TRI Toolkit Q&A

Amounts of a listed toxic chemical undergoing multiple activities on-site within a single threshold activity are counted only once during the activity sequence. For example, if a facility receives a bulk quantity of a chemical that it then places in a storage container from which amounts are subsequently blended and placed in smaller containers that are sold, the facility has prepared for distribution in commerce the entire amount of the chemical, and therefore, the facility has processed the entire amount of the listed toxic chemical.

Yes. Amounts of materials that undergo a processing step (extraction) as part of the facility’s preparation of a material for distribution in commerce are considered processed and must be considered toward the facility’s processing threshold because a part of the original metal compound is incorporated into the product which is ultimately distributed in commerce.

No. Compounding as used under Section 313 means that a chemical has been created, not that chemicals have been mixed together to form a new product. Thus, depending on the specifics of the use of the chemical, amounts would be counted towards the otherwise use threshold or the processing threshold, but not the manufacture threshold.

Since the formaldehyde is not incorporated into the product, it is otherwise used (40 CFR Section 372.3). The formaldehyde would not be counted at all if the amount is below the de minimis of 0.1 percent in the incoming resin mixture (40 CFR Section 372.38(a)).

Use of a broker does not negate facility ‘importation’ (manufacture) of a listed toxic chemical. If your facility specified that a listed toxic chemical or mixture containing a toxic chemical be obtained from a foreign source, then your facility ‘imported’ the toxic chemical. You are considered to have imported a toxic chemical if you have caused the listed toxic chemical to be brought into the customs territory of the U.S. and you ‘control the identity of the toxic chemical and the amount to be imported.’

Yes. Under the authority of EPCRA section 313, EPA defines “manufacture” to mean produce, prepare, compound, or import (40 CFR 372.3). If a federal facility causes more than 25,000 pounds of an EPCRA section 313 chemical to be imported, it has exceeded the “manufacture” threshold and must make release and other waste management calculations for that EPCRA section 313 chemical. A facility would “cause” an EPCRA section 313 chemical to be imported by specifically requesting a product (containing the EPCRA section 313 chemical) from a foreign source or requesting a product known to be only available from a foreign source.

Yes. Because EPCRA section 313 defines both creation and importation as manufacturing (40 CFR Section 372.3), you must add the amounts of the chemical undergoing each activity together to determine the manufacturing threshold.

No. The U.S. Virgin Islands are not within the customs territory of the United States. The customs territory of the United States is comprised of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The 50 States do not include Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, or any other territory or possession over which the United States has jurisdiction. Therefore, listed toxic chemicals that come from the U.S. Virgin Islands into the U.S. customs territory would be considered imported under EPCRA section 313.

Yes. If the facility that caused the importation meets the employee criterion, covered NAICS code criterion, and toxic chemical activity threshold, then the facility must fill out a Form R or the Alternate Certification Statement (Form A). The only exception would be if the chemical were imported for entry into ‘Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ)’ for reexport. However, if any portion of the chemical or the product is withdrawn from the FTZ with the intention of distribution into the U.S., then the chemicals that were used for the portion entering U.S. commerce are counted toward the activity threshold. Please remember, there are other EPA importing requirements under other environmental statutes.

Both. The facility must apply the amount of the toxic chemical toward both the manufacture and otherwise use activity thresholds. The facility caused the toxic chemical to be imported, and therefore manufactured the toxic chemical. The facility then treated the toxic chemical, which was received in waste from off-site, for destruction. Thus, the facility also otherwise used the toxic chemical.

The toll processor has not caused the listed toxic chemical to be imported. Therefore, the toll processor is not subject to the manufacturing threshold. However, if the toll processor repackages the toxic chemical before distributing it to Facility A, they are subject to the processing threshold for that listed toxic chemical. Facility A has imported the listed toxic chemical when the product is received from the toll processor. This is because Facility A has caused the listed toxic chemical to be imported and ultimately received the listed toxic chemical, even though there was some intermediate processing applied to the toxic chemical. There is no practical difference in coverage under the regulations unless the manufacturing facility does not further otherwise use or process the product. For example, if the facility only labels the product containers and ships them to customers, the facility is still subject to reporting because the act of importation is considered manufacturing.

The facility should count the chemical towards its manufacturing threshold only if it actually receives the toxic chemical at the facility. The warehouse is a separate facility, and may not be within a covered NAICS code. Because the warehouse has not caused the toxic chemical to be imported, it has not manufactured the toxic chemical. However, if the warehouse processes or otherwise uses the chemical above an applicable activity threshold, and meets the other EPCRA section 313 criteria, it would be required to file the Form R.

If the chemical distribution facility that actually received the product did not have any input regarding the quantity or identity of the toxic chemical, the facility did not cause the importation of the toxic chemical in the product and does not have to apply the listed chemical in the product to its manufacturing threshold. To be considered an importer, the facility receiving the material from a foreign source must have imported or “caused the material to be imported.” If the ordering facility receives the shipment, then the ordering facility has imported the listed toxic chemicals and must consider these amounts toward their manufacturing thresholds. However, if the ordering facility, on its own initiative, directs another facility to receive the shipment, and that other facility has no input in deciding whether it will receive the toxic chemical, then the receiving facility has not imported the shipment and the ordering facility has also not imported the shipment for purposes of EPCRA section 313 because the listed toxic chemicals were not brought on-site of the ordering facility.

For purposes of EPCRA section 313 reporting, the importing facility never takes physical possession of the waste, therefore, no facility in this scenario would count amounts of listed toxic chemicals in the waste toward their manufacturing threshold based on importation. To be considered an importer the facility receiving the material from a source outside the customs territory must have imported or ‘caused the material to be imported.’ If the ordering facility receives the shipment, then the ordering facility has imported the listed toxic chemicals in the waste shipment and must consider these amounts toward their manufacturing thresholds. However, if the ordering facility directs another facility to receive the shipment, then the receiving facility has not imported the shipment, and neither has the ordering facility for purposes of EPCRA section 313 because the listed toxic chemicals were not brought on-site of the ordering facility. Regardless, the receiving facility would need to consider amounts received for the purpose of further waste management toward their otherwise use threshold if they treat for destruction, stabilize, or dispose the toxic chemical.

The TSD facility caused the toxic chemical to be imported into the customs territory of the United States and must count the amount imported towards its manufacturing threshold. By ordering the waste containing listed toxic chemicals, the TSD facility ‘caused it to be imported,’ even though it used an import brokerage firm as an agent to obtain the toxic chemicals. This TSD facility would also need to consider amounts received for the purpose of further waste management toward their otherwise use threshold if they treat for destruction, stabilize, or dispose the listed toxic chemical.

The customer has caused the toxic chemical to be imported into the customs territory of the United States. If the customer is a covered facility, the customer must count the amount of the listed toxic chemical imported that enters their facility toward the manufacturing threshold. The chemical distributor acted as an agent for the customer, and therefore, did not import the toxic chemical.

Yes. The receiving facility either has a contract or an agreement in place to receive imported waste and is functioning as the importing facility. Amounts of listed toxic chemicals received in waste must be counted toward the manufacturing threshold. The receiving facility would also need to consider amounts received for the purpose of further waste management toward their otherwise use threshold, if they treat for destruction, stabilize, or dispose the toxic chemical on-site.

Yes. The facility knows that it has caused the listed toxic chemical to be imported to the U.S. because there are no U.S. sources. Therefore, the amount of the chemical that is caused to be imported by the facility through a broker must be included within the manufacturing threshold determination for that listed toxic chemical.

Yes. For the reporting year, the facility would have to report for toxic chemical X because it would have exceeded the manufacture threshold of 25,000 pounds (19,000 (manufactured) + 7,000 (imported) = 26,000). Note that importing constitutes manufacturing, and therefore, the amounts must be added together for threshold determinations.

Yes, the toxic chemical retains its exemption. Exempted uses of a listed toxic chemical do not need to be reported, even if other (non-exempted) uses of the same listed chemical trigger thresholds at the facility.

EPA does not intend to require covered facilities to account for listed toxic chemicals in typical office supplies such as correction fluid and copier machine fluids. Although not specifically exempted by the regulation, EPA interprets such mixtures or products to be equivalent to personal use items or materials present in a facility’s cafeteria, store, or infirmary (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(3)).

Using office products falls within the same realm as the personal use exemption (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(3)). The release of 1,1,1, trichloroethane in ‘white-out’ is exempt.

Chlorine that is added by a facility to its water supply system to prepare potable water for consumption at the facility is exempt from reporting under the personal use exemption, which exempts as ‘personal’ use, by employees or other persons at the facility, the use of foods, drugs, cosmetics, or other personal items containing toxic chemicals, including supplies of such products within the facility such as in a facility operated cafeteria, store, or infirmary (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(3)). Since chlorine is used to prepare an item (i.e., potable water) that will be used only for drinking purposes by facility employees, it is exempted from reporting under EPCRA section 313.

The personal use exemption allows a facility owner or operator to disregard quantities of toxic chemicals employed solely for personal use by employees or other persons at the facility (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(3)). It does not apply, however, when a discrete amount of an EPCRA section 313 toxic chemical is employed both for personal use and process-related activities. Thus, in this example, the chlorine used to treat water that serves dually as employee drinking water and facility process water is not eligible for the personal use exemption. Similarly, if the facility supplies heat to its employees’ offices by combusting fuel, and that fuel also powers the facility’s process-related equipment, the facility owner or operator cannot claim the personal use exemption for any of the toxic chemicals present in the fuel.

Blueprint machines are not typical office supply items for personal use. Since the 10,000-pound otherwise use threshold is exceeded, the facility must report for the ammonia.

No. Under the personal use exemption ‘foods, drugs, cosmetics or other personal items containing toxic chemicals, including supplies of such products within the facility such as in a facility operated cafeteria, store, or infirmary’ used by employees or other persons at the facility are exempt from threshold determinations (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(3)). The listed toxic chemicals used in the cafeteria refrigeration units, therefore, are exempt from threshold determinations and release and other waste management reporting requirements. Non-exempt uses of the same listed toxic chemicals elsewhere at the facility, however, must be included in threshold determinations and release and other waste management reporting.

Yes, if the air conditioning unit is used for the purpose of maintaining employee comfort, the listed toxic chemicals used in the unit would be exempt from EPCRA section 313 reporting under the personal use exemption. If, however, the air conditioning unit is integral to the facility’s operation or activity (e.g., maintaining constant temperature and humidity for machinery or cold storage rooms), then the toxic chemicals used in the unit would not be exempt from EPCRA section 313 reporting.

No. As provided in 40 CFR Section 372.38, the personal use exemption applies to the use of listed toxic chemicals limited to: personal use, by employees or other persons at the facility, of foods, drugs, cosmetics, or other personal items containing toxic chemicals, including supplies of such products within the facility such as in a facility-operated cafeteria, store, or infirmary. This exemption is limited and does not include chemicals used in process-related activities.

No. The ‘use exemption for personal uses by employees or other persons’ was intended to apply to such incidental uses of toxic chemicals that may take place at a facility simply because of personal needs. The types of incidental chemical uses intended to be eligible for this exemption include foods, drugs, cosmetics, or other personal items containing toxic chemicals, including supplies of such products within the facility such as in a facility operated cafeteria, store, or infirmary. The use of chemicals to promote process-related activities, including employee access to such process-related areas that would not otherwise be possible, is not incidental to the process, and therefore, must be considered toward threshold and release and other waste management calculations.

The personal use exemption is limited to chemicals used in non-process related activities, which may include administrative activities (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(3)). Amounts of listed toxic chemicals used for administrative purposes are eligible for the personal use exemption and do not have to be considered toward threshold or release and other waste management calculations.

Yes. The ammonia present in the sewage is being coincidentally manufactured as a result of the waste decomposition. Quantities of the toxic chemical that are coincidentally manufactured are not eligible for the personal use exemption. This exemption only covers the otherwise use of toxic chemicals, not their manufacture. The facility should report that it has manufactured ammonia as a by-product in Part II, Section 3.1(e). In addition, to the extent that the facility has knowledge concerning the quantity of the ammonia manufactured from the waste decomposition, they should report the quantity as transferred to a POTW in Part II, Section 6.1, and as sent off-site for treatment in Part II, Section 8.7.

No. Exemptions provided in 40 CFR Section 372.38 apply to the use of listed toxic chemicals. These exemptions do not include manufacturing or processing of listed toxic chemicals, even if this results from an activity where the use is exempt. If a listed toxic chemical is coincidentally manufactured during an activity where the use of a listed toxic chemical is exempt, the chemical manufactured is not exempt and amounts manufactured must be considered toward threshold and release and other waste management calculations.

The exemptions defined at 40 CFR Section 372.38(c) are intended for toxic chemicals otherwise used. Amounts of toxic chemicals manufactured or processed during these ‘exempt’ activities are not exempt.

The process water can be considered exempt because the listed toxic chemical was present as drawn from the environment (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(5)). The facility does not need to consider lead in the process water for threshold or release and other waste management reporting.

No. Since the listed toxic chemicals are not drawn from the environment, the facility must count the amount of the listed toxic chemicals toward threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations (see 40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(5)).

The intake water exemption is specifically limited to otherwise use of toxic chemicals present in process water or non-contact cooling water that are drawn from the environment or from municipal sources. The above facility otherwise uses water in its process sequence and would not be required to account for amounts of listed chemicals contained in stormwater that is drawn from the environment. The facility, however, would have to account for amounts of listed chemicals acquired by the storm water after the storm water has run onto and off of equipment and buildings. Likewise, wastewater is not drawn from the environment and amounts of listed toxic chemicals in wastewater which are otherwise used are ineligible for the exemption and any information on amounts of listed toxic chemicals from wastewater would have to be considered toward threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations.

EPA considers this to be a recirculation of the process water. The facility is not required to report the presence of the chemical in a process water recirculation system as a release (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(5)). If process water containing the toxic chemical escapes the recirculation system and enters the environment, then it would be necessary to count those chemicals towards the activity thresholds and report such releases of the chemical.

A listed toxic chemical present in compressed air drawn from the environment would not have to be counted toward a threshold determination because it meets the intake air exemption (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(5)). If that same listed toxic chemical is present in the boiler emissions air only because it was in the compressed air fed to the boiler, then it would remain exempt. However, if the listed toxic chemical is created as a result of combustion, you have coincidentally manufactured the toxic chemical and must consider it for reporting.

No, because the facility is not otherwise using the water drawn from the underground mine, the intake water exemption does not apply. In this scenario, the facility is simply disposing of the water containing these chemicals drawn from materials on-site, and therefore, the facility is not manufacturing, processing, or otherwise using chemicals and amounts of these toxic chemicals would not count toward thresholds. However, the facility is disposing of these chemicals and if a threshold is exceeded elsewhere at the facility for one of the same chemicals, then the facility would be required to report the amounts released to the surface impoundment.

No. The exemption for toxic chemicals contained in water drawn from the environment or from municipal sources is provided for the use of water containing these chemicals in processes and for non-contact cooling purposes. The facility is not otherwise using the water drawn from the underground mine, and therefore, the intake water exemption does not apply. The facility is simply disposing of the water containing listed toxic chemicals as drawn from on-site, and therefore, the facility is not manufacturing, processing, or otherwise using these chemicals. These amounts would not count toward thresholds. However, the facility is disposing of these chemicals and if a threshold is exceeded elsewhere at the facility for one of the same chemicals, then the facility would be required to count amounts injected as released.

The intake water exemption is specifically limited to otherwise use of toxic chemicals present ‘in process water and non-contact cooling water as drawn from the environment or from municipal sources.’ (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(5)) In the scenario described above, the facility is actively using hydroxides to precipitate out metals. The facility is using storm water run-off as part of its process sequence to extract desirable materials. Amounts of listed toxic chemicals contained in storm water run-off are exempt from otherwise use threshold calculations, but any new listed toxic chemicals which are manufactured from the facility’s use of the storm water must be counted toward the facility’s manufacturing threshold. Likewise, any toxic chemicals that are recovered and distributed in commerce must be considered toward the facility’s processing threshold. The facility would also have to account for amounts of listed chemicals acquired by the storm water after the storm water has run onto and off of equipment and buildings.

You are not required to account for amounts of a listed toxic chemical present in water that you draw into your facility from the environment or municipal sources (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(5)). For example, chlorine present in water taken from municipal sources does not have to be considered for threshold determinations and release and other waste management estimates. Any chlorine you use to treat process water used in your facility, however, counts toward the otherwise use threshold determination. However, if you use the chlorine to treat drinking water for personal use at the facility the chlorine is exempt under the personal use exemption from threshold and release and other waste management calculations (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(3)).

No. The listed toxic chemicals in the water would be exempt from Form R reporting under either the personal use exemption if the water is for the employees’ consumptive use on-site (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(3)).

No. If a facility sells water that it extracts from its underground mine, it is processing the water and any listed toxic chemicals contained in the water must be considered toward threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations.

Equipment maintenance such as the use of oil or grease is not exempt. The routine janitorial and facility grounds maintenance exemption is intended to cover janitorial or other custodial or plant grounds maintenance activities using such substances as bathroom cleaners, or fertilizers and pesticides used to maintain lawns (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(2)).

No. Materials used to maintain process-related equipment at a facility (e.g., cleaners and lubricants) are not exempt under Section 372.38(c)(2). Because the tower is process-related, the exemption does not apply. This exemption only applies to the use of products that are specifically used for routine janitorial or facility grounds maintenance.

No. The chlorine used to treat the swimming pool water is exempt from threshold and release and other waste management calculations under the exemption found at 40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(2) for use of products for routine janitorial or facility grounds maintenance.

The facility grounds maintenance exemption in 40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(2) applies to the use of products used for routine janitorial or facility grounds maintenance. This exemption includes both individually packaged products (e.g., cans of paint) and substances in bulk containers (e.g., 55-gallon drums of paint). Therefore, if the paint in the drums used to maintain the roads and the signs is similar in type and concentration to consumer products, the listed toxic chemicals in the paint would be exempt from EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements. However, if the paint is used for process-related roads or equipment, such as airstrips at federal facilities, the exemption would not apply.

Yes. The facility grounds maintenance exemption applies. However, the facility owner/operator should also be aware that the coincidental manufacture of other toxic chemicals may result (e.g., nitrate compounds) and, any listed chemicals manufactured must be applied to the manufacturing threshold.

No. The use of the disinfectant described in the question seems to be process-related and is therefore not exempt. Also, ‘janitorial type chemicals’ are not exempt; rather, toxic chemicals used for routine janitorial or facility grounds maintenance are exempt.

The use of the cleaner is not exempt because it is not a routine janitorial use and does not relate to facility grounds maintenance (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(2)). The use is integral to the production processes of the facility. Therefore, the amounts of the listed toxic chemicals in the cleaner must be included in the calculation of otherwise use for the facility.

No, such pesticides would not all fall under the routine maintenance exemption. The otherwise use threshold would apply.

If the pesticides are used as part of routine facility maintenance and are not process-related, they would be exempt under the facility grounds maintenance exemption (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(2)). If the pesticides are used for the comfort of the facility personnel, the listed toxic chemicals would be exempt under the personal use exemption (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(3)). However, if the pesticides are used to support the facility’s process, neither exemption would apply, and a covered facility would need to consider the otherwise use of the listed toxic chemical in the pesticides in making threshold determinations. If the otherwise use threshold is exceeded, the facility should report the application of pesticides in Section 5.5.4 (Other Disposal).

The application of a dust suppressant that contains listed toxic chemicals to land surfaces at the facility is beyond the scope of the ‘facility grounds maintenance’ exemption. Listed toxic chemicals contained in mixtures used as dust suppressants are not eligible for the ‘facility grounds maintenance’ exemption. The original intent of the facility grounds maintenance exemption was to provide facilities relief from tracking such ancillary uses of chemicals involved with such routine activities as janitorial cleaning supplies, fertilizers, and pesticides that are similar in type and concentration to consumer products. Dust suppressants are not products that are generally considered similar to consumer products. The large-scale use of dust suppressants likely to occur at a mining extraction facility is considered integral to the facility’s process operations and of such a magnitude that amounts of listed toxic chemicals used for dust suppression are not eligible for the ‘facility grounds maintenance’ exemption.

No. The facility grounds maintenance activity is intended to cover janitorial and other custodial or plant grounds maintenance activities using such substances as bathroom cleaners, or fertilizers and pesticides used to maintain lawns (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(2)). The exemption does not cover activities that are central to the operations of a facility. In this instance, the roads at the BLM facility are integral to the activities of the facility providing access to the BLM land. The facility would consider the amount of EPCRA section 313 chemicals in the waste oil towards its otherwise use threshold.

No, welding rods used to maintain process equipment are not exempt. However, if the same rods are used solely to maintain the facility (such as in the repair of a door frame) then the facility maintenance exemption would apply.

Yes. Painting to maintain the physical integrity of the facility is consistent with the structural component exemption (provided that it is used to paint passive structures), even though the solvents in the paint do not become part of the structure (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(1)).

The structural component exemption set out at 40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(1) applies to the solvent in the paint used to paint the facility. It also applies to the solvent used to clean the paint brushes since this is part of the painting process. Likewise, any paint and cleaning solvent residues would not be subject to threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations.

No. The listed toxic chemicals are exempt from EPCRA section 313 threshold determinations and release and other waste management reporting requirements. Although the structural component exemption most commonly applies to toxic chemicals incorporated into a facility’s physical structure, the exemption also extends to toxic chemicals whose sole use derives from or is associated with an exempt use. Examples of toxic chemicals exempt in this manner include solvents used to clean paint brushes that were used to paint a facility’s structure and fumes generated from the welding of non-process related pipes during installation at a facility. Be aware that the combustion of fuels may coincidentally manufacture Section 313 toxic chemicals. Such coincidental manufacture is not eligible for de minimis limitations (see the directive on the de minimis exemption in GuideME) or the structural component exemption and amounts produced must be compared against the manufacturing threshold. The EPA publication, Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions Factor - A Compilation of Selected Air Toxic Compounds and Sources (EPA 450/2-90-011) contains emissions factors for many specific compounds emitted during fuel combustion.

No. Painting process pipes would not qualify for the structural component exemption because the exemption only applies to non-process related equipment (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(1)).

Yes. Paint used on process-related equipment would not qualify for the structural component exemption. Amounts of listed toxic chemicals used to paint process-related equipment must be considered toward threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations.

No. If pipes are process-related, the structural component exemption does not apply and the facility may have to consider toward the facility’s threshold determination, amounts of listed toxic chemicals contained in process-related pipes that are put into use during the reporting year. And the facility would have to include release and other waste management amounts in calculations where applicable.

No. The structural use exemption applies only to non-process related equipment. The piers at the navy facility are process-related equipment.EPCRA section 313 chemicals used to maintain these piers, therefore, are not exempt. The facility should consider the amount of creosote on the wood pilings towards the facility’s otherwise use threshold for the year in which the facility received them. If the facility determines that it exceeds a reporting threshold for creosote, then any releases of the creosote must be included in the facility’s release and other waste management calculations.

If the pipes are not process-related, the structural component exemption would apply and the listed toxic chemicals contained in the pipes would not need to be considered in threshold determinations and release or other waste management calculations. If the pipes are process-related, the structural component exemption does not apply, and if the facility exceeds a threshold for the listed toxic chemical, any releases and other waste management of the listed toxic chemical should be reported.

The EPCRA section 313 structural components exemption would not apply to grinding wheels and metal working tools. These items are intended to wear down and to be replaced because of the nature of their use. The structural component exemption applies to passive, non-process related structures, such as pipes for potable water not related to the facility’s process. The abrasion/corrosion includes normal or natural degradation, such as occurs in pipes, but not active degradation, such as occurs in a grinding wheel.

The aluminum oxide in the brick must be counted toward the otherwise use threshold if it is a fibrous, man-made form of aluminum oxide. It does not meet the structural component exemption because it is a material that is, in essence, a replaceable insulation liner that is part of the process. If releases from the brick amount to less than 0.5 lb over the course of the reporting year, the article exemption may apply.

No. Structural materials not associated with the process are exempt from reporting. They are exempt from threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations and also from the maximum quantity on-site.

The structural exemption does not apply to these uses of toxic chemicals. EPA believes that grinding balls, hammers, kiln chains, mill liners and lining bars, and cooler grates and side wall liners are all integral components of the process activities at the facility. Therefore, these items would not be eligible for the structural component exemption.The article exemption may apply to these items. The article exemption is meant for the processing or otherwise use of manufactured items that: are formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture; have end use functions dependent in whole or in part upon its shape or design and do not release a toxic chemical under normal conditions of processing or use of that item at the facility (February 16, 1988; 53 FR 4507). The grinding balls, hammers, kiln chains, mill liners and lifting bars, and cooler grates and side wall liners are being otherwise used by the facility. Therefore, if these pieces of equipment meet the three criteria above throughout their use during the calendar year, the exemption may be taken.

The use of toxic chemicals in asphalt or cement to make and maintain process-related roads and driveways (e.g., a driveway leading to a loading dock) at a TRI-covered facility is not eligible for the structural component exemption (40 CFR §372.38(c)(1)). However, the use of toxic chemicals present in asphalt used to pave employee parking lots at a TRI-covered facility is considered non-process related and is eligible for the structural component exemption. Placing asphalt or cement containing TRI toxic chemicals on the ground at a facility is considered a release of the toxic chemicals. If the paving activity did not qualify for the exemption and the facility exceeds an activity threshold, such releases must be documented in Sections 5 and 8 of the Form R.

When the listed toxic chemical is installed as a passive structural component (a component not related to the facility’s process), then the structural component exemption applies to the toxic chemical in the component (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(1)). If the toxic chemical is in a process-related component, the structural component exemption does not apply. However, if there are less than 0.5 lb of releases of the toxic chemical over the course of the year, it may qualify for the article exemption.

No. EPCRA section 313 chemicals that are incorporated into the structural components of a federal facility (e.g. the copper in copper pipes) or that are used to ensure or improve the structural integrity of a structure are exempt from threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations because of the “structural component” exemption (40 CFR 372.38(c)(1)). If, however, these new structures or modified structures are process-related equipment, then the structural component exemption would not apply.

No, degreasers used in plant maintenance do not meet the structural component exemption. The listed toxic chemicals in the degreasers would be considered towards the facility’s otherwise use threshold.

No, the lead anodes are not considered exempt as a structural component since they play such an integral role in an electrochemical process. The erosion which the anodes undergo is not the same as other electrical supply equipment since the degradation is specifically caused by contact with process chemicals in a plating bath.

The removal for disposal of friable asbestos insulation is not considered to be the manufacture, process, or otherwise use of friable asbestos. Since friable asbestos is not being otherwise used in this activity, the structural component exemption cannot be taken. However, if the facility does manufacture, process, or otherwise use friable asbestos in excess of the thresholds elsewhere at the facility, this type of off-site transfer would be reportable in Part II, Sections 6.2 and 8.1.

The motor vehicle exemption does not include all motor vehicles in any use at the facility. The exemption only applies to the otherwise use of the toxic chemical. It does not apply to processing or manufacturing of toxic chemicals. For example, this exemption would not apply in the case of an automobile manufacturing plant. As part of the production of vehicles, such a facility would be incorporating the toxic chemicals into an article for distribution in commerce. Another example of a nonexempt activity would be the manufacture of combustion byproducts from motor vehicles. The motor vehicle exemption does apply to components of gasoline (e.g., benzene); lubricants and oils; and antifreeze used to maintain and operate a motor vehicle employed at the facility.

Yes. Listed toxic chemicals used to maintain motor vehicles owned and operated by the facility are eligible for the motor vehicle exemption (40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(4)).

The motor vehicle exemption only applies to the otherwise use of toxic chemicals in motor vehicles that are stationed at the facility that holds the gasoline. Since the facility with the gasoline storage unit is incorporating toxic chemicals into trucks which are then sent back to another facility, the facility storing the gasoline is processing the toxic chemicals. Therefore, the gasoline used to fuel off-site trucks would not be exempt from reporting pursuant to 40 CFR Section 372.38(c)(4). Instead, the facility should consider the toxic chemicals in the gasoline towards their processing threshold. The facilities that have their trucks fueled at another station may be eligible for the motor vehicle exemption for the toxic chemical in the gasoline otherwise used on-site.

Listed toxic chemicals used to maintain a non-motorized barge are not eligible for the motor vehicle maintenance exemption because the barge is not a motor vehicle. Toxic chemicals used to maintain the non-motorized barge must be factored into threshold determinations and release or other waste management calculations. Additionally, listed toxic chemicals used to operate machinery positioned on the barge, such as dredging equipment or cranes, are similarly not eligible for the motor vehicle exemption.

Yes. Releases of toxic chemicals from the barge while in dry dock on facility grounds must be included in release and other waste management calculations if reporting thresholds for those toxic chemicals are exceeded by the facility.

Chemicals such as paint and lubricants used to maintain railcars are not eligible for the motor vehicle maintenance exemption. Tractor trailers or railcars are not themselves motor vehicles and listed toxic chemicals contained in mixtures used to maintain them are not eligible for the motor vehicle maintenance exemption.

Amounts of fuel used only at the facility to transport vehicles on the facility’s property do not have to be counted towards thresholds and can be included under the motor vehicle exemption. If the jet fuel is in the planes when they leave the site to be sold or distributed in commerce, then the facility is considered to be processing the jet fuel and the listed chemicals in the fuel are subject to threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations.

Yes. The use of ethylene glycol to deice wings of aircraft operated by this federal facility is considered to be a form of motor vehicle maintenance. Because of the “motor vehicle maintenance” exemption, the ethylene glycol is exempt from the requirements of EPCRA section 313. EPA recommends, however, that federal facilities consider the leadership option of reporting EPCRA section 313 chemicals.

The motor vehicle exemption is applicable only to the “otherwise use” of an EPCRA section 313 chemical. This exemption includes EPCRA section 313 chemicals found in gasoline, diesel fuel, brake and transmission fluids, oils and lubricants, antifreeze, batteries, cleaning solutions, and solvents in paint used for touch-up, as long as the products are used to maintain the vehicle operated by the facility. The motor vehicle exemption does not apply to the manufacturing or processing of EPCRA section 313 chemicals. EPCRA section 313 chemicals manufactured during the combustion of gasoline, for instance, is not an exempt activity. EPA encourages federal facilities to play a leadership role, as advocated by Executive Order 13148, by not claiming the motor vehicle exemption.

Amounts of releases (including disposal) or other waste management practices associated with an exempt otherwise use of listed toxic chemicals are also exempt from release or other waste management calculations, provided the facility does not conduct a subsequent non-exempt activity involving the chemical.

Yes. However, the quantity of a listed toxic chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in a laboratory under the supervision of a technically qualified person is exempt from threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations. This exemption includes laboratories performing quality control activities including those located in covered facilities (40 CFR Section 372.38(d)).

Yes. The amount of nitric acid is reportable because the primary use of the chemical is a support function within the laboratory, not in actual research and development, quality assurance/quality control, or analytical activities under the supervision of a technically qualified individual. Because the nitric acid is used in a non-incorporative manner, it is classified as “otherwise use.”

Section 720.3(ee) is found in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations (40 CFR Section 720.3(ee)) and defines ‘technically qualified individual’ as a person or persons who, because of education, training or experience, or a combination of these factors, is capable of understanding and minimizing risks associated with the substance, and is responsible for safe procurement, storage, use, and disposal within the scope of research.

No. The facility does not need to consider listed toxic chemicals used in exempt laboratory activities when making threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations (40 CFR Section 372.38(d)).

For toxic chemicals to be exempted from reporting under the laboratory activities exemption, the activities must take place inside the laboratory. (40 CFR Section 372.38(d)(3).

A pilot plant within the appropriate NAICS codes is a covered facility if it meets the employee and chemical threshold criteria. Pilot plants are not covered by the laboratory activities exemption (40 CFR Section 372.38(d)(2)).

Specialty chemical production refers to listed toxic chemicals produced in a laboratory setting that are distributed in commerce.

There is no specific ‘quality control lab’ exemption. Rather, the exemption applies to activities in a laboratory in which a listed toxic chemical is manufactured, processed, or otherwise used under the supervision of a ‘technically qualified individual’ (40 CFR Section 372.38(d)). This exemption can cover activities in quality control labs.

Yes, provided that the laboratory at the covered facility is under the direct supervision of a technically qualified individual as provided in 40 CFR Section 372.38(d). The laboratory exemption applies to the manufacture, process, or otherwise use of listed toxic chemicals and any associated release or other waste management amounts that take place in a qualified laboratory.

No. The laboratory exemption applies to toxic chemicals that are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in an on-site laboratory under the direction of a technically qualified individual. Amounts of toxic chemicals sent to off-site laboratories are not eligible for this exemption and these amounts must be considered toward the facility’s threshold determination.

Yes. The laboratory activities exemption applies “if a toxic chemical is manufactured, processed, or used in a laboratory at a covered facility... (40 CFR 372.38(d)).” The fact that the EPCRA section 313 chemical is moved or “processed” to another facility’s laboratory for further testing does not negate the exemption.

No. Amounts of listed EPCRA section 313 chemicals that are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in conjunction with the preparation of such “specialty chemicals” (EPCRA section 313 chemicals produced in a laboratory setting that are distributed in commerce) cannot be claimed under the laboratory exemption. The use during the experiment may be exempt, but at the point that it is prepared for distribution to another facility, then it is undergoing a processing activity. The facility must include this amount in its processing threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations.

No. The portion of the waste released (including disposed) that is manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in a laboratory under the supervision of a technically qualified individual is eligible for the laboratory activities exemption (40 CFR Section 372.38). Amounts sampled by the on-site laboratory do not have to be included in the facility’s off-site transfer figures provided that the waste sample does not undergo any further non-exempt otherwise use or processing activity before leaving the facility.

Yes. The definition of an empty container pursuant to 40 CFR Section 261.7 does not apply to EPCRA section 313. Even though the residue remaining in a container rendered RCRA-empty is no longer considered a hazardous waste under federal RCRA regulations, it is still considered a toxic chemical under EPCRA section 313. The status of a listed toxic chemical as a nonhazardous waste under RCRA has no impact on the applicability of EPCRA regulations on that chemical. Under EPCRA Section 329, the term release is defined as “any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment (including the abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles) of any toxic chemical.” In Part II, Section 8.1 of the Form R, EPA requires facilities to report all releases of listed toxic chemicals, except those quantities released to the environment as a result of remedial actions, catastrophic events, or one-time events not associated with production processes. Disposal of a RCRA-empty container which contains any amount of a listed toxic chemical is generally reportable in Section 8.1 when transferred from or disposed at an EPCRA section 313 covered facility. If, however, the facility has total reportable amounts of a chemical that is not a chemical of special concern not exceeding 500 pounds, it may be eligible for the higher alternate reporting threshold in 40 CFR Section 327.27.

Yes. Despite the fact that the toxic chemical may have been eligible for the laboratory exemption, amounts of the listed toxic chemicals were returned to a process stream and subject to subsequent manufacture, process, or otherwise use activities. Activities performed involving listed toxic chemicals subsequent to an exempted activity must be considered toward threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations. Since the sample was placed back into the process stream and subsequently otherwise used (i.e., destroyed), amounts of the listed toxic chemical must be considered toward threshold determinations and release and other waste management calculations.

The facility would only be required to consider the pilot plant portion of the laboratory, assuming the remainder of the laboratory is under the supervision of a technically qualified individual (see 40 CFR Section 372.38(d)(2)).