In Bhopal, India, in 1984, a leak from a Union Carbide pesticide storage tank killed thousands of people sleeping in nearby residences. To mitigate the risk of a Bhopal-like incident in the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began requiring Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting, which obliges certain industrial facilities to provide data to the public about the toxic chemicals present in their communities. Since the TRI Program started, TRI data have begun to be used for purposes beyond the original goals of community awareness and emergency planning.A facility determines its TRI reporting obligations by answering three questions:
- Is the facility subject to TRI reporting[1]?
- Which chemicals did the facility manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than reporting thresholds?
- How much did the facility release of each of these chemicals?
The first question is simple and easy to answer. The third question is complicated for technical, justifiable reasons. Answering the second question is unnecessarily complicated and creates too much of a reporting burden for industry. The reason is that the reporting thresholds are different for the different categories[2], and all the categories are arbitrary theoretical constructs. The most intuitive category, “Manufacture,” includes chemicals that are the products of internal combustion engines or chemicals that are coincidentally produced as an undesirable byproduct or waste.
Why not just have one category (e.g., “Handle”) that includes all the activities previously included in the program definitions for “Process, Manufacture, and Otherwise Use” and phrase the second question from above as follows?
“Which chemicals did the facility handle in excess of the reporting threshold?”
This threshold could be 25,000 pounds for everything except the “Persistent, Bioaccumulate Toxins (PBT)” that have chemical-specific thresholds. Interestingly, the PBTs have the same threshold for all three categories. I believe this observation validates my suggestion.
Although facilities typically report to TRI using EPA’s “Form R,” facilities are allowed to submit a less detailed “Form A” for non-PBT chemicals if their threshold amounts are under 1,000,000 pounds and the total releases do not exceed 500 pounds. This is unnecessarily complicating the program. If EPA wants to reduce the burden, they should make the Form R simpler, by removing the questions under Section 8, for example.
I am so happy that EPA can proudly boast about the radical, visible improvement in air quality in many cities since the 1970s. EPA has many other achievements of a similar magnitude to be proud of; achievements that are less visible to the American public. Part of the way that EPA keeps pace with rapidly evolving industries is to manage their regulations as a growing ecosystem, like trees in a forest. Periodically, underbrush and deadwood must be removed from a forest, or a wildfire will consume it.
[1] Determine whether your “facility” meets the definition in TRI, identify your primary NAICS code, and determine whether you have 10 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs).
[2] For most chemicals, the “Manufacturing” and “Processing” thresholds are both 25,000 pound per year, and the “Otherwise Use” threshold is 10,000 pounds per year.