United States Office of Pollution February !998
Environmental Protection Prevention and Toxics EPA 745-B-98-001
Agency Washington, DC 20460
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT SECTION 313
ADDENDUM TO THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
FOR THE NEWLY ADDED INDUSTRIES
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
inn 3.1 "3 AHH^nHnm tr> t^nf OniHam-p D
-------
;«vtinn T 11 AHrlpnHiim try thp Hiiirlanrp nnrinnpnte fnr the Nfmlv AHHgH InrliiQtrioc Fphrnarv 10Q8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS
RECEIVED 4
FACILITY 4
Ownership 4
Multi establishment 6
Right-of-Way 6
COVERED SIC CODE 7
Auxiliary Facility 9
Solvent Recovery 10
EMPLOYEE THRESHOLD 11
CHEMICAL SPECIFIC ISSUES 12
REASONABLE ESTIMATES 15
Emission Factors 17
RELEASE REPORTING 17
Maximum Amount On-site 20
Section 8 Reporting 20
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 21
Record Keeping 21
MANUFACTURING 22
Impurity : 23
Import 24
PROCESSING 26
Intercompany Transfers 29
Repackaging 30
OTHERWISE USE 31
EXEMPTIONS 32
De Minimis 32
Article 33
Intake Water 33
Facility Grounds Maintenance 35
Structural Component 35
Personal Use Exemption 36
Laboratory Exemption 37
Motor Vehicle Maintenance 38
INDUSTRY SPECIFIC GUIDANCE 39
Metal Mining Overburden 39
-------
FPCB A ^prtifm T 1 ^ AHrtpnHum in thg Ciiiirtgnpi"nnrnmwitc fnr tin* Mo\vly AfMpH Inrfiigtriffg PcKmary 1QOR
Mining Disposal 39
Coal Extraction Exemption 41
Electricity Generating Facilities 42
Coincidental Manufacturing :• 43
Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Stations 43
Section II. CLARIFICATION OF THE NEW INDUSTRY GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ... 45
DEFINITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS 45
SIC Code Coverage 45
Processing 45
Recycling 45
Disposa 45
Thresholds 45
Reporting Releases 46
EXEMPTIONS 46
Laboratory Materials 46
Structural Component 47
AMENDMENTS TO INDUSTRY SPECIFIC GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS 47
Metal Mining Guidance 47
Beneficiation 47
Overburden 47
Chemical Distributors Guidance Document 48
Electricity Generators Guidance Document 48
Estimating Thresholds from Combustion 49
-------
FPfR A ^prtinn 7 IT A HHpnHiim tn thp fii]|ffanr<» Hnf iimgntc finr thp Npujly AHHoH li^jicfripg Fchrnary 1 OQB
Section 1. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED
EPA has received numerous questions requesting a determination of how particular
activities should be considered under EPCRA section 313. Many of these questions were raised
during training sessions held for the recently added industries in the fall of 1997. While many of
the questions raised closely resemble activities and questions to which EPA has responded to in
the recent revision of EPCRA Section 313: Questions and Answers: Revised 1997 version, EPA
is providing the following for additional assistance to potentially affected facilities.
FACILITY
Ownership
Ql. Company A owns and operates an electricity generating facility. The facility
consists of a combustion unit and a peaker unit. Company A sells the combustion
unit to Company B on June 15 of the reporting year, but retains ownership of the
peaker unit. From the time of purchase, Company B controlled and operated the
combustion unit and company A continued to own and operate the peaker unit.
What are the reporting responsibilities of Companies A and B for determining
thresholds and filing Form R reports?
Al. From the time of the purchase transaction on June 15, there are two separate facilities
with two non-related owners and operators. Thus. Company B is responsible only for
reporting for the combustion unit after its purchase. Company A is responsible for the
combustion unit and the peaker unit prior to sale, and only the peaker unit after the sale.
Thus, for threshold determinations. Company A must combine amounts of toxic
chemicals "manufactured." "processed," or "otherwise used" at the entire facility before
the transaction on June 15, with those "manufactured," "processed." or "otherwise used"
at the peaker unit after the transaction (see Q#30 of the Questions and Answers
Document 1997 version).
Q2. An electricity generating facility (EGF) is comprised of multiple independent
owners. Each individual owner runs his/her own separate operation, but each has a
financial interest in the operation of the entire facility. What name should be
entered as the parent company in Part I, Section 5.1 of Form R? Should the facility
report under one holding company name?
A2. The electricity generating facility should enter in Part 1. Section 5.1 of the Form R the
name of the holding or parent company, consortium, joint venture, or other entity that
owns, operates, or controls the facility.
Q3. A coal mine, that is subject to EPCRA Section 313, is owned and operated by
4
-------
AHHpnHntn tn thf*
fnrthp N^u/K/ &r\/4»A In'Hnctrio
company A and is adjacent to an electricity-generating facility (EGF), which is also
subject to EPCRA Section 313. The EGF is owned and operated by a joint venture
which Company A owns 40 percent of and Company B owns 60%. Are the coal
mine and the EGF considered one facility?
A3. No. The parent company in a joint venture is the joint venture. The electricity generating
facility is owned by Company B and is a separate facility from the adjacent coal mine.
Q4. A piece of contiguous property consists of three covered sites with various buildings,
structures and equipment. The three sites are owned by two different companies -
Company A and Company B. All three sites operate completely independently of
each other and have separate personnel, finances, and environmental reporting
systems. Site 1 and its buildings and structures are owned and operated by
Company A and site 3 and its buildings and structures are owned and operated by
Company B. The middle site, site 2 and its buildings and structures are owned by
Company A and operated by Company B (See Diagram). Are all three sites and
their buildings and structures considered separate facilities under EPCRA Section
313? Who is responsible for reporting for each?
1
Owned and
operated by A
2
Owned by A and
operated by B
3
Owned and
operated by B
A4. Under 40 CFR Section 372.3 a facility is defined as; "all buildings, equipment, structures.
and other stationary items which are located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent
sites and which are owned or operated by the same person." Because alt buildings and
structures located on sites 1 and 2 are located on contiguous property and are owned by
the same person they are considered one facility. Because all buildings and structures
located on sites 2 and 3 are located on contiguous property and are operated by the same
person they are also considered one facility. Therefore, the toxic chemicals
"manufactured," "processed," and "otherwise used" at site 2 must be counted toward both
facility A's and facility B's threshold determinations. The release and other waste
management reporting for sites 2 and 3 are the primary responsibility of Company B and
the release and other waste management reporting for site 1 is the primary responsibility
of Company A. EPA allows the release and other waste management reporting to be
done in this manner to avoid "double counting" of releases and waste management
activities at site 2. However, if no reports are received from a covered facility both the
owner and the operator are liable for penalties.
-------
FPf P A Qfftinn ^ I 7 ArtHpnHnm tn thp HniHanrc rinriimpntc fnr fhp Klou/ly Arlrl^H InriiKtri^c Fghrnarv 1QQ5J
MM/// establishment
Q5. Establishment A, B, and C are all part of Facility 1 and they elect to file separate
Form R reports for chemicals that exceeded a threshold based on combined
activities. Facility 1 exceeds the reporting threshold for benzene, but only
Establishments A and B use any benzene. Is Establishment C required to file a
Form R report for benzene?
A5. Provided that Establishment C has no amounts of the toxic chemical involved in
threshold or release calculations, Establishment C is not required to submit a report for
that chemical.
Q6. Two distinct SIC code operations that are covered under EPCRA section 313 (e.g.,
an electricity generating facility and a cement plant) are located on adjacent
properties and are owned by the same parent company. The two operations are
operated completely independently of one another (e.g., separate accounting
procedures, employees, etc.)- Are these two operations considered one facility under
EPCRA Section 313?
A6. Yes. Under EPCRA Section 313 facility is defined as; "all buildings, equipment,
structures, and other stationary items which are located on a single site or on contiguous
or adjacent sites and which are owned or operated by the same person." Because these
two operations are located on adjacent properties and are owned by the same person they
are considered one facility for EPCRA Section 313 reporting purposes.
Right-of-Way
Q7. A single company owns two divisions that operate separately. Both divisions are
within a covered SIC code. The two divisions are located on contiguous/adjacent
property that is divided by a public right-of-way. The entrance and exit between
the two operations are not at a cross-roads (i.e., access between the two operations
can only be gained by going along the public right-of-way; not simply crossing the
public right-of-way). Are the two divisions considered two separate facilities under
EPCRA Section 313 ?
A7, No. Because the two divisions are owned by the same person and are physically
contiguous/adjacent to one another, except for a public right-of-way, they are considered
one facility for Section 313 reporting purposes. A facility may consist of more than one
establishment. The entrances to each establishment within a multi-establishment facility
do not have to be located at a crossroads in order to meet the definition of facility.
EPCRA Section 313 defines a facility as "all buildings, equipment, structures, and other
stationary items which are located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites and
which are owned or operated by the same person" (40 CFR 372.3).
-------
PPPR A *sfrtirm ^ 1 "> ArlHp^rlurn tn tV^p f.nirfanrp rViriirnpntg fnr tfip Mi*-wlv Arlrltrl InHnctripc Fphriiary
Q8. Two covered bulk petroleum stations owned by the same parent company are
connected to each other by a pipeline some distance apart from each other. The
parent company controls the easement of the pipeline but the land on which the
pipeline rests is not owned by the parent company.' For the purposes of reporting on
the Form R, are the two stations considered two separate facilities?
A8. Yes. Since the two bulk petroleum stations are not contiguous or adjacent properties and
are connected only by a pipeline, the two stations are considered two separate facilities
with the same owner, even though the parent company controls the easement on which
the pipeline is located (see Q6 and Q48 of the EPCRA section 313 Questions and
Answers Document: Revised 1997 version).
COVERED SIC CODE
Q9. An electricity generating facility is owned by a utility authority but operated by a
different company. The utility authority has rights to half of the energy produced at
the electricity generating facility, and the operator of the facility has rights to the
other half. The operator sells its half of the energy to various users, including the
utility authority. Who is responsible for reporting?
A9. Both the owner and the operator are subject to the Section 313 reporting requirements.
However. EPA believes that the operator is more likely to have the information necessary
for reporting. If no reports are received from a covered facility both the owner and the
operator are liable for penalties (see Q27 and Q32 of the EPCRA section 313 Questions
and Answers Document: Revised 1997 version),
Q10. An electric generating facility produces power using coal and/or oil. All of the
power generated at the facility is used to support a single facility within the same
company that operates off-site from the electric generating facility. Is the electricity
produced by the electric generating facility1 considered to be distributed in
commerce for purposes of determining if the facility is "covered"?
A10. Yes. The electricity generating facility is classified within the SIC codes of 4911. 4931.
or 4939 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.
Qll. Does a facility' that.is subject to RCRA Subtitle C but only manages waste generated
7 '
-------
FPPRA ^prtinn 11^ AHHpnHnni tn thp riniHani~c Flnfnmonfg fnr ^p. Npwly AHHcH InHncrrioe F^Kmarv 1QQS
by facilities within the same company fall within the covered SIC code range for
TRI reporting?
All. Yes. Waste treatment facilities are classified in SIC code»4953«Refuse Systems, which
includes such activities as Hazardous waste treatment and disposal sites. Hazardous
waste treatment facilities which are regulated under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. section 6921 etseq. were added in the Final rule
published on May 1,1997 (62 FR 23833). A facility's SIC code classification is not
necessarily affected by limiting its function to activities that service facilities within the
same company. That a facility solely manages wastes from facilities of the same
company does not affect its classification and does not affect its coverage under EPCRA
section 313 in terms of the facility meeting the SIC code classification.
Q12. Is a mobile solvent recovery unit in the solvent recovery SIC code?
A12. Yes. If the owner or operator of a mobile solvent recovery unit conducts solvent recovery
services on a contract or fee basis, it is in SIC code 7389—the solvent recovery SIC code,
However, employee and activity thresholds must be exceeded before reporting may be
required.
Q13. An electricity generating facility in SIC code 4939 combusts coa! for generating
power for distribution in commerce. A warehouse is located several miles away and
stores materials for the electricity generating facility. While the warehouse serves as
support to a covered facility and is considered an auxiliary facility, the warehouse
does not combust coal or oil. Is the warehouse subject to EPCRA Section 313?
A13. No. Although the warehouse is an auxiliary facility, and therefore assumes SIC code
4939 from the electricity generating facility, facilities in SIC code 4939 are only covered
by EPCRA Section 313 if they also combust coal or oil for purposes of generating
electricity for distribution into commerce. Since the warehouse does not combust coal or
oil, it is not subject to reporting under Section 313.
Q14. Is a waste management facility that is classified in SIC code 4953 (Refuse Systems),
but is not regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) subject to EPCRA section 313?
A14. No. Facilities in SIC code 4953 are only subject to EPCRA section 313 if they are also
regulated under RCRA Subtitle C. Many types of waste management facilities operate
within SIC code 4953 which are not regulated under the RCRA Subtitle C programs, such
as sanitary landfills, garbage collection, and street refuse systems, which were not added
under EPCRA section 313 under the May 1, 1997 final rule.
-------
FPPR A Sorti<->n T, 1 1 AHHynHiim tn the fim'Hgn/y» Dftrnmonte far the "Mputly AHHpH InHnQfripc Fphrimrv 1QQS
Q15. The final rule on facility expansion created regulatory language in 40 CFR 372.22(b)
that limits the coverage of electricity generating facility to those who operate in SIC
codes 4911,4931, and 4939 specifically to those "facilities that combust coal and/or
oil for the PURPOSE (emphasis added) of generating'power for distribution in
commerce." Based on this regulatory language, are electricity generating facilities
that only use coal and/or oil to test backup generators considered covered facilities
for TRI reporting?
A15. No. Use of oil or coal for purposes of testing safety equipment, for example at nuclear
facilities, would not constitute a use of oil or coal for purposes of generating power for
distribution in commerce. Even if excess power is unavoidably generated during testing
and is consequently distributed in commerce. Thus, the facility would not be considered
covered. For example, existing regulations governing nuclear facilities, such as those
found in 10 CFR §50 Appendix A, require nuclear reactors to maintain safety equipment
to ensure that certain protective measures are operable in the event that equipment may
fail. These regulations specify that the safety equipment must be designed in such a way
as to be independent from the nuclear portion of the facility in order for safety equipment
to continue to function in the event that the nuclear portion fails or malfunctions. This
type of use of these fuels is not sufficient to bring a facility under the coverage of EPCRA
section 313. However, if a facility intentionally generates excess power during the testing
operations for the purpose of distributing it in commerce, the facility would be "covered."
Auxiliary Facility
Q16. A retail gas station sells only products supplied by one covered bulk petroleum
station. Is the retail gas station considered an auxiliary' facility and therefore does it
take on the covered SIC code of the bulk petroleum station?
Ar6. No. While the retail gas station sells only products supplied by the covered bulk
petroleum station it is not an auxiliary facility because it does not support the operation of
the bulk petroleum station (i.e., the retail sale of gasoline and other petroleum products is
a distinctly separate activity that benefits the gas station as opposed to benefiting the bulk
petroleum station). An auxiliary facility is one that supports another facility's activities.
An auxiliary facility can assume the SIC code of another covered facility if its primary
function is to serve that other covered facility's operations.
Q17. A covered facility consists of three establishments. If a warehouse located on a non-
contiguous/adjacent site 20 miles away solely supports one of the covered facility's
establishments that is not within a covered SIC code, is that warehouse considered a
covered facility because of its status as an auxiliary facility'?
A17. No. An auxiliary facility may assume the SIC code of the specific establishment or
establishments it supports. Because the auxiliary facility assumes a non-covered SIC
-------
FPf RA ^prtirm ^ 1 ^ AHHcnHiiTn fn tho Cin»Hanf»» Df>r»iTincri<-c fnr thp Mgyly AHHgrl [nHiiclripc Fphmary IQQS
code, it is not a covered facility.
Q18. A chemical distribution facility has an off-site chemical bulk storage unit on a non-
contiguous property that is typically unmanned. When filling orders for customers,
the facility sends trucks to the off-site bulk storage unit, "drums-off' a specified
amount and delivers the order to the customer. What reporting is required for the
chemicals that are "processed" at this off-site location?
A18. The off-site location may itself be classified as a chemical distribution facility and be
"covered" in terms of its SIC code designation. The off-site bulk storage facility may
also assume the SIC code of the "covered" chemical distributor that it supports and also
be considered "covered." In terms of determining if the off-site facility meets the
employee threshold and potentially be required to report, the facility should consider all
of the hours spent servicing the units such as product delivery, tank clean-out, and
construction in making that determination. If these hours add up to 20,000 over the
course of the reporting year, the facility would meet the employee threshold and be
required to consider its chemical management practices. It is possible that the type of
employee hours associated with the off-site bulk storage facility would potentially exceed
thresholds in one year and not in another.
Solvent Recovery
Q19. SIC Code 7389 (business services, not elsewhere classified) contains many diverse
activities. How does a facility that conducts more than one activity in SIC 7389
determine if it is primarily engaged in solvent recovery, and therefore, covered
under EPCRA section 313?
A19. A facility, that conducts several uniquely different activities that are within SIC code
7389, should identify the value of the goods or services which each contribute. A facility
is considered to be "primarily engaged" in solvent recovery, if the goods or services
produced by the solvent recovery portion have a value of more than 50 percent of the total
value of ali goods and services produced at the facility, or if the goods and services
produced by the solvent recovery portion of the facility are greater than those produced by
any other portion of the facility (see Q#41 from the Questions and Answers Document
revised 1997 version).
EMPLOYEE THRESHOLD
Q20. Does Facility A need to include in its employee threshold (10 FTE/20,000 hours)
determination sales representatives that work for Facility A but are never/rarely
physically working at Facility A?
A20. Yes. For purposes of determining the EPCRA section 313 employee threshold, employee
10
-------
FPPR A *^pf tinn ^ 1 ^ AHHpnftiim tn thf finiHanr»» nfK-innpntg fnr fhp fjpu/ly AHHprl Inrfiigtricc Ffhriigrv 1008
hours should be included in the employee calculation for the facility which the employees
directly support. Therefore, if the hours spent by sales staff directly support a facility,
then their hours should be allocated to the facility they directly support, regardless of the
amount of time that the employee is physically at the facility.
Q21. Facility A stores oil at Facility B. Facilities A and B have different owners. Facility
A sends personnel to Facility B to load oil onto Facility A's trucks using Facility B's
truck rack. Facility A then distributes the oil in commerce. Who processed the oil
and does Facility B have to count Facility A's hours?
A21. Facility B has processed the oil which was taken from Facility B's truck rack located on
Facility B's property. Facility A's management of product at Facility B must be
considered toward Facility B's threshold, release and other waste management
calculations where appropriate. The hours spent by Facility A's truck drivers while at
Facility B do not directly support Facility B but instead directly support Facility A and
should be accounted for by Facility A, if required.
Q22. A petroleum bulk terminal contracts with truck jobbers who purchase its petroleum
products. The terminal has no direct control over the activities of the truck drivers.
Are the hours worked by these jobbers and their drivers at the petroleum terminal
counted towards the terminal's employee threshold calculation?
A22. No. The hours worked by the truck jobbers do not directly support the terminal. The
jobbers purchase the petroleum products and function as customers to the terminal. The
terminal has processed the petroleum product at the point that the jobbers take possession
of the petroleum products.
Q23. A covered facility that is part of a larger corporate entity has corporate employees
located on-site. These employees do not directly support the activities that arc
conducted at the facility where they are located; rather, their time is spent working
for other facilities that are part of the same corporate entity'. Does the facility where
these employees are located have to count the hours worked by these employees
toward its employee threshold?
A23. Yes. The facility where these employees are located should count the hours worked by
them toward its employee threshold, unless the facility's time keeping system allows it to
track the time worked by these employees according to the actual facility for which they
were working. If a facility can demonstrate through time keeping records that the time
worked by these employees was in support of another facility within the same corporate
entity, it does not have to count the hours worked by these employees towards its
employee threshold. The facility which these employees directly support would have to
count the hours toward its employee threshold.
11
-------
FPr~RA Spt-tinn 1 I "3 AHHpnHi[p tn the CiiiiHanrp nnrnmOTitc fnr thp Nmi/lv AHHprl InHnglripc Fphriiarv IQQg
Q24. An electricity generating facility has maintenance staff for maintaining the
electricity distribution system. Staff are based on site. When counting the hours of
this staff, the electricity generating facility is over the 20,000 hours or 10 FTE
threshold. Without counting the management staff hours, the electricity generating
facility falls below the 20,000 hours or 10 FTE threshold. Because these hours are
not directly in support of the electricity generating portion of the facility (i.e., they
are in support of the distribution system), do they count toward the 20,000 hours or
10 FTE threshold?
A24. Yes. Hours worked by employees who support the distribution system must be included
in the facility's employee determination. All of the hours worked by all employees based
at a "covered" facility whose function it is to support the "covered" facility would be
considered toward the facility's employee threshold, regardless of whether the activities
they perform are associated with covered activities or not (see also Ql 8 of the EPCRA
section 313 Questions and Answers Document: Revised 1997 version).
Q25. How does a facility consider overtime worked by full-time employees?
A25. 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 (see Q16 of the EPCRA section 313 Questions
and Answers Document Revised 1997 version).
CHEMICAL SPECIFIC ISSUES
Q26. How should a facility estimate sulfuric acid drifting (aerosol or reportable forms)
out of a cooling tower? There is no accepted procedure/guidance for how to best
estimate this sulfuric acid drift. Is this reportable?
A26. Amounts of sulfuric or hydrochloric acid that drift from process steps are considered a
release and are reportable provided the facility has exceeded thresholds. Facilities must
use their best available information in developing estimates. This information may come
from a variety of sources, and to assist facilities in determining what is reportable for
sulfuric acid aerosols, EPA has published a guidance document entitled. Emergency
Planning and Community Righ.t-to-K.now Act-Section 313: Guidance for Reporting
Sulfuric Acid (EPA-745-R-9 7-007; November 1997 EPA-745-R-97-007. Facilities may
also find equipment operating specification information useful in developing threshold
and release calculations.
Q27. How should facilities estimate the maximum quantity on-site for hydrochloric acid
(aerosol), which is manufactured as a by-product of the combustion process and
directly vented to a stack?
12
-------
FPPPA ^f>rttnn 111 AHHpnHum tn thp riiiiHanrf* rVtriirngnfc for fhf Mpwlv AHH**H Ttu-lnctripc FAhntarv 1QOR
^—^^.^^^iill—llll>l—^^^^^^^a^p,,,,,,^^
A27. When determining the maximum amount on-site for Part II, section 4 of the Form R, only
the reportable form of a chemical (e.g., aerosol) is to be considered. The quantity of the
hydrochloric acid (aerosol) could be estimated by determining the volume of the air
stream that could contain hydrochloric acid (aerosol), as well as the concentration of the
acid in the air stream. In this case, the volume would be the interior volume of the
equipment from where it is manufactured (e.g., boiler) to where it is released (e.g.. stack).
Keep in mind that the range codes used for the maximum quantity on-site are quite broad.
and therefore, a precise calculation may not always be required. Facilities are also
directed to refer to the Guidance for Reporting Sulfuric Acid (EPA-745-R-97-007;
November 1997) and the Coal Mining Guidance Document EPA 745-B-97-012. October
1997 for further assistance.
Q28. In 1999, a facility's sulfuric acid reuse system starts the year with 4,000 pounds of
sulfuric acid, and the facility adds 8,000 pounds to the system. How should the
facility make threshold determinations for sulfuric acid (acid aerosol)?
A28. The method for estimating amounts of sulfuric acid (acid aerosol and hydrochloric acid
(acid aerosol) for threshold purposes is unique as compared to other listed toxic
chemicals. In the above question, the facility should apply 12,000 pounds towards the
"manufacturing" and "otherwise use" thresholds. To determine the amount
"manufactured" in an acid reuse system, the facility should calculate the total volume
amount of acid in the system. The total volume of acid is the sum of the reporting year's
starting amount and the amount added during the reporting year. Because all the sulfuric
acid aerosol "manufactured" is subsequently "otherwise used," the 12.000 pounds are
also applied to the "otherwise use" threshold of 10.000 pounds. Therefore, the facility
exceeds the "otherwise use" threshold and must file a Form R or Form A. Facilities are
also directed to refer to the Guidance for Reporting Sulfuric Acid (EPA-745-R-97-007;
November 1997, and the Coal Mining Guidance Document EPA 745-B-97-012, for
further assistance.
Q29. At a mining facility, sulfuric acid aerosol is sprayed onto a copper ore pile to leach
copper sulfate for further processing. How should the facility make threshold
determinations for sulfuric acid?
A29. 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 applied to the ore pile. In this case, 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
13
-------
FPPP A Scftinn 3 I ^ AHHpnHnrn tn the fliiiHanro rVviimMitg fnr thy Ngu/ly AHHpH InHiictrioc Pchrnqrv 1 QQR
pounds for sulfuric acid (acid aerosol), in addition to considering amounts of copper
sulfate that is 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.
Q30. Would a sulfuric acid drip system that is in contact with an ore leach pile (described
as analogous to a gardener's drip hose) be manufacturing sulfuric acid in an aerosol
form?
A30. No, provided that the sulfuric acid does not become airborne. Based on the situation
described, the sulfuric acid does not become airborne, it is not an aerosol form of sulfuric
acid and, therefore, not a reportable toxic chemical under EPCRA Section 313.
Q31. At a mining facility, hydrochloric acid aerosol is sprayed onto an ore pile to leach
minerals for further processing. According to Guidance for Reporting Sulfuric Acid,
the total volume of acid should be counted towards the manufacturing threshold of
25,000 pounds. Should this quantity also go towards the otherwise use threshold?
A31. Yes, because the facility is "otherwise using" the hydrochloric acid (acid aerosol).
amounts of the acid aerosol should also be considered toward the "otherwise use"
threshold.
Q32. A facility "manufactures" an aluminum dust which is captured in a bag house, the
dust is put into a smelter, and then put back into the process where it is recast into
ingots, and sold. How is the dust considered for purposes of determining thresholds
and estimating releases and waste management activities?
A32. 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, and
these amounts are considered to be "processed" and must be counted toward that
"processing" threshold. The aluminum dust that is captured and put back into the process
is reported in Part 11, Section 8.6 - Quantity Treated On-Site because the aluminum dust is
converted to a non-listed form of the chemical.
REASONABLE ESTIMATES
Q33. If a facility has analytical data that will take extensive time and money to calculate
emissions, can that facility use the maximum emission level specified in their permit
to calculate their emissions?
14
-------
FPf R A ^prtiAn ^ 1 "\ AHHpnHiim tn tho HniHanf p r>nrtimgntc Fnr the Mpvmly AHHfrt InHiictrioc February IOOR
A33. EPCRA allows facilities to use "readily available data" to provide information required
under Section 313. When data are not readily available, EPCRA allows facilities to use
"reasonable estimates"of the amounts involved. A facility must use its best judgment to
determine whether analytical data are "readily available.K If they are not. the facility's
use of maximum emissions levels, as specified in its permits, may be a reasonable basis
from which to form its estimates. In any event, a facility should carefully document the
reason for its decision making.
Q34. Ozone is manufactured as a result of the generation and transmission of electric
power. Must the electricity generating facility report the amount of ozone
manufactured?
A34. Yes. Amounts of ozone (a listed toxic chemical) "manufactured" at a covered facility
must be considered toward the facility's "manufacturing" threshold for ozone. If the
facility knows that ozone is being "manufactured," then the facility must use its best
available information to provide reasonable estimates in making threshold and release
and other waste management calculations.
Q35. What burden does the facility have undertake to verify the accuracy/completeness
of information provided to it under the requirements of supplier notification?
ASS. A facility must use the best available information in making threshold determinations and
release and other waste management calculations. If the facility has an indication that
information provided by the supplier is unreasonable, they should look to other sources of
information that they believe are more representative of listed toxic chemicals and their
concentrations contained in mixtures or trade name products received from their
suppliers. Facilities must document assumptions and calculations used for making
threshold determinations and reporting on Form R or Form A.
Q36. If a facility has analytical data indicating the concentration of a Section 313
chemical is below the limits of detection and the facility has no information on the
probability of the chemical being present in that waste stream (e.g., Superfund
waste), should the facility use half the detection limit? What documentation will
EPA require if the facility asserts that it had no basis for expecting the Section 313
chemical to be present?
A36. If the facility has no information to indicate that the chemical exists in the waste stream, it
may assume that the concentration is zero. If the facility has reason to believe that the
listed toxic chemical is present, it may use half of the detection limit. The facility should
document that it looked at all information available to the facility.
15
-------
FPf P A g»ftinn 11T AfMpnHnrn tn thf niiirlanrc Primm/Mitc for thf Mun/ly AHHgH InHnctrifc Fchrnary IQQfi
Q37. A covered treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) receives a corrected
waste profile in September for a type of waste that the facility has been receiving
since January 1. The corrected waste profile indicates that a listed toxic chemical is
in the waste stream at a higher concentration than was indicated on previous waste
profiles. Must the TSDF revise it's threshold determinations and release and other
waste management calculations back to the beginning of the reporting year or only
from the date (September) that the corrected information was received?
A3 7. The facility must revise its threshold, release and other waste management calculations
back to the beginning of the year, if the facility receives information that they believe is
more accurate in depicting amounts of toxic chemicals that they manage. Facilities
required to report under EPCRA section 313 are required to use their best readily
available information as provided by EPCRA section 313(g)(2). If facilities obtain
information that they believe is better than the information that they applied for previous
report submissions., the facility may submit a revision for prior years provided that they
document the basis for the revision.
Q38. A covered facility is required to file a Form R for benzene. The facility did not have
any known accidental spills or releases to land of benzene during the calendar year.
Is it appropriate for the facility to report "NA" in Part II Section 5.5.4, Other
Disposal?
A38. No. It is only appropriate to report NA when there is no possibility a release could have
occurred to a specific media or off-site location. In Section 5.5.4 the facility is required
to report any amount of a listed toxic chemical released to land that does not fit the
categories of landfills, land treatment, or surface impoundments. This includes any spills
or leaks of the listed toxic chemical to land. White there were no known spills or leaks to
land of benzene, the possibility does exist that a release could have occurred. In this
situation, the facility should report 0 in Section 5.5.4 and provide a basis of estimate (see
Toxic Release Inventory Form R and Instructions: Revised 1996 version).
Q39. A metal mining facility "manufactures," "processes," and "otherwise uses" cyanide
compounds but only exceeds the "otherwise use" threshold. How should this facility
complete Part II, Section 3 of the Form R?
A39. Even though the facility only exceeds the "otherwise use" threshold it is required to
identify all manufacture, process, and otherwise use activities and check at least one box
in Sections 3.1. 3.2. and 3.3. The Form 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 non-exempt activities at the facility, and not just those
16
-------
A Portion ~\ n Ariripnfhim tn tVip fiiitriam*p rVirmngntg for thg Mpwly A rlrtpH lnHnctri<»<: Fphmgry 1008
associated with otherwise use activities.
Emission Factors
Q40. Are emission factors published by other than EPA sources reported as an "E" or an
"O."
A40. Published emission factors by sources other than EPA which contain chemical specific
emission rates may be reported as " E '" otherwise, published emission factors which are
not chemical specific are indicated as "0".
RELEASE REPORTING
Q41. Are toxic chemicals in waste stored on a concrete pad outside considered a reiease?
A41. Waste stored on a concrete pad must be counted as a release to land if the facility intends
to leave the material on the pad for an indefinite period. If the facility routinely uses the
pad for "temporary'' storage of waste until enough waste is accumulated and then sends
the waste off-site for treatment or disposal purposes, or otherwise management activities
on-site, then the "temporary" storage need not be reported as a release to land within the
reporting year when it is "temporarily stored" and only those amounts released from the
pad, such as runoff, would be reported as released, provided thresholds have been
exceeded elsewhere at the facility.
Q42. If a facility in one of the new industries, which begins reporting for activities
conducted in 1998, has information on the amount of seepage from a landfill in
1998, do they report this amount as a release to land, since they were not required to
report the initial disposal to land in the previous year?
A42. No. facilities are required to report only the amounts which are disposed during the year
in which they are disposed, provided certain thresholds have been meet and the facility
does not conduct any further activities involving amounts previously disposed. Amounts
which move within the same media, such as seepage from a landfill to surrounding soils
do not have to be included in release estimates in subsequent years. EPA requires
reporting of the amount of toxic chemical placed in an on-site landfill during the year. It
is not necessary to estimate migration from the landfill in subsequent years, provided the
facility does not conduct activities that further involve the listed toxic chemical disposed
(see Q348 of the EPCRA section 313 Questions and Answer Document: Revised 1997
version).
Q43. In 1999, a facility disposes of a waste containing benzene in an on-site landfill, but
does not exceed an activity threshold for benzene. The facility does not report the
amount of benzene released to the landfill in 1999. In 2000, the facility1 exceeds a
17
-------
FPfRA ^<>rti<-tn "> 1 ^ AHHfnrtiim trt thf nm'Hanrf nnpnmcntc fnr fhp Kl>»iuly ArlrlpH lnrliictri^<: Ffhnigrv 1QQ8
threshold for benzene. If some of the benzene released to land in 1999 seeps from
the landfill to groundwater (i.e., migrates within the same media), does the facility
report the amount of benzene that seeped into groundwater during 1999?
\
A43. No. EPA requires reporting of the amount of a toxic chemical placed in an on-site landfill
during the year in which these amounts were disposed. Amounts disposed in previous
years are not repoitable in subsequent submissions provided no additional activity was
performed with these amounts.
Q44. A facility disposes of an amount of waste in a surface impoundment in year 1 for
which no report was required. In year 2, a report for the chemical is required and
the chemical has migrated from the surface impoundment to ground water. Does
the facility have to report the amount migrated in year 2?
A44. No, facilities are only required to report amounts released or otherwise managed in the
year that the amounts were released or otherwise managed for chemicals for which they
exceeded thresholds. If a facility exceeds thresholds in a subsequent year for a chemical
that was disposed of in a preceding year, the facility should not report amounts previously
released or otherwise managed. Facilities are also not required to estimate the migration
of chemicals from landfills except for the current reporting year (see Q348 of the EPCRA
section 313 Questions and Answer Document: Revised 1997 version).
Q45. A facility captures leachate from a landfill, treats the leachate with a toxic chemical
and then uses the treated leachate as on-site irrigation water. Assuming the facility
exceeds the otherwise use threshold for the toxic chemical, is the "otherwise use" of
treated leachate containing the toxic chemical as irrigation water reported as a
release to land in Section 5.5.4, Other Disposal?
A45. Yes. Use of a leachate and chemicals contained in the leachate for irrigation purposes is
considered an "otherwise use" and amounts of listed toxic chemicals contained in the
leachate must be counted toward the "otherwise use" threshold. Any listed toxic
chemicals manufactured during the treatment of the leachate would also need to be
considered toward the "manufacturing" threshold. The leachate. and listed toxic
chemicals contained in the leachate, are also considered a waste and any "otherwise use"
of listed toxic chemicals contained in the leachate is not eligible for the de minimis
exemption. All amounts must be counted toward the "otherwise use" threshold. The
"otherwise use" of these chemicals for irrigation constitutes a release to land and would
be reportable in Part II 5.5.4 Other Disposal.
Q46. If waste rock piled at the end of one reporting year is considered a release to land,
and is processed in subsequent years, should the tailings/closed dump resulting from
the subsequent processing be reported again as a release to land? If so, wouldn't
18
-------
PPPR A goffinn 1}"$ AHrlpnrtiim tr» fho riniHanrp TVviimMitc fnr thp Moivly ArlHpH InHnctrifc Fphrngrv I OQS
this constitute double accounting over the reporting years?
A46. Amounts released, including disposed, are reportable during the year in which the
releases occur, provided reporting thresholds have been exceeded. If an amount of a
listed toxic chemical previously disposed of is "manufactured," "processed," or
"otherwise used" in a subsequent year then the facility should consider these amounts as
it would new materials brought on-site, and report any waste management activities that
are associated with toxic chemicals for which thresholds have been exceeded.
Q47. A mining facility leaches metals from an outdoor ore pile and collects the leachate
for further processing. Should the toxic chemicals in the pile be reported as a
release to land on the Form R?
A47. During the leaching, the ore pile is considered part of the facility's process, and toxic
chemicals in the pile should not be reported as a release to land. Once the leaching
process is complete, and the ore pile is "closed," the facility will report the toxic
chemicals remaining in the pile as a release to land in Section 5.5.4 of Form R, "Other
Disposal." However, amounts of listed toxic chemicals that escape the pile and are either
released to land or surface water, for example, must be considered toward release
calculations if a threshold has been exceeded.
Q48. Is ash placed on-site in a pile waiting to be sold during construction season
considered a release to land for the reporting year prior to its transfer?
A48. Material that is placed on site during a reporting year does not have to be reported as a
release to land on-site if the pile was only used for temporary storage. EPA will consider
the pile used for temporary storage if the facility routinely made off-site transfers of
material from the pile during that reporting year or the facility had a contract in place to
transfer the material before the end of the reporting year and transferred the material
containing listed toxic chemicals off-site before that year's report was required or by July
1. whichever comes first (see Q395 of the EPCRA section 313 Questions and Answers
Document: Revised 1997 version).
Maximum Amount On-site
Q49. How do facilities that operate landfills report maximum amount of a chemical on
site? Does this data element take into account amounts of a chemical that have been
disposed of in prior years?
A49. To comply with EPCRA's maximum amount on site requirement, facilities should report
in data element 4.1, Part II. of the Form R. the maximum quantity of the toxic chemical
present at the facility during the fiscal year. Facilities should include amounts of the
chemical in storage tanks, process vessels, onsite shipping containers, and any other
19
-------
^tvtinn 111 AMentinm tnthp Gnjjjftpro nnrumpntt fnr the Mgu/ly AHHpH Inrtnctripy Eghmary 1008
amount of the chemical at the facility. If the toxic chemical was present at several
locations within the facility, the facility should use the total amount present at the entire
facility at any one time. Facilities do not have to count amounts of the toxic chemical
that it disposed of on site in previous years. «
Section 8 Reporting
Q50. A facility has estimated fugitive emissions to be 52 pounds and, based on their lack
of precision in this estimate, have reported it as range code B (11-499 pounds) in
section 5 of the Form R. When reporting the quantity released in section 8.1, what
quantity should they use to represent their fugitive emissions when adding up all
releases: 52 (the calculated result) or 255 (the midpoint of the range)?
A50. Facilities are not allowed to use range codes in section 8 of the Form R, In this instance.
the owner/operator seems to have estimated their fugitive emissions from data relevant to
the listed toxic chemical and the activities occurring at their facility. The air emissions
reported in section 8.1 should be 52 pounds unless they have better information about
their emissions.
Q51. Are releases due to a pipe rupture which was caused by premature failure of the
pipe (no direct cause known) considered a catastrophic release and reportablc in
Part II, Section 8.8?
A51. Releases reported in Part II. Section 8.8 of the Form R should be the result of a remedial
action, a catastrophic event or a one time release not associated with normal or routine
production processes. In general, pipes have an expected lifespan. If a pipe ruptures
during its expected lifespan for no known reason, the release should be considered a one-
time release not associated with normal or routine production processes and should be
reported in section 8.8. However, if the pipe bursts because it was in use after its
expected lifespan, it should not be considered a one-time release because it should have
been replaced.
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Q52. Is it appropriate for a TSDF to develop an average concentration for a section 313
chemical contained in thousands of different waste streams managed by the facility,
and then use that average as a basis of threshold determination? If so does EPA
have a recommended approach for developing such an average?
A52. EPCRA allows facilities to use "readily available data" to provide information required
under Section 313. When data are not readily available, EPCRA allows facilities to use
"reasonable estimates'"of the amounts involved. A facility must use its best judgment to
20
-------
FPf R A
-------
FPf'Rd Qppfinn "\1 < AHHpnHiirn tn the CiiiiHanrg nnmrncnf-c fnr thp Npvuly AHHcrl InHnctripc Fphrnan 10QS
managed. Facilities have the option to submit one Form R or Form A (which ever is
appropriate) that includes the amounts of the elemental metal from the parent metal along
with amounts of the metal portion from the metal compounds on their report, if thresholds
• for both the elemental metal and its metal compounds have been exceeded.
Q55. Are facilities required to consider in threshold determinations and release and other
waste management calculations, amounts of section 313 chemicals manufactured
from combustion during exempt "otherwise use" activities (e.g., from motor
vehicles, personal use, routine maintenance, intake water, and structural
component).
A55. The exemptions defined at 40 CFR 372.38(c) are intended for chemicals "otherwise
used." Amounts of chemicals manufactured during these "exempt" activities are not
exempt (see Q170 of the EPCRA section 313 Questions and Answer Document: Revised
1997 version).
Q56. A mining facility stores coal or ore outside. One or more listed toxic chemicals are
contained within the storage piles. Due to exposure and weathering influences,
other listed toxic chemicals are manufactured in the storage piles and may
subsequently run-off onto land or surface water. How should the facility consider
the manufacturing of listed toxic chemicals within a storage pile?
A56. Amounts of listed TOXIC chemicals known to be "manufactured" on-site from the storage
of raw materials, mixtures, or trade name products must be considered toward the
"manufacturing" threshold for those chemicals. The term "manufacture" means "to
produce, prepare, import, or compound a toxic chemical." If the mining facility has
knowledge that a listed toxic chemical is "manufactured" on-site. the facility should count
the amount of the listed toxic chemical "manufactured" toward the "manufacturing"
threshold.
Q57. A mining facility uses sodium cyanide to leach gold from an ore pile. The leaching
produces a solution of gold cyanide compounds, which is further processed to
extract the gold from the cyanide compounds. The remaining cyanide is converted
back to sodium cyanide for reuse on the leach pile. How should the facility calculate
the amount of cyanide compounds manufactured and otherwise used? Since
cyanide compounds are manufactured prior to each use, should the facility' use the
method outlined for sulfuric acid threshold determinations? Are the cyanide
compounds also processed since they are intermediates?
A57. In this scenario, cyanide compounds are "otherwise used," "processed," and
"manufactured." Eloth the gold cyanide compound and sodium cyanide are
"manufactured." Cyanide compounds are "processed" because part of the cyanide
22
-------
FPfP A ^gj'tinn ll'l Aiji\i>TiAitm tn the finiHaiu-p DnffiimMitg fnr th»"Klcwly JkAApA InHiictrW F(»hrnarv IQQS
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.
Impurity
Q58. A facility adds a chemical to water for pH control which results in the coincidental
manufactures of another listed toxic chemical. This chemical is then applied to coal
which is further distributed in commerce. Is the generated chemical considered an
impurity and eligible for the de minimis exemption?
A58. No, under EPCRA section 313, an impurity refers to a chemical that is coincidentally
"manufactured" as a result of the "manufacture," "process," or "otherwise use" of another
chemical, but is not separated from that chemical and remains primarily with the product
or mixture. Because the listed toxic chemical is "manufactured" during the treatment of
water and not during the "processing" of the primary product or mixture, then it is not
considered an impurity. In this case, the facility should consider amounts of chemicals
"manufactured" toward the "manufacturing" threshold, to the extent that the facility has
information on the amount of a listed toxic chemical that is "manufactured." In addition.
to the extent that the water and the listed toxic chemicals that are applied to the coal are
intended to be incorporated into the coal product, then the chemical "manufactured" in
the water treatment process may also be "processed".
Q59. A chemical is manufactured in a waste stream. The waste stream is then applied to
a product for distribution in commerce. Can the de minimis exemption be taken for
the toxic chemicals manufactured in the waste stream that are distributed with the
product?
A59. No. For the purposes of calculating the "manufacturing" threshold, the de minimis
exemption cannot be applied to listed toxic chemicals in waste or listed toxic chemicals
"manufactured" in waste.
Import
Q60. For purposes of considering listed toxic chemicals to be imported under EPCRA
section 313, are the U.S. Virgin Islands within the customs territory of the United
States?
A60. No. The U.S. Virgin Islands are not within the customs territory of the United Stales. The
23
-------
FPf R A ^frtinn ^ 1 "s AHrlpnrti\i-n tn thi» OntrfgtM'f* n^niTnpntQ fr>T thf Npxvty Arfriori tnriitgtrjpg Frfwiiayy )QQR
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 Island:;, the Northern Mariana Islands, or any other territory or possession
over which the United States has jurisdiction, therefore, Hsted toxic chemicals that come
from the U.S. Virgin Islands into the U.S. customs territory would be considered
imported.
Q61. If a TSDF imports a waste that contains a listed Section 313 chemical and assigns it
to a transfer facility, whereby the transfer facility sends it to a final TSDF, who has
imported it?
A61. 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 on its own initiative
directs another facility to receive the shipment, then the receiving facility has not
"imported" the shipment, 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.
Q62. U.S. law requires that wastes produced in Mexico by an American owned company
be sent back to the U.S. for further waste management (Maquiladora waste). When
the facility operating within the U.S. receives the wastes, has it manufactured the
toxic chemicals contained in those waste? Because this law requires that these
wastes be returned to the U.S. for further waste management, did the U.S. facility
receiving these wastes cause the wastes to be imported?
A62. Yes, the receiving facility either has a contract or 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 and
because the amounts are in waste the de minimis exemption is not applicable. 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.
Q63. A TSDF requests certain types of waste containing toxic chemicals from an
import/export broker. The broker then forwards the waste to the TSDF for waste
management. Who "caused" the toxic chemical to be imported?
24
-------
F.PC-R A^5?prjinn " ^ AHHpnrliim tf» the Cliiidsmrp nnpiimpntc fnr fhp Mpivl ArlHpH InHncfrifx; Fphniarv IPOS
A63. The TSDF "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 TSDF "caused it
to be imported," even though it used an import brokerage firm as an agent to obtain the
toxic chemicals. 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 listed toxic chemical.
Q64. A chemical distributor arranges the importation of a material containing a toxic
chemical, by specific request from a customer. The material goes directly to the
customer. The material never enters the boundaries of the chemical distributor's
facility. Who should count the amount of toxic chemical towards the manufacturing
threshold?
A64. 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.
PROCESSING
Q65. A facility receives a chemical in bulk and repackages it into smaller containers
which are sent to consumers. Are amounts "repackaged" considered toward an
"activity threshold."
A65. Amounts repackaged for distribution in commerce must be considered toward the
"processing" threshold amount of 25.000 pounds per listed toxic chemical.
Q66. Does it matter for purposes of determining the "processing" threshold if amounts
are received in smaller containers and repackaged into a larger container prior to
their distribution in commerce?
A66. 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.
Q67. A facility receives a chemical in bulk, repackages the chemical into reusable
containers that are sent to customers, who then return the containers to be refilled.
How does the facility consider residual amounts of the product returned to the
facility in used containers, which are then subsequently refilled and redistributed in
25
-------
FPPR A ^*»r>iAri "3 1 7 AHH^nHnri fn tVif nmrlnnr Hnf iimgntc fnr thp Npxvl AHrtpH InHusH-ipc Ffhmarv IOO8
commerce?
A61. The residual amounts that are returned to the facility in the reusable containers, which are
subsequently refilled and further distributed to other customers are considered to be
"processed," These amounts must be considered toward the facility's "processing"
threshold.
Q6S. The preamble to the final rule says that extraction of ore containing toxic chemicals
for subsequent distribution in commerce constitutes the "processing" of those listed
chemicals. Does this mean that metal compounds in extracted ore are processed,
even if they are later converted to different compounds which are then distributed
in commerce (i.e., the extracted compound is considered a process intermediate)?
A68. 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 facilities "processing" threshold because
a part of the original metal compound is incorporated into the product which is ultimately
distributed in commerce.
Q69. If ore is extracted for ultimate distribution in commerce, are toxic chemicals in ore
that are not actually distributed during the reporting year considered to be
processed for threshold determination purposes, since they were prepared for
distribution during the reporting year?
A69. Yes. The total amounts of the listed toxic chemicals contained in the ore are considered
toward the facility's processing threshold in the year that the amounts undergo a
processing step. For purposes of EPCRA section 313 threshold determination, extraction
is considered a processing step and all amounts extracted for preparation of a product to
be distributed in commerce are considered "processed" in the year they are extracted.
Q70. Are trace metals in ore that remain in the product, and are in the same form as the
one extracted considered processed? Does it matter if the facility is attempting to
remove those trace metals from the product, and does not intend for them to be
distributed in commerce? What if the trace metals that were extracted do not
remain in the product?
A7Q. Amounts of listed toxic chemicals that remain with the product (metal concentrate) that is
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
26
-------
FPf*t? A QprtiAn "3 1 "3 AHH^nriiim tt\ fhp ftiiirlsmfpOnmm^nfc fni* thp Mi^n/lv AHHf»H InHnctri^c Fphnmrv 1QQS
facility's product prior to distribution and disposed of on-site 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.
Q71. A coal mine uses a flotation agent containing listed toxic chemicals to clean coal.
Some of the flotation agent remains on the coal, which is then distributed into
commerce. The facility choses the flotation agent for the purpose of cleaning the
coal and not to add value to the coal product. Has the facility "processed" the
amount of the listed toxic chemical that adheres to the coal from the flotation agent?
A7I. No. In this example the facility is "otherwise using" the listed toxic chemicals which 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.
Q72. A facility feeds 50,000 pounds of solvent containing 90% MIBK (i.e., 45,000 pounds)
into a recycling process that is 85% efficient. The facility distributes the recovered
MIBK in commerce. Should the facility count 45,000 pounds of MIBK (i.e., the
entire amount that was inserted into the process) towards the processing threshold?
A72. Yes. The facility considers the entire amount (45,000 pounds of MIBK) entering the
recovery system toward the "processing" threshold regardless of the recovery efficiency
of the process.
Q73. A facility feeds 50,000 pounds of solvent containing 50% MIBK and 50% glycol
ether into a recycling process. The facility's intent is to recover as much of the
organic as possible and distribute the organics into commerce. The facility is
primarily concerned with the recovery of MIBK. The product specification of the
resulting solvent requires a specific concentration range for MIBK, but the amount
of glycol in the final product does not matter. How does the facility consider
amounts of glycol ether?
A73. Given that the facility knows that giycol ether is recovered with the desirable MIBK. the
facility should count all amounts of glycol ether that enter the recover) system toward the
facility's "processing" threshold.
Q74. A facility receives a spent solvent, recovers the solvent and sells the recovered
solvent in commerce. Is the recovered solvent considered a waste, and if not is the
27
-------
AHHonHiirn tn tho Cliiiiianrf r>nrnmpntc fnr rtiA Mpn/ly AfHoH Infliicfriag Fphriiarv IOO8
reusable solvent considered a product? At what point might the solvent be eligible
for the de minimis exemption?
A74. 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 subsequently prepared for distribution in commerce. The
purchasing facility considers the recovered solvent as a new product and its "processing"
or "otherwise use" of the solvent may be eligible for the de minimis exemption.
Q75. Electricity generating facilities supply companies ash for off-site market testing (e.g.,
the receiving company may test the ash to see if it could be used in a topsoil), is this
processing?
A75. Amounts of listed toxic chemicals contained in material or products that are sent off-site
for sample testing, are considered "processed" and amounts of the listed toxic chemicals
must be considered toward threshold and release and other waste management
calculations (see Q205 of the EPCRA section 313 Questions and Answers Document:
Revised 1997 version).
Intercompany Transfers
Q76. Company A stores oil at their Storage Facility 1. Company A transfers oil from
Storage Facility' 1 to their Storage Facility 2 (a separate facility for EPCRA section
313 purposes). From Storage Facility 2, the oil is distributed in commerce. Does the
transfer from Storage Facility 1 to Storage Facility 2 constitute processing on the
part of Storage Facility 1 ?
A76. 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 25,000 pounds
"processing" threshold (see Q136 of EPCRA section 313 Questions and Answers
Document: Revised 1997 version).
28
-------
FPf R A Sf>ftinn II A AHHpnHiim tn thf fini/innf-t- Finn impntc fnr tht* Nmvly AHHpH Inrliicfrioc Fohniap.- I OQS
Q77. A mine sends a metal concentrate for smelting to another covered facility owned by
the same company. Has the mine distributed toxic chemicals in the concentrate into
commerce, and therefore, processed them? What about trace metals in the
concentrate that the mine has partially but not fully removed (i.e., they may not
have intended to remove all of the trace metals at the first facility)?
A77. 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 25.000 pound "processing"
threshold. This also applies to the listed toxic chemicals present in low concentrations.
However, for the facility that is "processing" these chemicals, these amounts may be
eligible for the de minimis exemption (see Q136 of the EPCRA section 313 Questions
and Answers Document: Revised 1997 version).
Repackaging
Q78. Facility #1 receives a spent solvent, repackages it to send off-site to a recycling
facility (Facility #2). Facility #2 recovers the solvent and returns it to Facility #1
who then repackages it to be distributed into commerce. Does Facility' #1 count the
toxic chemical in the solvent twice toward the processing threshold (i.e., when it is
distributed off-site for recycling and when they distribute the recovered solvent into
commerce)?
A78. 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 repackages amounts of the listed toxic chemical for purposes of further distribution in
commerce. Therefore. Facility #1 must 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 sequence of steps.
Q79. Does breaking the integrity of the package which contains the toxic chemical
29
-------
FPfR A Qi-rtir|n 11"$ AHHfnHiirn tft thg fiiiiftanp<» nni-ump-nti: fr»r thg TslMmly AHrWl Infhistrips Fphmarv 1QQ8
constitute repackaging?
A79. No. The listed toxic chemical must be transferred from one package to another in order
for the listed toxic chemical to be considered repackaged*
Q80. Lab packs and hazardous waste in general tend to move progressively from smaller
containers to larger containers. Is this repackaging?
A80. Yes. Provided the listed toxic chemical is taken out of the smallest unit container and is
transferred to another container, it is considered repackaged. 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.
Q81. A facility receives a waste from off-site, samples the waste, and then sends the waste
off-site to be recycled without changing the packaging. Has the facility processed
the listed toxic chemical in the waste?
A81. 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" step has taken
place.
Q82. A petroleum bulk station receives petroleum via pipeline. The petroleum goes from
the pipe, into a storage tank, and exits the facility again through the pipeline. It is
then sent to another petroleum bulk station within the same company but located on
non-contiguous or non-adjacent property, which distributes the petroleum into
commerce (i.e., their customers). Did the first station "repackage" and "process"
the petroleum?
A82. 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.
Q83. How does a facility consider multiple activities within the same threshold activity,
such as multiple repackaging steps, or blending followed by repackaging?
A83. Amounts of a listed toxic chemical undergoing multiple activities within a single
threshold activity are counted only once during the activity sequence. For example, if a
30
-------
facility receives a bulk quantity of a chemical which it then places in a storage container
from which amounts are subsequently blended and placed in smaller containers which 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.
OTHERWISE USE
Q84. A coal mine receives a flotation agent containing a toxic chemical in December of
1998, but does not use it until January of 1999. Is the amount of toxic chemical in
the flotation agent considered for threshold determinations in the 1998 reporting
year?
A84. No. Storage in itself of a toxic chemical is not considered a manufacturing, processing,
or otherwise use activity and, therefore, is not subject to threshold determinations.
However, the facility is required to include any amounts released or otherwise managed
that occur during storage of the listed toxic chemical, provided a threshold has been
exceeded elsewhere at the facility. When the toxic chemical is used in 1999. the facility
will include the amount of toxic chemical used towards the 10.000 pound "otherwise use'"
threshold, or the 25,000 pound threshold for processing, whichever is appropriate (see
Q51, Q52, and Q53 of the EPCRA section 313 Questions and Answers Document:
Revised 1997 version).
EXEMPTIONS
Dm Minimis
Q85. A metal mining facility receives ash for incorporation in concrete for which it uses
on site to form cement blocks. Is this direct use of ash eligible for the de minimis
exemption?
A85. The use of ash as a component of a mixture (concrete) which is "otherwise used" on-site
to construct cement blocks constitutes an "otherwise use" of a material containing listed
toxic chemicals and amounts must be counted toward the facility's "otherwise use" of
those chemicals. In this case, the ash is not considered a waste because it is not managed
as a waste. Thus, the listed toxic chemicals contained in the ash are eligible for the de
minimis exemption.
Q86. A metal mining facility receives sewage sludge from off-site for use in soil
reclamation. Is the application of sewage sludge to land considered an "otherwise
use," is it eligible for the de minimis exemption, and if so, how are amounts reported
31
-------
FPPP A Sgrtinn 111 ArMpnHnm tn thp filii/fanrc nrtr.impntc fnr thf Mgwly AHHpH InHiicfrJAg FgKrnaty 1 QO«
(e.g., released to land)?
A86. The metal mine is 'otherwise using" the listed toxic chemicals contained in the sewage
sludge as a soil building material. However, because thexlisted toxic chemicals contained
in the sludge are being applied to land the facility is managing the sewage sludge as a
waste. Therefore, amounts of listed toxic chemicals being "otherwise used'' are not
eligible for the de minimis exemption. Amounts of listed toxic chemicals are reported as
a release to land. The "otherwise use" of listed toxic chemicals, such as nitrate
compounds for fanning, is to be reported as a release to land in section 5.5. of the Form R
(see Ql 15 and Q398 of the EPCRA section 313 Questions and Answers Document:
Revised 1997 version).
Article
Under EPCRA section 313, items containing listed toxic chemicals meeting the definition
of an article are exempt from threshold determination and release and other waste management
calculations. The definition of what qualifies for an article located at (40 CFR 372.28(b)) has
created a degree of confusion. In order to assist facilities in taking advantage of this exemption,
EPA has provided a number of responses related to applying the Article Exemption in the
recently released EPCRA section 313 Questions and Answers Document: Revised 1997 version.
This revised document, however, does not contain many of the questions raised during the
training sessions in the fall 1997 for the newly added industries. Some of the article-related
questions raised during these training sessions along with EPA's responses are provided below,
EPA intends to address any outstanding article-related issues during an upcoming initiative to
clarify the relevant regulatory language.
Q87. A facility has a condenser that consists of many individual copper tubes. These
copper tubes must be replaced periodically and are often replaced individually.
Can each of the copper tubes be considered an "article" under section 313?
A87. Each tube may be considered an article, provided that releases of all listed toxic
chemicals for all "like" articles do not exceed 0.5 pounds and it meets the other
requirements of the definition of the article exemption (see Toxic Release Inventory Form
R and Instructions revised 1996 version).
Q88. A mine's electrorefining operation uses an anode containing a toxic chemical. The
anode is meant to degrade, and the thickness changes over the entire anode. Is this
anode eligible for the article exemption?
A88. No. Since the item did not retain its original thickness in whole or in part, the anode is
not considered an article.
32
-------
FPPR A ^trtirtn ^ 1 ^ Aiiripnrliim tn thf fiitirlanoff nrMMiimpnt^ fnr thp Mpwlv AHrfcH InHiigtrioc February 1OQS
Intake Water
Q89. If a facility uses process wastewater containing a listed toxic chemical on-site, are
toxic chemicals in the wastewater exempt under the intake water exemption?
«.
A89. 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 calculations.
Q90. A facility dewaters its underground mine and places the water in a surface
impoundment. Are toxic chemicals in the water eligible for the intake water
exemption and are they exempt from release reporting?
A90. No, because the facility is not "otherwise using" the water drawn from the underground
mine the intake water exemption does not apply. 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" these chemicals and 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 report the amounts disposed.
>,
Q91. A facility dewaters its underground mine and sells the water, which contains
reportable toxic chemicals, to other facilities. Are toxic chemicals in the water
exempt from threshold determinations?
A91, 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.
Q92. If a facility uses wastewater or storm water that contains a section 313 chemical as
process water, is the facility required to count the amount of the section 313
chemicais toward threshold determinations and release calculations or would the
section 313 chemicals be exempt under the intake air and water exemption?
A92. 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 uses water in its process
sequence and would not be required to account for amounts of listed chemicals contained
in stormwater. However, wastewater is not drawn from the environment and amounts of
listed toxic chemicals which are "otherwise used" are ineligible for the exemption and
any information on amounts of listed toxic chemicals would have to be considered toward
thresholds.
33
-------
^rtjpr| 111 AHHpnHiim tn the |j|[irtanpf> r>nnim«>ntc fnr thp Klotmly AriHoH tnHitttriM Fj»hrti^y IPOS
Q93. A facility dewaters its underground mine and injects the water into a well on-site.
Are the amounts of listed toxic chemicals injected considered a release to land, or
are these amounts exempt under the "use of toxic chemicals present in process water
and non-contact cooling water as drawn from the environment"? The water is not
used, nor is it process water or non-contact cooling water.
A93, No. The exemption for 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 Ihe 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" diese 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. .
Facility Grounds Maintenance
Q94. Does a listed toxic chemical that is applied to a road as a dust suppressant qualify
for the routine facility grounds maintenance exemption?
A94. The application of a dust suppressant that contains listed toxic chemicals to land surfaces
at the facility, is beyond the scope of the original intent of the "facility grounds
maintenance" exemption. Listed toxic chemicals contained in mixtures used as dust
suppressants are not eligible for the "facility 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.
Structural Component
Q95. Are listed toxic chemicals contained in paint that is used to paint processing
equipment subject to threshold determination, release and other waste management
reporting?
A95. Yes. Paint used on process related equipment would not qualify for the structural
34
-------
FPPR A *scrtinn 11 "j ArlrlpnHiim tn thf CltnAanr** Dnrnmpnfc fnr tht» Kfon/ly AHHpH lnrliictri»»c Fphrnarv 1 OOR
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.
*.
Q96. Are the listed toxic chemicals contained in process related equipment, such as
piping, eligible for the structural component exemption?
A96. No. If pipes are process related, the structural component exemption does not apply and
the facility may have to consider amounts of listed toxic chemicals contained in process
related pipes that are put into use during the reporting year toward the facility's threshold
determination, and include release and other waste management amounts in calculations
where applicable (see Q180 and Q184 of the EPCRA section 313 Questions and Answers
Document: Revised 1997 version).
Personal Use Exemption
Q97. Are the listed toxic chemicals used in cooling equipment for air conditioning process
control rooms eligible for the "personal use exemption"?
A97. No. As provided in 40 CFR 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 a facility operated cafeteria.
store, or infirmary. This exemption is limited and does not include chemicals used in
process related activities.
Q98. Is the use of toxic chemicals for employee comfort only applicable in an
administrative setting for the personal use exemption?
A98. The personal use exemption is limited to chemicals used in non-process related activities.
which may include administrative activities. 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 calculations.
Q99. If a facility is treating sanitary waste and, as a result of the treatment, nitrate
compounds and/or ammonia are manufactured. Are the section 313 chemicals
"manufactured" considered exempt under the personal use exemption?
A99. No. Exemptions provided at 40 CFR 372.38 apply to the use of listed toxic chemicals.
These exemptions do not include "manufacturing" or "processing" listed toxic chemicals.
even if this results from an activity where the use is exempt. If a listed toxic chemical is
"manufactured" during an activity where the use of a listed toxic chemical is exempted.
the chemical "manufactured" is not exempt and amounts must be considered toward
35
-------
FPfRA ^pi-tinn 1TZ AHHpnHiirn tr» fhp nm'Hanrp n/-iriimgntc fnr tho Mpt»lv AHfHcH InHiigtrifc Ffhiniai- IOQR
threshold and release or other waste management calculations.
Q100. Would a facility be required to report on the section 313 chemicals in an air
conditioning unit that cools a mine process operation or production room in which
employees must work? In other words, because the air conditioning unit is being
used in a production process, could the personal use exemption for employee comfort
still apply for these activities?
A100. 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 which would
otherwise not be possible is not incidental to the process, and therefore, must be
considered toward threshold and release calculations.
Laboratory Exemption
Q101. If a facility takes a sample from its process stream to be tested in a laboratory for
quality control purposes, are releases of a section 313 chemical from the testing of
the sample in the laboratory exempt under the laboratory activities exemption?
A101 Yes, provided that the laboratory at the covered facility is under the direct supervision of
a technically qualified individual as provided in 40 CFR 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 qualifying laboratory.
Q102. A TSDF takes a sample from a process stream (i.e., waste stream), that has already
undergone treatment, to be tested in a laboratory for quality control purposes. The
waste is tested in a laboratory under the supervision of a technically qualified
individual. The TSDF then places the sample back into the treated waste stream
before being sent off-site for disposal. Provided the TSDF exceeds an activity
threshold for the toxic chemical, is the TSDF required to report the off-site transfer
of the sample in Part II Section 6.2 of the Form R?
A102. No. The portion of the waste released (including disposal) 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 372.38).
36
-------
FPfR A <;i»rlinn "? \ 1 A HHpnHnm tn thp niiiHanrg nnimgnfc fnr tht» Mpwl Hfifft Inficfrigg Fphmarv I OPS
Amounts from the 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 uses" or "processing" before leaving the site.
*
Q103. A TSDF takes a sample from a process stream (i.e., waste stream) to be tested in a
laboratory for quality control purposes. The waste is tested in a laboratory under
the supervision of a technically qualified individual. The TSDF then places the
sample back into the process stream where it undergoes further treatment and is
destroyed. Provided the TSDF exceeds an activity threshold for the toxic chemical,
is the TSDF required to consider the amount of the toxic chemical treated for
destruction as part of the facility's "otherwise use" of the listed toxic chemical, as
well as report any amount in Part II Section 5 of the Form R as appropriate?
A 103. Yes. Despite the fact that the listed toxic chemical may have been eligible for the
laboratory exemption, amounts of the listed toxic chemicals were returned to what is
essentially the facility's process stream and subject to subsequent "manufacture."
"process," or "otherwise use" activities. Activities preformed involving listed toxic
chemicals subsequent to an exempted activity must be considered toward threshold or
release and 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 and release and other waste
management calculations.
Motor Vehicle Maintenance
Q104. How does a facility that collects a quantity of used motor oil from motor vehicles
owned and operated by the facility consider amounts of the used oil which are sent
off site for recycling?
A 104. 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.
Q105. Are toxic chemicals used to maintain fleets of large earth-moving vehicles at mining
facilities exempt from threshold determinations and release or other waste
management reporting?
A 105. Yes. Listed toxic chemicals used to maintain motor vehicles owned and operated by the
facility are eligible for the motor vehicle exemption.
Q106. Are chemicals used to maintain a non-motorized barge stationed at a facility eligible
for the motor vehicle maintenance exemption?
37
-------
imt "3 1 ^ AHHpnrlntr tn the fiiiiHanr-g nnfnm<»ntgJV>r th» fjpwly AHH<>H InrlllgtripQ Fff^riiary 1008
A106. Listed toxic chemicals used to maintain a non-motorized barge are not eligible for the
motor vehicle maintenance exemption and 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.
Q107. Does the motor vehicle exemption apply to railcars, which contain no motors; e.g.,
maintenance of railcars or tractor trailers?
A107. Chemicals used to maintain railcars such as paint and lubricants 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.
INDUSTRY SPECIFIC GUIDANCE
Metal Mining Overburden
Q108. Are listed toxic chemicals in overburden subject to reporting under EPCRA Section
313? What about toxic chemicals used in removing overburden?
A108. No. Listed toxic chemicals that are constituents of overburden, as defined in the May 1,
1997 final rule, which are processed or otherwise used are not subject to threshold
determinations or reporting for release and other waste management activities (40 CFR
372.38(h)). However, listed toxic chemicals used in removing overburden during metal
mining activities are not eligible for the overburden exemption.
Mining. Disposal
Q109. Sulfuric acid is injected into a Class II well for the purpose of in situ leaching, not
for the purpose of waste disposal. The in situ leaching is a recirculating system and
as sulfuric acid is injected into the well, low concentrations of metals are solubilized,
brought to the surface, and subsequently separated from the sulfuric acid solution.
Some of the metal compounds that are solubilized remain with the sulfuric acid
solution and are reinjected into the in situ recirculating leaching system. Would the
metals injected back into the Class II well be considered otherwise used and eligible
for the de tttinimis exemption? Would the amount of metal injected back into the
Class II well be reported in Part II, section 5.4 if an activity threshold is exceeded?
Al 09. There are several activities that are taking place in the above scenario that the facility
needs to consider in terms of EPCRA section 313 reporting. The injection of sulfuric
acid solution to extract certain metals is likely to result in the formation or
"manufacturing" of listed toxic chemicals such as metal sulfate compounds. The
38
-------
<>crti»n ^11 AHHpni-tum tn »hc riiiiHgni-g nnrnmpntg fnr thf N^vuly ArlrlpH Inrftictrifc Fphriiarv I OQS
amounts of listed toxic chemicals "manufactured" must be considered toward the
facility's "manufacturing" threshold. The metal compounds are also being recovered for
subsequent distribution in commerce, and these amounts must be considered toward the
"processing" threshold. Metal compounds that are beingTeinjected are being released,
but for purposes of EPCRA section 313 reporting, amounts of listed toxic chemicals
reinjected and recirculated are not reportable as release provided that these amounts
continue to be circulated. Any amounts known to escape the "tecirculating/leaching
system'" and remain in the leaching zone or otherwise escape within the reporting year
would be considered a '"release" and would be reportable within the year that those
amounts escaped.
QUO. In reporting year 1999, a mining facility exceeded a threshold for copper
compounds and reported releases to land of copper in waste rock tailings. If that
same waste rock or tailings are benefkiated in reporting year 2000, is the disposal of
the resulting wastes from the processing of the waste rock considered a release to
land?
Al 10. Yes. The facility is required to report the copper in the waste rock tailings as a release to
land in both reporting year 1999 and in reporting year 2000. The facility must report the
releases and other waste management activities that occur in each reporting year for
material that undergoes a non-exempt activity (i.e., facility is not required to consider any
further releases of materials that have been disposed of and are not subjected to further
management activities).
QI11. A facility' is re-mining waste rock which was disposed to land in a prior reporting
year. In re-mining the waste rock, a portion of the waste rock previously disposed is
taken from the landfill and moved to another location at the facility to allow access
to other waste rock that has a metal content sufficient for further bencficiation. Is
the waste rock that is taken from the landfill and disposed considered a release to
land: Part II section 5.5.4 Other Disposal, despite the fact it was originally reported
as release to land for disposal in a prior reporting year?
Al 11. Yes. Toxic chemicals that have been released in one reporting year, must also be reported
in subsequent years when the material undergoes non-exempt activities, provided certain
thresholds have been exceeded. The facility is required to report the listed toxic chemical
in the waste rock as a release to land because the toxic chemicals have been displaced and
subsequently "released'" or disposed in a following reporting year.
Ql 12. A metal mine stockpiles waste rock during the reporting year and has plans to leach
this waste rock in the following year. What type of documentation (if any) would
EPA accept from the mine to show that the waste rock will be processed, and
therefore not have to be reported as a release to land during the reporting year?
39
-------
FPfBA
-------
FPPR A Si»pfinn A 1 ~> AHHpnHiim to thf fiiiiHanro rinrnmgntc fnr thp Np\vly ArlrlpH InHiictricg Fphmarv 1 OQS
underground;
- Waste and non-waste fertilizer for land application; and
- Waste rock used during reclamation.
•.
Al 14. In terms of identifying which activities are considered part of extraction, EPA has made
the following determinations: listed toxic chemicals involved in the transportation of
coal, and reclamation of the extraction site are not considered "extraction" activities, and
while these activities may involve listed toxic chemicals, existing exemptions should
greatly reduce and simplify the amount of reporting required by facilities that conduct
these activities. Crushing and grinding are considered beneficiation steps under 40 CFR
261.4(b)(7), which was referenced in the final rule as the basis for determining which
activities constitute benefication, and therefore, which activities are covered. The
following items specifically address the activities raised in the question.
a). Crushing for transportation or other purposes is not considered part of extraction
and amounts of listed toxic chemicals involved in these activities must be
considered toward threshold determinations and release or other waste
management calculations.
b). Land disposal of materials including waste rock, ore, and oily water from
underground coal extraction activities are considered part of extraction activities
and would therefore not be subject to threshold and release determinations, or
other waste management calculations at coal mining facilities.
c). Coal product screening activities that take place prior to transportation are likely
to involve grading of coal after it has been crushed, both of which are considered
beneficiation steps, and therefore, would not be considered part of extraction.
Ash or other materials used for structural support during extraction activities
would be considered part of extraction and would be eligible for the extraction
exemption.
d). Otherwise use of ash. waste rock or fertilizer for reclamation are not considered
part of extraction, and amounts of listed toxic chemicals contained in these
materials must be considered toward threshold determinations and release and
other waste management calculations.
Electricity Generating Facilities
Q115. Do EGFs that burn coal tar with their coal/oil report this amount in section 8 as
energy recovery?
Al 15. No. While coal tar is a by-product of destructive distillation in the production of coke, it
is not a waste. Therefore. EPA would not interpret its combustion to be a waste
41
-------
FPfRA
-------
FPPR A Rpctifin * 1 7 A^HpnHiim tn ^|^nniHgnfC r>nrnmpnt« fnr thg Tvlfu/ly AHHfrl InHiicfripc Ft»hrnary I09R
commercial, institutional, farm, construction contractors, or professional business users;
or other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers in buying or selling merchandise to
such persons or companies" are properly classified in Division F, Wholesale Trade, and
are therefore covered under EPCRA section 313, beginning with the reporting year 1998.
EPA believes that the facilities described in the above question are appropriately
classified in the Wholesale Division as defined in the SIC code manual.
43
-------
FPfRA Cgrfinn 3 1 ^ AHHpnHiim tn thtt fiiiirlanr«» Finn imfntc fnr thf* Nfjwly AHHpH InHncfripc FpKrnar\; 1008
Section II. CLARIFICATION OF THE NEW INDUSTRY GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
The following is being provided to amend and clarify some of the sections in the industry
specific guidance documents which were recently published to assist the newly added industries.
Since publication of these documents in October of 1997 (62 FR 63548), EPA and various other
commenters have found statements which are believed to be unclear or potentially incompatible
with previous guidance. The following are points of clarification which amend those sections
indicated.
DEFINITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS
SIC Code Coverage.
The guidance documents describe covered facilities as those within the recently added
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes in addition to facilities within the manufacturing
sector of SIC codes 20 through 39 (for example, see p. 2-3 of the Coal Mining Guidance
document). For clarification, facilities in other SIC code classifications that support other
"covered" facilities may also be considered as "covered" based on their auxiliary association
(see EPCRA Section 313 Questions and Answers Document: Revised 1997 version).
Processing.
Repackaging as described on page 2-7 should be amended to include the preparation of the listed
toxic chemical in the same, as well as different form, state, or quantity (see Toxic Chemical
Release Inventory Reporting Form R and Instructions: revised 1996 version page 8).
Recycling.
In the guidance documents (for example. Metal Mining Guidance page 2-7). an interpretation of
recycling is provided. Given that the definition for recycling is tied to the Pollution Prevention
Act (PPA), and that the implementing regulations for the PPA are currently not final (although
the statute is in place and facilities are required to follow the law), a more appropriate description
of EPA's guidance to assist facilities in complying with these requirements should be introduced
as "recycling is interpreted to include,..." until such time that the regulations are finalized.
Disposal
As stated in the guidance documents (for example Metal Guidance p. 2-10) "Disposal is defined
by EPCRA..." is incorrect. Disposal is actually defined by EPA through implementing
regulations and not provided in the statute.
Thresholds.
On page 3-9 in the first full paragraph of the Coal Mining Guidance, the guidance document
refers to metals being converted to various compounds which should be considered toward
"manufacturing" thresholds. The guidance describes mercury as a unique metal that may simply
vaporize during coal combustion, not forming other chemical compounds but being released in
44
-------
FPfRA ^prtinn "^ 1 "^ ArirtpnHnrr tr> th» Oiiiriatiry rV>r
-------
FPPRA Station VI ^ A[HHpnHniri tn tht* fiiiiHanrp DnfiiiTH'ntt fnr thf Nf«/ly AHH^H Inrliigtriog Pohmgry 1OO8
Structural Component.
Page 3-4 of the Chemical Distributors guidance document for example, provides an example of
metal pipes as being a type of item that could be considered a structural component, which could
allow the facility to exclude amounts of listed toxic chemicals contained in the item from
threshold, release and other waste management calculations. While in some cases this may be
correct, such as pipes associated with plumbing used for employee restrooms, pipes may also be
associated with process activities which are not eligible for the structural component exemption,
AMENDMENTS TO INDUSTRY SPECIFIC GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Metal Mining Guidance.
In the Metal Mining Guidance document on page 2-6, a very general statement is made which
needs clarification to ensure greater accuracy. On page 2-6, its states, "removal of waste rock to
gain access to an ore body does not constitute processing..." This statement is conditional that
nothing, other than a waste management activity, is being done with the waste rock. For
example, if the waste rock is distributed in commerce, then amounts of listed toxic chemicals
contained in the waste rock would be considered "processed." If, however, if the facility is
simply moving the waste rock to gain access to an ore body, provided that the waste rock is
considered a different material than the ore being processed, the facility is not conducting a
reportable "activity" and amounts moved would not be counted toward an activity threshold,
although amounts of listed toxic chemicals contained in waste rock may be required to be
included in release and other waste management calculations if thresholds have been exceeded
elsewhere at the facility.
Beneficiation.
As stated in the Metal Mining Guidance document on page 2-11. "EPA believes that overburden
and waste rock constitute two separate and discernable types of waste (62 FR 23859)". These
materials are not waste but after removal they sometimes may be managed as waste. Often they
are developed as product. For example, when top soil or landscaping stone are removed to gain
access to an ore body and are distributed in commerce rather than disposed.
Overburden.
As a technical matter, page 2-11 of the Metal Mining Guidance incorrectly states that
"overburden is specifically exempt from TRI reporting." While this is true for metal mining
facilities, and this statement only appears in the metal mining guidance, it is not specifically true
for coal mining facilities. Coal mining facilities have the extraction exemption, and while this
exemption certainly pertains to the removal of overburden during coal extraction, it does not
necessarily exempt all activities involved with overburden at coal mining facilities.
Chemical Distributors Guidance Document.
The Chemical Distributors guidance document contains an error on page 4-11 in the example box
46
-------
FPfRA <
-------
FPfRA <><»f-tmn "3 I "3 Arfrfpnrlum tn the rtiiifianro r>nniirit»nfg for thg M«»\vlv AHHoH FnHnntripc
Fphruary 1QQ8
on related issues is provided in the Question and Answer portion of this document.
On page 5-11 of the Electricity Generators Guidance document in the side box describing Off-
Site Transfers of Waste, the last sentence is incomplete and should read, "...that occur at any off-
site facility."
Estimating Thresholds from Combustion.
In the final rule that expanded the industrial sectors which must report under EPCRA section 313
(May 1,1997; 62 FR 23834) EPA stated that "...in the absence of better facility-specific
information, a facility may assume that all of the metals present in the coal or oil are converted to
the lowest weight metal oxide (per unit of metal) possible for each metal." The document
"Section 313 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act Guidance for Electricity
Generating Facilities, Version 1.0. September 26, 1997," contained a table (Table 3-3) that
estimated the amount of coal that must be used in order to exceed the "manufacturing" threshold
for metal compound manufacturing. However, that table was not developed as a lowest weight
metal oxide table and therefore contained some metal oxides that where not the lowest weight
oxide possible for the metal. To further assist facilities in making threshold determinations. EPA
is providing the following table that lists the lowest weight metal oxide possible for each metal
and may be used to help determine EPCRA section 313 threshold quantities when better
information is not available.
Section 313 Metal Constituents of Coal and the Estimated Tons of Coal Needed to
Manufacture 25,000 Lbs. of the Corresponding Metal Oxide
Section 313 Metal/
Lowest Weight
Metal Oxide That
May Be
Manufactured from
the Metal
Zinc/ZnO
Chromium/CrO
Barium/BaO
Manganese/MnO
Lead/PbO
Copper/Cu.O
Arsenic/ AsiO,
Metal
Concentration in
Coal in Units of
Micrograms/Gram
5.600
610
250
181
218
185
106
Calculated
Micrograms of
Metal Oxide
Produced Per Gram
of Coal
6971
797.6
279.1
233.7
234.8
208.3
140.0
Approximate Tons
of Coal Needed To
Be Consumed to
Manufacture 25,000
Lbs. of the Metal
Oxide
1.800
15.700
44,800
. 53,500
53300
60.000
89.300
48
-------
tiQii "-t 1 3 AflHp-nfium tA
ftuiftgnri*
iriti fnr ...thi* J
February 1QQR
Section 313 Metal Constituents of Coal and the Estimated Tons of Coal Needed to
Manufacture 25,000 Lbs. of the Corresponding Metal Oxide
Section 313 Metal/
Lowest Weight
Metal Oxide That
May Be
Manufactured from
the Metal
Nickel/NiO
Antimony/Sb2O3
Selenium/SeO2
Beryllium/BeO
Cadmium/CdO
Mercury /Hg:O*
Cobalt/CoO
Silver/Ag^O
Metal
Concentration in
Coal in Units of
Micrograms/Gram
104
14
8
1.7
6.5
1.6
0.15
0.08
Calculated
Micrograms of
Metal Oxide
Produced Per Gram
of Coal
132.3
16.8
11.2
4.72
7.43
1.66
0.19
0.09
Approximate Tons
of Coal Needed To
Be Consumed to
Manufacture 25,000
Lbs. of the Metal
Oxide
94,500
744.100
L116.100
2.647.500
1.682.400
7.530.200
65.791.000
138.889.700
Note: The table consists of the lowest weight oxide per unit metal possible for the particular metal. The metal
concentration for amounts in coal were adapted from Economic Analysis of the Final Rule K> AM Certain Industry
Groups to EPCRA section 313. Appendix D, Table D-2, based on high end concentration values and Appendix E.
Table E-3. Quantities are given in short tons, where 1 short ton = 2.000 Ibs.
*EPA estimates that most if not all of the mercury in the coal is converted to elemental mercury not to a mercury
compound. Mercury produced from the combustion of coal would therefore be counted towards the threshold
determination for mercury using the weight of mercury not its lowest weight oxide.
49
-------
F.PfR A Spptinn
AHHpnHiim tr» thp CiiiiHgnrp DnrnmpntQ finr fhp
AHHprl Industries
Fphrnarv 1 OQR
Section 313 Metal Constituents of Coal and the Estimated Tons of Coal Needed to
Manufacture 25,000 Lbs. of the Corresponding Metal Oxide
Section 313 Metal/
Lowest Weight
Metal Oxide That
May Be
Manufactured from
the Metal
Copper/Cu2O
Arsenic/As2O3
Nickel/NiO
Antimony/Sb2O3
Selenium/SeO2
Beryllium/BeO
Cadmium/CdO
Mercury/Hg2O*
Cobalt/CoO
Silver/Ag2O
Metal
Concentration in
Coal in Units of
Micrograms/Gram
185
106
104
14
8
1.7
6.5
1.6
0.15
0.08
Calculated
Micrograms of
Metal Oxide
Produced Per Gram
of Coal
208.3
140.0
132.3
16.8
11.2
4.72
7.43
1.66
0.19
0.09
Approximate Tons
of Coal Needed To
Be Consumed to
Manufacture 25,000
Lbs. of the Metal
Oxide
60,000
89,300
94,500
744,100
1,116,100
2,647,500
1,682,400
7,530,200
65,791,000
138,889,700
Note: The table consists of the lowest weight oxide per unit metal possible for the particular metal. The metal
concentration for amounts in coal were adapted from Economic Analysis of the Final Rule to Add Certain Industry
Groups to EPCRA section 313, Appendix D, Table D-2, based on high end concentration values and Appendix E,
Table E-3. Quantities are given in short tons, where 1 short ton = 2,000 Ibs.
*EPA estimates that most if not all of the mercury in the coal is converted to elemental mercury not to a mercury
compound. Mercury produced from the combustion of coal would therefore be counted towards the threshold
determination for mercury using the weight of mercury not its lowest weight oxide.
50
------- |