold for the chromium compound (or any toxic chemical) in a solution, the facility is required to determine the weight percent of chromium compound in the solution and use that amount for the threshold determination (40 CFR Section 372.30(b)).

The total weight of nickel chloride used in the plating bath is considered towards the facility’s processing threshold determination. If the facility exceeds the threshold, the owner/operator would only report releases and other waste management of the nickel, the parent metal. Because the facility is also creating elemental nickel, the amount of nickel manufactured from nickel chloride is considered towards the manufacturing threshold. The facility is also processing the elemental nickel. If the facility exceeds thresholds for both chemicals independently, they may file one Form R for nickel and nickel compounds.

The metal silicates are processed since they become incorporated into a product (the specialty glass) that is distributed in commerce. If the metal silicates still exist as the original metal silicates but just mixed together then each metal silicate that belongs to a particular metal compound category is included in the processing threshold calculations for that category. If the metal silicates have been reacted to produce another compound (i.e., if the specialty glass is not just a mixture of individual metal silicates but is another new metal compound) then the metal silicates have still been processed, but a new metal compound has also been manufactured and its weight (i.e., the whole weight of the glass) must be included in the manufacturing threshold calculations.

Although diesel, gasoline, and fuel oils are not listed as TRI toxic chemicals, these products contain listed toxic chemicals that may be reportable under EPCRA section 313, if applicable activity thresholds are met. An EPCRA section 313 listed toxic chemical that is a constituent of a fuel that is combusted on-site is being “otherwise used” (62 FR 23834, 23851; May 1, 1997). In addition, the combustion of fuels can cause listed toxic chemicals to be generated, or “manufactured.” Toxic chemicals in fuel that are prepared for distribution in commerce are “processed.” For example, toxic chemicals in fuel contained in automobiles that are sold by a facility are considered toward the processing threshold. Estimated concentrations of toxic chemical constituents in crude oil and various petroleum products can be found in Table 3-4 of the Electricity Generating Facilities EPCRA section 313 Industry Guidance (EPA 745-B-00-004), in Table 2-2 of the Guidance for Reporting Toxic Chemicals: Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Category (EPA 745-B-19-019), and in Table 4-8 of the Guidance for Reporting Releases and Other Waste Management Quantities of Toxic Chemicals: Lead and Lead Compounds. Estimated quantities of certain toxic chemicals manufactured as a result of fuel combustion are provided in Tables 3-8, 3-9, and 3-11 in the Electricity Generating Facilities Guidance and in Table 2-3 of the Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Guidance. Additional toxic chemical emissions estimates from fuel combustion are provided in the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors (AP 42) and other resources available through EPAs Clearing House for Inventories and Emissions Factors.

The removal and destruction of an EPCRA section 313 toxic chemical from a fuel before it is used by a facility is not considered an activity that falls under the definition of manufacturing, processing or otherwise use. Facilities that use natural gas in production processes sometimes need to remove impurities from the gas before it is used. Such a facility does not coincidentally produce toxic chemicals as byproducts, but merely separates and removes toxic chemicals already present in the gas. These chemicals would not be subject to threshold determinations for reporting under EPCRA section 313, and would not be subject to release and other waste management reporting unless an activity threshold is exceeded elsewhere at the facility. If the facility exceeds an activity threshold elsewhere, all releases and other waste management activities from the impurity removal process would be reportable.Although these chemical impurities are usually destroyed, they could also be captured for further use at the facility or for sale as products, either of which would constitute a reportable activity under EPCRA section 313. If the chemicals are collected and sold as products or incorporated into products, they are considered processed and the amount of each chemical is applied toward its processing threshold. Otherwise use refers to any use of a toxic chemical that is not covered by the definitions of manufacture or process (40 CFR Section 372.3). If the chemicals are collected for further use at the facility or if the chemicals are combusted for energy recovery, the chemicals are considered otherwise used, and the amount of each chemical is applied toward its otherwise use threshold.

Yes. For purposes of EPCRA section 313 threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations, the listed toxic chemicals present in the fuel are considered to be processed because they are being repackaged and further distributed in commerce. Thus, the listed toxic chemicals present in the fuel are subject to the processing threshold.

Generally, activation of carbon or other organic material involves a two-step process. The first step consists of carbonizing the organic material, which is generally carried out by subjecting the material to temperatures in the range of 500 to 700°C (approximately 930 to 1,300°F). The second step, the activation process, may be chemically performed or it may also be conducted using temperatures typically in the 750 to 1,000°C range (approximately 1,380 to 1,850°F). Both activities occur at temperatures that are below the temperature posed in the question. In any case, while these are high temperatures, these ranges are not equivalent to the temperatures that take place during combustion. Based on available information, the temperature described in the question is not high enough to cause coal combustion. For example, furnaces may operate at temperatures above 1,400°C (approximately 2,550°F). The temperature described in the question may not result in many of the chemical conversions, such as the transformation of metal compounds, which are expected to occur during combustion. However, these temperatures may result in some conversions and the facility would need to determine what takes place based on their best available information and report as necessary.

A covered facility owner/operator would need to consider the quantity of non-isolated reaction intermediates manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at the facility when determining thresholds and releases and other waste management activities for EPCRA section 313. There is no exemption for non-isolated intermediates under EPCRA section 313.

Process implies incorporation; the function or intent of the toxic chemical is dependent upon becoming a part of a product. Otherwise use implies non-incorporation; the function of the toxic chemical is not dependent upon becoming a part of a product. Beginning with reporting year 1998, otherwise use will include the on-site disposal, treatment for destruction and stabilization of toxic chemicals in wastes received from off-site for the purposes of further waste management. Otherwise use will also include the on-site disposal, treatment for destruction, or stabilization of toxic chemicals produced from the management of wastes received from off-site.

Yes. Any time a toxic chemical (or the reportable form of a qualified toxic chemical) is generated at a facility, it must be counted toward the manufacturing threshold. This is the case regardless of whether the chemical is created actively or passively, intentionally or unintentionally, in a process stream or in a waste stream, and regardless of how long the chemical exists at the facility or whether it is an isolated or non-isolated intermediate. [Note that there are special exceptions to this rule for sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid aerosols generated in acid reuse systems and storage tanks. Please see EPCRA section 313 Guidance for Reporting Hydrochloric Acid and EPCRA section 313 Guidance for Reporting Sulfuric Acid.]

If the PCB-laced oil is removed from an on-site transformer for disposal and is not replaced with clean PCB-laced oil, this would not be considered processing or an otherwise use. Removal of a toxic chemical from an article for disposal does not constitute a process or otherwise use activity. Therefore, this activity would not be subject to threshold determinations and release and other waste management reporting under EPCRA section 313.

Yes. This is a case in which different listed toxic chemicals in the same mixture may have different uses and therefore, different thresholds. The listed toxic chemicals that are incorporated as part of the coating are processed, whereas the volatile solvents in the paint are otherwise used because their function is such that they do not become incorporated into the article.

The facility must consider any amount of PCBs added to a transformer towards its otherwise use threshold for that chemical if the transformer is to be used on-site or towards the processing threshold if the transformer is to be sent off-site to another facility. The facility is not required to consider the amount of PCBs that are removed then returned to a transformer towards a reporting threshold. Any releases or other waste management of the PCBs during this activity must be reported on the Form R if the facility meets any reporting threshold for PCBs.

Until January 1, 1998, this facility would not be manufacturing, processing or otherwise using the listed toxic chemical. However, beginning January 1, 1998, the facility would be otherwise using the toxic chemical. Because the facility received the 13,000 pounds of the toxic chemical in wastes received from off-site for the purposes of further waste management, the amount of the toxic chemical that is subsequently stabilized or disposed on-site is considered otherwise used at the facility for the purpose of threshold determinations. The facility would need to add the amount of the toxic chemical that is involved in all otherwise use activities to determine whether the otherwise use threshold of 10,000 pounds for chemicals that do not have lowered reporting thresholds has been exceeded. In this case, 13,000 pounds of the chemical would be considered otherwise used.