TRI Toolkit Q&A

A facility should select all of the activities involving the TRI listed chemical even if it did not exceed thresholds in that activity.

Even though the covered facility only exceeds the otherwise use threshold, it is required to identify all manufacturing, processing, and otherwise use activities and check at least one box in Part II, Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. The Forms and Instructions document directs facilities to check all the boxes in Section 3 that apply. Note that once a threshold has been exceeded for a listed toxic chemical, the facility must report releases and other waste management activities associated with all nonexempt activities at the facility, and not just those associated with otherwise use activities.

Definitions and further clarifications of the sub-uses are not available. EPA advises facilities to use their best professional judgment to characterize their activities and uses when indicating sub-uses under Processing and Otherwise Use on the Form R. For certain industries, some sub-uses may overlap in scope. If a facility uses terms synonymously (e.g., ‘feedstock’ and ‘raw material’), then the facility should pick the one they believe to best fit the norm.

Yes, the facility must track its otherwise use of the copper compounds. However, because the facility has already exceeded the threshold for manufacturing, the facility does not have to track the copper compounds for the purpose of determining if the otherwise use threshold has been exceeded, but instead must track its otherwise use of the copper compounds to properly fill out all applicable sections of the reporting form. In short, if a facility exceeds an activity threshold it must report on all activities at the facility involving the chemical, except for those activities that qualify for an exemption provided for in 40 CFR Section 372.38. (40 CFR section 372.25(c)) And because the facility must report the otherwise uses, the facility must satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR section 372.10.

Copper and copper compounds are separate entries on the Section 313 list, and therefore threshold determinations should be made separately. Copper compounds are a listed category and will include the aggregate of all copper compounds (other than the free metal). For copper compounds, report releases and other waste management activities as copper (e.g., as the copper ion in wastewater), not as the total mass of copper compounds. If a facility exceeds thresholds for both the parent metal and compounds of the same metal, EPA allows the facility to file a combined report (e.g., one report for copper compounds and copper metal).

The nonmetal portion of metal compounds is included in threshold determinations but not in release and other waste management calculations.

The parent metal is plated onto a substance electrochemically. The metal compounds are processed, and the cyanide compounds are processed because the metal cyanide is the source of the metal that is plated and subsequently distributed in commerce. Metal cyanides are reportable as both cyanide compounds and metal compounds. The total compound weight is applied for threshold determinations for both categories.

Lead chromate meets the criteria for both a lead compound and a chromium compound. In such cases, the total amount of the compound manufactured, processed, or otherwise used must be applied to the threshold determination for both metal compound categories. The weight of the entire compound, not the weight of the parent metal, is applied for the threshold determination of each metal compound category.

No. On-site container and on-site tank transfers do not constitute a waste management activity as described in the preamble to the May 1, 1997 final rule (62 FR 23834). Such transfer activities are not considered manufacturing, processing, or otherwise using activities in themselves. However, if the facility elsewhere exceeds a threshold because of other activities, any releases and other waste management associated with the transfer operations must be reported appropriately in Sections 5 and 8 of the Form R.

No. The facility should count only the amount of the toxic chemical that is treated for destruction on-site. The amount of the toxic chemical sent off-site for incineration would not be applied towards the facility’s threshold determination. However, if the facility exceeds a threshold for that chemical, it must report the amount treated for destruction on-site in Part II, Section 8.6, and the amount sent off-site for incineration in Part II, Sections 6.2 and 8.7.

Prior to January 1, 1998, this facility would not meet the manufacturing threshold of 25,000 pounds for chemical A nor would it have met the otherwise use threshold of 10,000 pounds because it only otherwise used 5,000 pounds. However, after January 1, 1998, the facility would meet the otherwise use threshold for chemical A. Both the on-site disposal and the non-incorporative activities are considered to be otherwise use activities. The on-site disposal of chemical A is included among the various activities covered by EPA’s revised interpretation of otherwise use. The facility would add the amounts of chemical A involved in both otherwise use activities at the facility to determine whether they exceed the 10,000-pound otherwise use threshold for chemicals that do not have a lowered reporting threshold. Since the total amount of chemical A that is otherwise used is 11,000 pounds, the facility would need to report on all releases and other waste management activities involving chemical A.

The receiving DOD facility would have to count the amount of EPCRA section 313 chemicals in the munitions toward its otherwise use threshold. The definition of “otherwise use” includes the disposal, stabilization and treatment of an EPCRA section 313 chemical received from off-site for the purposes of further waste management. For those EPCRA section 313 chemicals meeting the otherwise use threshold, and which are not destroyed during the treatment process, the facility would have to make release and other waste management calculations. As an example, metals are not destroyed during treatment activities; and the facility would have to make release and other waste management calculations for the metals, provided they meet the reporting threshold.Starting January 1, 1998, facilities must count the amount of an EPCRA section 313 chemical manufactured during the destruction of waste received from off-site toward its 10,000-pound otherwise use threshold if the facility subsequently stabilizes or disposes the EPCRA section 313 chemical on-site. The receiving DOD facility should determine the amount of EPCRA section 313 chemicals “manufactured” as a result of the destruction process. In addition, the facility must count the amount of a manufactured EPCRA section 313 chemical toward the facility’s 25,000-pound manufacturing threshold for that chemical.

The facility must count the amount of the toxic chemical towards its otherwise use threshold upon actual disposal of the waste. Toxic chemicals are applied toward the otherwise use threshold upon the performance of that activity. The facility does not otherwise use the toxic chemical in the waste received from off-site until the facility disposes of the waste on-site.

Because its function (to treat wastewater) is such that it is not intended to be incorporated into a product distributed in commerce, the toxic chemical would be otherwise used.

If a facility receives materials containing toxic chemicals from off-site for further waste management and the toxic chemicals are treated for destruction, stabilized, or disposed on-site, the facility would be otherwise using the toxic chemicals. However, during phase separation the toxic chemical in the waste is not actually destroyed. Furthermore, the toxic chemical is incorporated into a product at the facility and is further distributed in commerce (e.g., retorted mercury sold for reuse in thermometers and mercury switches). Thus, as long as the toxic chemical coming from the waste is not stabilized, treated for destruction, or disposed, it would not be otherwise used because it is neither treated for destruction nor disposed on-site. Because it is distributed in commerce, it would be processed. Once a facility exceeds a threshold for a particular toxic chemical, amounts of that chemical that are released or otherwise managed as a waste must be calculated for all on-site activities.

For purposes of determining the facility’s employee threshold, the actual number of hours worked are considered and, therefore, the facility should count the overtime hours for any employee that directly supports the facility

The chemicals in the organic fraction of the waste received from off-site that undergo treatment for destruction are counted towards the otherwise use threshold. Additionally, the metals that are stabilized and disposed on-site are counted towards the otherwise use threshold. Any of the toxic chemicals in wastes received from off-site that are not treated for destruction, stabilized or disposed of on-site do not meet the definition of otherwise use and are not counted towards this threshold. Therefore, the metals fraction of the waste stream that is sent off-site for disposal is not counted towards this threshold. If, however, a threshold is exceeded for these metals elsewhere in the facility, the transfer off-site for further waste management of the parent metal should be reported in Part II, section 6.2 and 8 of the Form R. Additionally, the possibility exists for new chemicals to be created during on-site treatment, disposal, or stabilization. If a new section 313 chemical is created, it must be considered towards the facility’s manufacturing threshold.

Starting with reporting year (RY) 1998, this is a reportable activity and the quantity disposed of would be applied to the otherwise use threshold. However, prior to RY 1998 the receiving and disposing of toxic chemicals would not be factored into a threshold determination because it does not fit any definition of process or otherwise use. However, even prior to RY 1998, if the manufacturing facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses the same listed toxic chemical above the threshold amount, the disposal of other facilities’ wastes containing this listed toxic chemical would be reported as a release on the Form R even though the amount of the listed toxic chemical in these wastes was not included in the threshold determination.

When a facility treats a waste stream with a toxic chemical that is not a waste or part of a waste stream prior to its use as a treator, the facility should not report the toxic chemical (the treator) as “treated on-site” in Sections 7A or 8.6 of the Form R, even if it becomes chemically converted or destroyed during the treatment process; the facility should include the amount of the treator chemical used in this process toward the facility’s otherwise use threshold. If, however, a facility treats a waste stream with a toxic chemical that is, itself, a waste or part of a waste stream prior to the treatment process, the facility must report the toxic chemical as “treated on-site” in Sections 7A and 8.6 of the Form R if it becomes chemically converted or destroyed during the treatment process (see: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms and Instructions, Section D.7).

Yes. The ammonia is being coincidentally manufactured as a result of the decomposition of the byproduct animal parts. The ammonia is also being processed since it is incorporated into the end-product. Therefore, the ammonia in the byproducts is subject to both the manufacturing and processing thresholds under EPCRA section 313.

No. The act of transferring any amount from one unit container to another prior to distributing the material in commerce constitutes the act of processing. The size of the container does not matter.

No. The listed toxic chemical must be transferred from one package to another in order for the listed toxic chemical to be considered repackaged.

Yes. All activities involving the preparation of a listed toxic chemical, after its manufacture, for distribution in commerce are to be included in the processing threshold determination for that chemical. The Agency defines processing to include ‘...the preparation of a chemical for distribution in commerce in a desirable form, state, and/or quantity (i.e., repackaging)...’ (53 FR 4506; February 16, 1988). The act of removing a listed toxic chemical from one container and placing it in another is considered repackaging, regardless of the size of the containers involved. As such, the facility must include any amounts of a listed toxic chemical transferred from the rail cars to the tank trucks in its processing threshold for that chemical.

Repackaging toxic chemicals in hazardous waste may be covered by the processing threshold. For an activity to be considered processing under EPCRA section 313, the toxic chemical must be prepared for distribution in commerce. If the listed toxic chemical is not removed or taken from the smallest unit, but is simply placed in a larger container while the contents remain in the smaller container, then the listed toxic chemical is not considered to be repackaged. If the listed toxic chemical is taken out of the smallest unit container and is transferred to another container, it is considered repackaged. However, if, after the toxic chemical has been repackaged, it is not distributed in commerce (e.g., instead of being distributed in commerce, it is sent off-site for disposal or treatment) the activity is not a covered processing activity under EPCRA section 313. It would only be considered processed if the toxic chemicals in the lab packs, after being repackaged, are sent off-site for recycling or for further use or reuse.

Yes, repackaging for distribution in commerce is a type of processing (40 CFR Section 372.3). If the bulk liquid contains a Section 313 listed chemical that is not a chemical of special concern in excess of the de minimis level or a listed chemical of special concern at any concentration, the toxic chemical in the liquid would have to be factored into calculations in determining whether the processing threshold is exceeded for that toxic chemical.

Since the facility repackages the gasoline by transferring it between trucks and bulk storage containers for further distribution into commerce, the facility is processing the listed toxic chemicals in the gasoline.

The MDI would be subject to the processing threshold, since it is incorporated into a product that is further distributed in commerce.

Yes. The petroleum received via pipeline, stored and subsequently transferred to another facility has been repackaged and the listed toxic chemicals have been distributed in commerce. Amounts of listed toxic chemicals contained in the amount repackaged must be considered toward the processing threshold.

Yes. Under EPCRA section 313, processing means the preparation of a listed toxic chemical after its manufacture, for distribution in commerce (40 CFR Section 372.3). Distribution in commerce includes any distributive activity in which benefit is gained by the transfer, even if there is no direct monetary gain. Listed toxic chemicals that are shipped from one facility to another facility under common ownership are considered to be distributed in commerce. Although the chemical in the product is not distributed to the general public, the preparing facility does derive economic benefit by transferring the listed toxic chemical, as both facilities are under common ownership. The amount of listed toxic chemical prepared at the facility must be counted towards the processing threshold.

When the facility originally places the toxic chemical into the reusable containers, the facility is processing toxic chemicals. Because the residual amounts that are returned to the facility in the reusable containers are not transferred to other containers or packages, the residual amounts have not been repackaged. Therefore, the listed chemicals in the residual amounts do not have to be considered toward the facility’s processing threshold again.

Amounts of the toxic chemical that a covered facility repackages for distribution in commerce must be considered toward the processing threshold.

All activities involving the preparation of a listed toxic chemical, after its manufacture, for distribution in commerce are to be included in the processing threshold determination for that chemical. The act of repackaging an EPCRA section 313 toxic chemical and then transferring it off-site for recycling is considered processing. As such, facilities sending toxic chemicals in wastes off-site for recycling should check ‘repackaging’ in Part I, Section 3.2 of the Form R.

No. The term process means the preparation of a listed toxic chemical, after its manufacture, for distribution in commerce. Because the toxic chemical is not repackaged but is merely redistributed, the facility is not processing the toxic chemical.

No. ‘Repackaging’ refers to the act of removing a toxic chemical from one container and placing that toxic chemical into another container. Simply repackaging one container (that contains a toxic chemical) into another container does not constitute processing of that listed toxic chemical under EPCRA section 313. The nesting of containers is not repackaging for EPCRA section 313 purposes.

No. Provided that the listed toxic chemical transferred to the off-site facility remains in the packaging in which it was received, it has not been repackaged. The facility has simply opened the original package for sampling and transferred the listed toxic chemical to another facility. Because no repackaging has occurred, no processing has taken place.

No. The repackaging and subsequent transfer off-site of EPCRA section 313 toxic chemicals in waste fuel for burning for energy recovery is not, in itself, a covered manufacturing, processing, or otherwise use threshold activity as those terms are defined in the EPCRA section 313 regulations (40 CFR Part 372). Therefore, covered facilities are not required to consider the repackaging and subsequent transfer off-site of toxic chemicals for energy recovery to any type of boiler or industrial furnace (as defined in 40 CFR Section 372.3) toward threshold calculations. Similarly, toxic chemicals in waste that are repackaged and sent off-site for disposal or for treatment for destruction would likewise not be considered toward a facility’s manufacturing, processing, or otherwise use threshold determination. Covered facilities should keep in mind, however, that if they exceed an activity threshold elsewhere at the facility for the listed chemical contained in the waste fuel, the facility should report the quantity of the toxic chemical in the waste fuel sent off-site for energy recovery in Part II, Section 6.2 and Section 8 of the Form R.

The electroplating of copper is a two-step process in which the elemental copper from the anode is converted into a copper compound in solution and the copper compound in solution is converted to elemental copper.A constant concentration of copper compounds is thus maintained in the electrolytic solution surrounding the electrodes. In such an electrolytic cell, four separate thresholds are applicable for purposes of EPCRA section 313:a) The amount of copper anode consumed counts towards a processing threshold for elemental copper (since its purpose is to provide copper to the cathode, via the bath).b) The amount of copper compound generated in the electrolytic solution (as a result of oxidation of elemental copper at the anode) would count towards a manufacturing threshold for copper compounds.c) The amount of copper compound converted to elemental copper in the electrolytic solution counts toward a processing threshold for copper compounds (since it is available for reduction at the cathode).d) Finally, the amount of copper deposited at the cathode would count towards a manufacturing threshold for elemental copper (since elemental copper is being produced from a copper compound).For example, a facility uses up 15,000 pounds of copper anode per year (the anode is composed of elemental copper). The elemental copper is processed by manufacturing 37,000 pounds of copper sulfate (copper sulfate (CuSO4) is 40 percent copper by weight and, in this example, is the form in which copper exists in the electroplating bath). The copper sulfate is then processed by manufacturing 15,000 pounds of elemental copper. The following quantities would apply to TRI reporting thresholds: Chemical or   Chemical Category Manufacture Process Elemental Copper 15,000 lb 15,000 lb Copper Compounds 37,000 lb 37,000 lb (CuSO4) The facility would file a Form R for ‘Copper Compounds’ because it exceeds the manufacturing and processing thresholds for a copper compound.

In this process the copper cyanide is both manufactured and processed. The copper cyanide is created in the plating solution, and the amount created should be counted towards the 25,000-pound manufacturing threshold. The copper cyanide is also being processed since the copper from the copper cyanide is plated onto an object that is to be distributed in commerce. Thus, the copper cyanide used in this process should be counted towards the processing threshold for both copper and cyanide compounds.The copper cyanide is both a copper compound and a cyanide compound and is reportable under both the copper compounds category and the cyanide compounds category. The total weight of the copper cyanide is to be counted towards the thresholds for both categories. However, for reporting releases and other waste management activities, the total weight of the copper cyanide is to be reported under the cyanide compounds category, but only the weight of the copper is to be reported under the copper compounds category.

Cyanide compounds that do not dissociate are not reportable. However, dissociable cyanide compounds are not limited to the simple salts. Rather, this category includes all cyanide compounds for which dissociation upon release to the environment is expected to occur.

Sulfuric acid is reportable only in aerosol form. Therefore, the facility manufactures sulfuric acid (acid aerosol) each time the acid passes through the spray mechanism. In this particular example, the acid converts to copper sulfate, which is subsequently reacted to generate sulfuric acid and is applied to the ore pile. Because the facility generates another listed toxic chemical (copper sulfate), the facility must count the amount of sulfuric acid (acid aerosol) manufactured each time it passes through the spray mechanism, and apply this amount to the manufacturing threshold of 25,000 pounds for sulfuric acid (acid aerosol), in addition to considering amounts of copper sulfate that are also manufactured. Because all the sulfuric acid (acid aerosol) manufactured is subsequently otherwise used, the facility must apply this same amount towards the otherwise use threshold of 10,000 pounds. Facilities are also directed to refer to the Guidance for Reporting Sulfuric Acid (EPA-745-R-97-007; November 1997) for further assistance.

Yes, because the facility is otherwise using the hydrochloric acid (acid aerosol) as a leaching agent to enable minerals leached to then be processed.

In the gold leaching operation, the covered mine is otherwise using, processing, and manufacturing cyanide compounds. The cyanide compounds that react with the gold in the ore (e.g., sodium cyanide) are otherwise used. The gold cyanide manufactured in this reaction are considered towards the facility’s manufacturing threshold for cyanide compounds. The gold cyanide compound is also processed as a reactant because the gold from the compound is distributed in commerce.

In this scenario, cyanide compounds are ‘otherwise used,’ ‘processed,’ and ‘manufactured.’ Both the gold cyanide compound and sodium cyanide are ‘manufactured.’ Cyanide compounds are ‘processed’ because part of the cyanide compound, i.e., the gold cyanide compound, is incorporated into a material (gold) that is distributed in commerce. Cyanide compounds are also ‘otherwise used’ because sodium cyanide is used to extract the gold but no part of the sodium cyanide compound is incorporated into a material that is distributed in commerce. The facility should not use the method outlined for the sulfuric acid threshold because the processes involving sulfuric acid are not analogous to the reaction chemistry occurring in the extraction of gold.

The facility must count the amount of aluminum dust that is manufactured toward the manufacturing threshold. The amount of aluminum dust that is collected and recast into ingots and sold is incorporated into a product that is distributed in commerce. These amounts are considered to be processed and must be counted toward that processing threshold. The aluminum dust that is captured from the pollution control device and put back into the process is reported in Part II, Section 8.6 (Quantity Treated On-Site) because the aluminum dust is converted to a non-listed form of the chemical.

Yes. A federal facility that melts down submarines and sells the constituent metals that contain EPCRA section 313 chemicals is “processing” the chemicals in those metals for further distribution in commerce. If the facility further uses the constituent metals, for example tools were made from the metal for use on-site in production operations, it is “otherwise using” the EPCRA section 313 chemicals. Therefore, the facility should consider the amount of EPCRA section 313 chemicals when making threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations.

Yes. The naphthalene has been manufactured, processed and otherwise used by the TSD facility. When the TSD facility reacted the naphthalene with the sodium to produce a compound capable of removing the PCB contaminants, the facility otherwise used the naphthalene. The reaction of the sodium naphthalene with the PCB-contaminated oil manufactured naphthalene as a component of the oil. Finally, the distribution of the naphthalene in the oil in commerce constitutes processing. Accordingly, the facility would have to consider all three activity thresholds; manufacturing, processing, and otherwise use.

No. In this example the facility is otherwise using the listed toxic chemicals that are components of the flotation agent. Amounts of listed toxic chemicals contained in the flotation agent must be considered toward the facility’s otherwise use threshold. The facility is using these listed toxic chemicals for the purpose of cleaning the coal and not for the purpose of adding value to the coal product.

For Section 313 reporting purposes, as long as the toxic chemical impurity is in the raw material being received at the facility, and there is no system at the facility to remove the impurity, the facility is processing the toxic chemical.

Given that the facility knows that glycol ether is recovered with the desirable MIBK, the facility should count all amounts of glycol ether that enter the recovery system toward the facility’s processing threshold.

Amounts of listed toxic chemicals that remain with the product (metal concentrate) that are distributed in commerce are considered processed and these amounts must be factored into the facility’s processing threshold. Amounts of listed toxic chemicals in mixtures and trade name products that are processed are eligible for the de minimis exemption. Any trace metal or other listed toxic chemical that is completely removed from the facility’s product prior to distribution and disposed, would not count toward the facility’s processing threshold, but would need to be considered in release and other waste management calculations if the facility has exceeded thresholds for the listed toxic chemical elsewhere.

The ethylene glycol is otherwise used. The facility is using the ethylene glycol solely for the purpose of preventing the coal from freezing at the facility. However, if the facility adds the ethylene glycol to the coal to protect it from freezing during transfer, the facility has intentionally incorporated the toxic chemical into its product for distribution in commerce and, therefore, is processing the toxic chemical.

Toxic chemicals manufactured coincidentally are included in determining the quantity of the toxic chemical manufactured. In the case of coincidental manufacture of an impurity that remains in the product, below the de minimis level, for distribution in commerce the de minimis exemption may apply (40 CFR Section 372.38(a)). If, however, the impurity is removed from the final product prior to distribution in commerce, the exemption does not apply.

The de minimis exemption may be considered for chemicals that are not chemicals of special concern that are manufactured as impurities that remain in the product for distribution. The de minimis exemption does not apply to listed toxic chemicals that are manufactured as a byproduct regardless of whether the byproduct is a waste.

Yes. Manufacturing is not limited to intentional manufacturing; it also includes coincidental manufacture or, inadvertent manufacture. In general, anytime one metal compound has been converted to another metal compound, the facility must count the new metal compound towards the manufacturing threshold. The fact that the parent metal is the same in both compounds does not negate the fact that a new metal compound has been manufactured.

The definition of manufacture includes the coincidental generation of a listed toxic chemical as a consequence of the facility’s waste treatment or disposal activities. These toxic chemicals may not be produced for commercial purposes. They are, nevertheless, created as a result of the facility’s activities and they must be included in activity threshold determinations and their release or other waste management must be considered.

Yes. The facility is coincidentally manufacturing the listed toxic chemical.

Because the listed acid is not incorporated into the final product and distributed in commerce, nor is it created at the facility, the toxic chemical is otherwise used.

This activity is considered processing because the toxic chemical remains incorporated in the final product distributed in commerce.

None of the EPCRA section 313 activities apply. Neither lead nor lead compounds are manufactured. Lead is not incorporated into products for distribution in commerce nor is it a manufacturing aid or a processing aid as those terms are defined. Lead in the waste would not be included for a threshold determination. The facility does not manufacture, process, or otherwise use lead compounds.

A chemical processing aid is added directly to the reaction mixture or is present in a mixture used to aid in processing and its function is such that it does not remain in the product. Examples include catalysts, solvents, and buffers. A manufacturing aid helps to run the equipment and is never incorporated into the product. Examples include lubricants, coolants, and refrigerants. Since, in either case (manufacturing aid or processing aid), incorporation of the toxic chemical into the final product is not required for the chemical to perform its function, toxic chemicals that are used as manufacturing aids or as processing aids are considered otherwise used under EPCRA section 313.

EPA does not have a regulatory definition of a fume or a dust, but considers dusts, for purposes of reporting, to consist of solid particles generated by any mechanical processing of materials including crushing, grinding, rapid impact, handling, detonation, and decrepitation of organic and inorganic materials such as rock, ore, and metal. Dusts do not tend to flocculate except under electrostatic forces. A fume is an airborne dispersion consisting of small solid particles created by condensation from the gaseous state, in distinction to a gas or vapor. Fumes arise from the heating of solids such as lead. The condensation is often accompanied by a chemical reaction, such as oxidation. Fumes flocculate and sometimes coalesce.

In this example, EPA considers metal dust particles, which contain aluminum in the dust form, a listed toxic chemical. Therefore, that weight percentage of the metal dust which is aluminum would be subject to threshold determinations and release and other waste management reporting as aluminum dust.

The facility must report for the chromium because its quantity (90,000 pounds) is above the processing threshold of 25,000 pounds. The facility would also have to report for nickel because its quantity (40,000 pounds) is also above the processing threshold.

Since steel is a mixture (and not a compound), the processing threshold determination is made based on the total amount of each toxic chemical present in the steel. If the toxic chemical is present in a known concentration, the amount present can be calculated by multiplying the weight of the steel by the weight percent of the listed toxic chemical (see 40 CFR Section 372.30(b)(3)). The threshold for processing chromium is 25,000 pounds.

No. Stainless steel is a solid/solid mixture. Chromium and nickel are components of stainless steel. If the facility is incorporating the stainless steel into a product it intends to distribute in commerce, the company is processing the stainless steel as defined in Section 313. For example, if the facility makes porous metal filters from stainless steel powder or fabricates pressurized vessels, bars, or ingots of stainless steel, threshold determinations for the nickel and chromium components of the steel are required. The facility must report if the amounts processed exceed the reporting thresholds.

For threshold purposes, if the listed chemicals that are not chemicals of special concern in the metals are processed, otherwise used, manufactured as an impurity (that remains with the product), or imported below the de minimis levels, then the de minimis exemption may be taken for that metal in the alloy. However, the article exemption cannot be taken for this type of foundry operation since in founding, a metal is melted down and poured into a mold. Consequently, the resulting metal is not recognizable as its original form.

Yes, if the chromium content in the steel exceeds de minimis concentration levels and the reporting threshold is met, the facility is required to report under EPCRA section 313 for chromium.

The brick, and thus the chromium (III) compounds in the brick, are being otherwise used based on the quantity of the bricks installed within a reporting year. The chromium compounds in the bricks are also considered processed, because the chromium compounds in the brick are incorporated as an impurity into the final product (the glass) which is distributed in commerce. However, for this processing step, the de minimis exemption may be taken. The chromium (VI) compounds generated from the chromium (III) compounds are considered manufactured. Thus, threshold calculations should be made for all three EPCRA section 313 activity thresholds. The thresholds would be calculated based on the total weight of the chromium compounds being manufactured, processed, or otherwise used. However, only the weight of the chromium in the chromium compounds are used in release and other waste management calculations. Any releases that go up the stack or are sent off-site for waste management must be included. When the brick is replaced and disposed of, the amount of chromium that remains in the brick would also need to be included in release and other waste management calculations.

The recovery facility must consider the amount of the material that it feeds into the recycling operation toward the facility’s processing threshold. The solvent is part of a waste (not usable in the form received) and therefore the amount processed is not eligible for the de minimis exemption until the recovery is complete and the solvent is no longer subject to further waste management activities. Once the recovery is complete, the solvent is no longer a waste and thus the recovery facility may take the de minimis exemption for amounts of a chemical that is not a chemical of special concern subsequently prepared for distribution in commerce. The purchasing facility considers the recovered solvent as a new product and its subsequent use of the solvent may be eligible for the de minimis exemption. However, if the amount of solvent processed prior to the point of which it was eligible for the de minimis exemption was enough to exceed a reporting threshold, the fact that the solvent subsequently became eligible for the de minimis exemption does not remove the reporting requirement.

Yes, it incorporates the solder into a product for distribution in commerce.

The methanol is being processed, not otherwise used, because the methanol is the source of the carbon for the carburization activity. The methanol is being reacted, and the carbon from it is being incorporated into the steel.

If the chemical evaporates or is baked out of a finished coating, it has been otherwise used.

No. The toxic chemical is considered otherwise used because the listed toxic chemical is not incorporated into the final product when it is distributed in commerce. A toxic chemical is considered a ‘performance enhancer’ if the toxic chemical is incorporated into the end product and improves the performance of the end product distributed in commerce.

If a toxic chemical component of a raw material is incorporated into a product for distribution in commerce, regardless of whether it serves a function within that product, the facility should apply the processing threshold. However, if a toxic chemical is otherwise used on-site and some portion of the chemical is incorporated into the final product, the entire amount is considered toward the facility’s otherwise use threshold. None of this amount is considered towards the processing threshold. In this particular scenario, because toxic chemical A is an impurity that is present in a raw material and that is incorporated into a product for distribution in commerce, the facility has processed that toxic chemical. The facility did not specifically add the toxic chemical to the product, but the toxic chemical was not removed from the raw material either. Therefore, unless toxic chemical A is present below its de minimis concentration, the entire quantity of the chemical would be subject to the 25,000-pound processing threshold. Toxic chemical B, however, is involved in a specific non-incorporative activity (as a volatile component of the adhesive). The entire quantity of toxic chemical B used in the adhesive would therefore be subject to the 10,000-pound otherwise use threshold, even if a portion of that chemical remains in the shoes that are distributed in commerce. Additional guidance on activity determinations can be found in the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms and Instructions.

Based on the information provided, the amount of the toxic chemical in the fertilizer applied to land on-site would be counted towards the otherwise use threshold unless it meets the facility grounds maintenance exemption. The toxic chemical in the fertilizer would be reported in Part II, Section 5.5 of the Form R as a release to land, regardless of whether it is a purchased product or a waste.

Yes. Chemicals applied to land during use for farming are released to the environment and are to be reported as such. In addition, the chemicals are being otherwise used. Whether or not the facility intends the use during farming to be a disposal method, the facility must report the quantity of the toxic chemical in waste released to land in Section 5.5.2 (Land Treatment/Application Farming) of the Form R.The facility must report that portion of the toxic chemical that volatilizes from the land application unit during the same reporting year in Section 5.1 (Fugitive Air Releases) of the Form R. This quantity would not be included in the releases reported to land in Part II, Section 5.5.2. The sum of the amounts released to land and to air must be included in Section 8.1 of the Form R.

No. Ammonium nitrate is only converted to reportable chemicals when in solution (40 CFR Section 372.65) and in this case the solutions are not created until after the chemical has been released into the environment. Therefore, the facility would not have to report for this activity since facilities are not required to report on conversions that take place in the environment.

The use of listed toxic chemicals such as nitrate compounds for farming is to be reported as a release to land under EPCRA section 313. Listed toxic chemicals applied to land during use for farming constitute a release to an environmental medium (land) and are to be reported as such. This is consistent with the instructions for Section 5.5 of the Form R which state that land treatment/application farming is a disposal method that is considered a ‘release to land.’ Thus, whether or not this use is intended to be a disposal method, the total quantity released to land during use for farming should be reported as a release to land under Section 5.5.2 of the Form R. The amount of a listed toxic chemical used for farming at a covered facility must also to be applied towards the otherwise use reporting threshold.

Some listed toxic chemicals in the composted material may degrade such that the chemical is treated for destruction in the compost. In those cases, the listed toxic chemical should be reported as treated on-site (in Part II, Sections 7A (On-site Waste Treatment and Efficiencies) and 8.6 (Quantity Treated On-site)). If the listed toxic chemical is not destroyed, the amounts applied to the on-site sanitary landfill as cover should be reported in Part II, Section 5.5.1B (Other Landfills) and in Section 8.1a (Quantity Released) on the Form R. Although any quantities used as landfill cover would not be exempt from reporting, the amount used for landscaping on-site is exempt under the facility grounds maintenance exemption (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(2)).

Although during such use nitrate compounds or other toxic chemicals may be taken up by plants and cycled back into the ecosystem, such use is not considered treatment or recycling under EPCRA section 313. The toxic chemicals are reported as released to land on the Form R. EPA does not allow facilities to reduce the quantity reported as released to the environment based on conversions of a chemical in the environment after the chemical has been released by the facility.

If there is enough water present to dissolve the nitrate compound, then the qualifier for the nitrate compounds category has been met and the appropriate threshold determinations, release and other waste management calculations, and supplier notification requirements must be satisfied. Not all of the nitrate compound must dissolve in the water, but the amount that does dissolve should be included in threshold and release and other waste management calculations. Additional guidance for TRI reporting for the nitrate compounds category is available in section B.5 at the following URL:https://guideme.epa.gov/ords/guideme_ext/f?p=guideme:rfi:::::rfi:2_5

The toxic chemicals in the gasoline should be reported as processed as an ‘article component’ because they are incorporated into the car which is an article (40 CFR Section 372.3).

Because the chlorine reacts with impurities and becomes incorporated in the dross, which is distributed in commerce, the chlorine is considered processed (40 CFR Section 372.3). If the amount of chlorine processed, which includes both the chlorine incorporated in the dross and the unreacted chlorine, exceeds 25,000 pounds, a Form R must be filed and any releases or other waste management of chlorine must be reported.

The toxic chemical is otherwise used. The toxic chemical is not processed, because it does not become part of a product that is distributed in commerce.

Yes, these activities constitute processing. The blending of the toxic chemicals and their subsequent transfer back to the farm for application to the farmer’s fields constitutes processing. The origin of the processed material is irrelevant and the return of the blended toxic chemicals for application on the farmer’s fields can be considered products distributed in commerce. Therefore, the processing threshold would apply. ‘Toll-processing’ is no different than any other processing. Assuming that the primary NAICS code of the agri-chemical manufacturer is a covered NAICS code, and they meet the employee criterion, the agri-chemical manufacturer must make threshold determinations based on the amount of any listed toxic chemical it processes as well as any other manufacture or otherwise use activities that occur at its facility.

The ammonia generated from the rendering (cooking) process is considered to be coincidentally manufactured, and thus, must be reported under EPCRA section 313 if ten percent of the amount of aqueous ammonia produced exceeds the 25,000-pound manufacturing threshold.

The aqueous ammonia is reacted with another substance to form ammonium bicarbonate which is then used on-site. Therefore, the aqueous ammonia is considered to be otherwise used and is subject to the 10,000-pound otherwise use threshold. The anhydrous ammonia is being manufactured from the breakdown of the ammonium bicarbonate during the baking process which generates anhydrous ammonia, carbon dioxide, and water vapor. Thus, the amount of anhydrous ammonia generated during baking is counted towards the 25,000-pound manufacture threshold.

Ammonia used in this manner is considered processed under EPCRA section 313 and must be applied toward that threshold. The definition of process found at 40 CFR Section 372.3 affirms that a listed toxic chemical prepared for distribution in commerce is a reportable activity even if it is distributed in a different form or physical state from that in which it was originally received. All of the ammonia incorporated into the cheese is processed as a reactant and should be reported as such on the Form R.

No. Exclude the water in solutions when calculating the maximum amount of the toxic chemical on-site and in making threshold determinations.

It is processing these chemicals under Section 313 because if the facility distributes the toxic chemicals in the waste into commerce, they are processing the toxic chemical. Releases from activities such as spills and equipment cleaning, must be reported if the facility exceeds the processing threshold. The quantity of the toxic chemical sent off for recycling should be reported in Part II, Sections 6.2 and 8.5. If the toxic chemicals in the waste were not distributed into commerce (e.g., if the toxic chemicals were sent off-site for disposal), the facility would not be manufacturing, processing, or otherwise using the toxic chemical.

All of the silver in the incoming waste must be counted toward the processing threshold. Whenever a toxic chemical is processed, the entire quantity of the toxic chemical involved in that activity must be counted toward the processing threshold for that chemical, even if only some of the toxic chemical actually becomes distributed in commerce. It is not appropriate to discount quantities of the toxic chemical that are not actually distributed in commerce (e.g., quantities of the toxic chemical in overspray, scrap, dust, unreacted material, or unrecovered material) from the threshold determination. In the above scenario, the amount of silver left over (i.e., not recovered) that is disposed onsite must also be counted toward the otherwise use threshold, because it was brought onsite for the purpose of waste management (recycling) and was then disposed at the facility.

Yes. The methanol, in this instance, is being otherwise used (40 CFR Section 372.3). The owner/operator must consider the methanol used to cool material X in its threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations.

The xylene is otherwise used since it is not incorporated into the product, nor is it distributed into commerce.

Yes. There are no provisions under EPCRA section 313 that exempt naturally occurring chemicals that are known to be a part of a facility’s raw material. Although the facility does not manipulate the concentration of the toxic chemical in the raw material, the facility is processing the toxic chemical as defined in 40 CFR Section 372.3. Thus, the facility would need to file a Form R or Form A for nicotine if it is processed at the facility in amounts greater than or equal to the 25,000-pound activity threshold, assuming that the facility meets the other applicability criteria found in 40 CFR Section 372.22.

Yes. The electricity generating facility is classified within NAICS code 221112 and combusts coal and/or oil for purposes of generating power for distribution in commerce. Supplying electricity to a facility off-site is considered generating power for distribution in commerce. For purposes of EPCRA section 313 reporting, it does not matter that the sole user of the electricity produced by the electricity generating facility is part of the same company.

Yes. Under EPCRA process means the preparation of a listed toxic chemical, after its manufacture, for distribution in commerce (40 CFR Section 372.3). Distribution in commerce includes any distributive activity in which benefit is gained by the transfer, even if there is no direct monetary gain. Listed toxic chemicals that are shipped from one facility to another facility under common ownership are considered to be distributed in commerce. Although the chemical in the product is not distributed to the general public, the preparing facility does derive economic benefit by transferring the listed toxic chemical, as both facilities are under common ownership.

Yes. Under EPCRA, process means the preparation of a listed toxic chemical, after its manufacture, for distribution in commerce (40 CFR Section 372.3). Distribution in commerce includes any distributive activity in which benefit is gained by the transfer, even if there is no direct monetary gain. Listed toxic chemicals that are shipped from one facility to another facility under common ownership are considered to be distributed in commerce. Although the chemical in the product is not distributed to the general public, the preparing facility does derive economic benefit by transferring the listed toxic chemical, as both facilities are under common ownership. The amount of listed toxic chemical prepared at the facility must be counted towards the processing threshold.

Yes. Amounts of listed toxic chemicals that are transferred off-site for recycling are considered processed and Facility 1 processed the listed toxic chemical when it was sent off-site for recycling. Facility 2 who recovers the listed toxic chemical also processed amounts recovered, which were subsequently distributed back to Facility 1. Facility 1 then receives amounts of the listed toxic chemical recovered by Facility 2 and Facility 1 repackages the listed toxic chemical and further distributes it in commerce. Therefore, Facility 1 must, once again, include these amounts toward their processing threshold. While this may seem to be a double counting of the same amounts of the listed toxic chemical, the activities are completed at each interval and are clearly taking place at multiple locations. Each activity is independently performed and there is no double counting within the same activity step.

Yes. By reclaiming the listed toxic chemical and returning it to the generator, the reclamation facility has prepared the chemical for distribution in commerce by incorporating the chemical into a product (i.e., the reclaimed toxic chemical). Therefore, the reclamation facility is processing the toxic chemical in the waste solvent it receives. Assuming the reclamation facility is a covered facility, it is required to report under EPCRA section 313 for the toxic chemical if it exceeds an activity threshold (e.g., processing) during the course of a reporting year.

No. In this scenario, the facility has only processed 20,000 pounds of copper and would not be subject to reporting pursuant to 40 CFR Part 372 for this toxic chemical. For threshold purposes, facilities must count the amount of a toxic chemical that is processed during the reporting year. Facilities should not, however, double count toxic chemicals that are subject to multiple on-site processing steps before being distributed in commerce. Conversely, facilities that transfer listed toxic chemicals off-site for processing and receive the same toxic chemical back for further processing must count the listed toxic chemical twice when calculating thresholds because the listed toxic chemical is considered to be newly obtained.