INTRODUCTION
Improving Toxic Release Inventory Reporting Accuracy - the
Public's Right-to-Know the Facts, presents the results of
a study conducted by the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies (AMSA) regarding the accuracy and relevance of the National
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) as it relates to discharges to publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs) from industries. The TRI is a national
computerized database that is compiled pursuant to the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. When enacted in 1986,
the Act was praised as an important piece of environmental legislation,
the primary purpose of which was to inform communities and citizens
of potential chemical hazards in their area. Portions of the
Act require businesses to report locations and quantities of chemicals
stored on-site to state and local governments. The information
is used to help communities respond more effectively to chemical
spills, fires, or similar emergencies.
Section 313 of the Act and sections of the Pollution Prevention
Act of 1990 require specific manufacturers, identified as being
in the Standard Industries Classification (SIC) Codes 20 through
39, to annually report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) releases of more than 300 designated toxic chemicals to
the environment. If the specific manufacturer has ten or less
full-time employees, and processes or uses less than the stated
quantities of the designated chemicals, no report must be filed.
The information manufacturers are required to report includes
the following:
Ø The toxic chemicals used,
processed, or manufactured over threshold amounts during the preceding
year.
Ø The amount of wastes released
on-site into the air, water, or land.
Ø The amount of wastes transported
away from the reporting facility for disposal, treatment, recycling,
energy recovery, or discharged to a POTW.
Ø The amount of wastes treated
on-site at the reporting facility.
Ø The efficiency of waste
treatment.
Ø Pollution prevention and
chemical recycling activities.
Over 80,000 reports from approximately 23,000 facilities are currently
being submitted each year. The information reported in the TRI
is used by numerous environmental and citizens groups to evaluate
or grade the various manufacturers or manufacturing sectors as
a whole on pollution prevention and/or pollutant releases to the
environment. The information has also been used to estimate releases
of pollutants from industry to POTWs. Such efforts significantly
mischaracterize what is happening in the environment primarily
because they ignore the TRI's inherent limitations when using
and applying the data to national trends.
First, there are concerns about the accuracy of the data. For
example, the TRI requires the reporting of estimated data and
does not require the facilities to monitor actual releases. There
are also various estimation methodologies used by the different
reporters which can cause a large variance in reporting between
similar facilities. This issue is explored further in the white
paper. Second, the TRI reports estimated releases of chemicals
and not exposure or risks of the public to the chemicals. This
information can then be subject to a great deal of misinterpretation
regarding potential harm to human health or the environment.
AMSA has held long-standing concerns about the type and quality
of information generated by the TRI reporting program. AMSA believes
that misinterpretation of TRI information can mistakenly associate
the use of chemicals by industry with the release of these chemicals
into the environment. These interpretations do not account for
pollutant recapture or chemical alterations that may occur prior
to discharge, or further treatment or control by the POTW. This
issue is also addressed in the report. Improper interpretation
of data produced by the TRI program sends the wrong message to
the public; namely, that the volume of pollutants being released
by industries is directly linked to the status and trends of water
quality.
PROJECT APPROACH
To that end, AMSA has conducted a study which was designed to
assess the accuracy of the current TRI reporting program and its
ability to accurately inform communities of the risks of toxic
chemical exposure and, where necessary, to offer potential remedies.
To assess the accuracy of the TRI reporting information, selected
industries discharging to six AMSA member agencies were evaluated
to verify TRI information, determine how the data were derived,
and comment on the accuracy of the data. More information on
each of these industries is presented in Appendix A. The six
POTWs selected represented different geographical areas of the
country: the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, CA;
King County Department of Natural Resources (Seattle, WA); Water
Pollution Control Department (Kansas City, MO); Louisville and
Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (Louisville, KY);
City of Jacksonville (Jacksonville, FL); and Allegheny County
Sanitary Authority (Pittsburgh, PA).
TRI information from selected industries, which reported releases
to POTWs, was evaluated representing a variety of manufacturing
processes and sizes, including aluminum manufacturing, chemical
manufacturing, food processing, electroplating, and aircraft manufacturing.
The derivations of the TRI data were evaluated and compared to
the POTWs' industrial monitoring data.
Follow-up information from a larger set of AMSA members was also
collected on the control and/or treatment of those chemicals reported
in the TRI that showed significant releases to POTWs in terms
of mass loadings.
FINDINGS
Based on this evaluation, a number of common errors were found
in the TRI data. These included the following:
Inaccurate Reporting of Mineral Acids Used in Neutralization
Treatment as "Quantity Released"
Industries incorrectly reported releases of acids used for neutralization.
According to EPA, if an acid is used as a neutralizing agent
to adjust a pH of 6 or above in wastewater treatment, then the
facility should report a zero release for the toxic chemical.
It was found that industries reported mineral acids used as neutralizing
agents (sulfuric acid, nitric acid, phosphoric acid) as "quantity
released" instead of zero release.
Over-reporting of the Quantity of a Chemical Which is Not
100% Pure
Industries over-reported the amount of mineral acids used by not
correcting to the purity of the chemicals purchased. For example,
quantities of nitric acid were reported as 100% pure based on
the amount purchased when actually the chemical was purchased
at 67% purity. This quantity if reported correctly should have
been reduced by approximately 33%.
Incorrect Reporting of Quantity
There were discrepancies between TRI data and the actual releases
(discharges) to POTWs. For example, one industry that was authorized
to discharge acetone on a weekly basis (acetone is biodegradable,
and hence treated at the POTW's facility) reported six times the
amount of acetone in comparison to the actual discharge loading
based on effluent monitoring data. The discrepancy was the result
of an error in determining the quantity released. The quantity
reported in the TRI was calculated based on a daily discharge
instead of the actual weekly discharge.
Another example is double reporting. For one industry evaluated,
copper was found to be reported both as "treated on-site"
and "recycled off-site." The copper present in the sludge
resulting from the precipitation process in wastewater treatment
should have been reported as "recycled off-site."
Finally, mistakes were also made in terms of what actually happens
to chemicals. For example, one industry improperly reported chloroform,
antimony compounds, and dichloromethane as "released to the
environment," when in fact the chemicals were transferred
"off-site for treatment."
Over-Reporting in the TRI Due to the Use of Mid-Point Values
Industries are required to report the maximum amount of a toxic
chemical on- site at any time during the year. This information
is entered into data ranges that vary from 0 to 99 pounds to 500,000,000
to 999,999,999 pounds. When the information is submitted, EPA
uses the midpoint as the value to enter in its database. This
raises concerns on the precision of the data. For example a facility
may report that it has 100,000 pounds of a chemical on-site, which
would be entered into the 100,000 to 999,999 pound range. EPA
would record this quantity as 500,000 pounds, the mid-point of
the range. This represents five times more that the actual amount,
which is a significant difference. The same process is used for
requesting information on the amount of toxic chemicals released
to the environment. However these ranges are limited between
1 and 1,000 pounds, with "best estimates" to be used
for amounts above 1,000 pounds. Thus, much of the information
is based on gross estimates or over-estimates in reporting.
Fate of Releases to POTWs
Information collected from AMSA members on the control and/or
treatment of the more significant chemicals reported in the TRI
in terms of mass loading, revealed the following findings:
Ø All acid releases must
be neutralized before being discharged to the POTW. Thus, information
in the TRI showing releases of phosphoric acid or sulfuric acid
does not take into account that these materials are rendered harmless
prior to discharge.
Ø Many facilities accept
compounds such as ammonia, ammonia nitrate, ammonium sulfate,
and methanol. In some cases, POTWs have treatment capabilities
to remove or degrade these materials. In other cases, appropriate
local discharge limits have been imposed by the POTW to protect
the environment and worker health and safety, as required by the
National Industrial Pretreatment Program.
- Selected actual toxic chemical releases were compared to Environmental Working Group (EWG) TRI data compiled from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's TRI data from 1990-1994 (See Table 1).
- Selected actual POTW releases were compared to EWG TRI data compiled from the US EPA TRI data from 1990-1994 (See Table 2).
SUMMARY
The overall conclusion from this evaluation is that the TRI data on chemicals released to POTWs tend to be over-reported versus under-reported, or in some cases not reported correctly. In general, industries did not base TRI reporting on actual sampling, but estimates.
Finally, unlike releases to other media, transfers to POTWs reported
to the TRI do not represent direct releases to the environment.
The eventual fate of the various pollutants will be dependent
on many factors, including pollutant type, relative concentrations
and mass in the discharge to the POTW, and the treatment capabilities
and configuration of the POTW itself.
RECOMMENDATIONS
AMSA urges EPA to make the following changes to the TRI reporting
process:
- EPA should revise the TRI reporting forms and instructions to enable industries to report actual amounts of TRI chemicals utilized and released. As an example, clear instructions need to be provided so that mineral acids used in industrial applications (i.e. product manufacturing, waste treatment, etc.) which are neutralized in accordance with Clean Water Act requirements (³5.0 for discharges to POTWs and ³6.0 for discharges under the NPDES system) should not be reported as releases under TRI. Another example would be for the instructions to clearly require industries to insure that the TRI information is consistent with other kinds of reporting data such as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System monitoring reports.
- Releases should be redefined so that any discharge of a TRI chemical to a POTW that is in compliance with the National Industrial Pretreatment Program should not be considered as a release to the environment unless verified to be so by the POTW.
- EPA should expand its discussion of the TRI report to assist the general public in understanding and interpreting the nature in which the chemicals are being used and released into the environment. In addition, EPA needs to convey the message that TRI toxic pollutants are only toxic in toxic amounts based on the magnitude, duration, and frequency of exposure sufficient to induce adverse biological impacts in the receiving stream.
- EPA has indicated that a five-year evaluation of the TRI program will be performed. This should include an evaluation of trends in the amounts of chemicals being released to the environment. The Agency should recalculate prior reported quantities, using the criteria referenced in this report, before a trend analysis is performed.
- EPA should provide an explanation stating why certain chemicals which were included in past TRI reporting, such as acetone, are no longer part of the existing database. Furthermore, the Agency should note which industries, which were previously cited among the largest users of TRI chemicals in past reports, are no longer in operation.
- EPA should include a discussion in the report that documents the success of national initiatives such as the NPDES program, National Industrial Pretreatment Program, and Biosolids Beneficial Use efforts to further public understanding of TRI data.
Table 1. POTW releases of selected toxic chemicals discharged
to U.S. waters in the greatest amounts (1990-1994).
| |||||
Phosphoric acid | Must be neutralized by each industry prior to discharge | ||||
Ammonia | 99.95% originates from domestic sources | ||||
Sulfuric acid | Must be neutralized by each industry prior to discharge | ||||
Methanol | |||||
Ammonium nitrate (solution) | Delisted |
||||
Ammonium sulfate (solution) | Delisted |
||||
Ethylene glycol | |||||
Hydrochloric acid | Must be neutralized by each industry prior to discharge | ||||
Zinc & Zinc Compounds | 75% originates from domestic sources | ||||
Acetone | Delisted |
1 Data and ranking from the Environmental Working Group. Compiled from US EPA TRI 1990-1994.
2 Based on data from AMSA members regarding actual treatment plant removal efficiencies.
Table 2. Actual POTW releases of toxic chemicals (1990-1994).
|
| ||||
Monsanto Co. | Sauget | ||||
Columbian Chemicals Co. | Saint Louis | ||||
Filtrol Corp. | Los Angeles | ||||
Hercules | Hopewell | ||||
Stone Container Corp. | Hopewell | ||||
Allied-Signal Inc. | Hopewell | ||||
Corn Prods. & Best Foods | Bedford Park | ||||
Mallinckrodt Chemical Inc. | Saint Louis | ||||
Harcros Pigments Inc. | East Saint Louis | ||||
Monsanto Co. | Saint Louis | ||||
115th Street Corp. | Chicago | ||||
Allied-Signal Inc. | Philadelphia |
1 Data and ranking from the Environmental Working Group. Compiled from US EPA TRI 1990-1994.
2 Based on data from AMSA members regarding actual treatment plant removal efficiencies.
The industries selected were large Significant Industrial Users
(SIUs) or categorical and included the following:
TYPE
Aluminum Manufacturing
Chemical Manufacturing
Food Processing
Electrical Circuits
Aircraft
SIC CODE
3463
2869, 2821, 2822, 2819
2086
3672
3761
TRI reports for the last three reporting years were collected
and evaluated. The TRI reports were scrutinized for errors, either
that would increase or decrease reported amounts. Each industry
was contacted personally and questioned about the reported amounts
for the different TRI chemicals on the forms. A listing of the
various industries along with the discrepancies, if any, found
in the TRI reports is found in Table A.1.
An examination was made on the amounts reported to be discharged
to POTWs according to the FORM R's reviewed and compared with
industrial self-monitoring data provided by the industries to
the POTWs (see Table A.2). Many of the chemicals required to
be reported on FORM R's were not necessarily monitored by the
industry or required to be monitored by the local authority.
Such is the case for mineral acids such as nitric acid, phosphoric
acid, and sulfuric acid, and compounds such as acetone and many
of the other compounds. Only four of the industries studied had
chemicals required to be reported on the FORM R which where specifically
monitored for pretreatment by the local regulatory authority or
monitored by the regulatory agency for informational purposes.
Table A.1: Discrepancies found in the TRI reports for various
industries.
nitric acid | No fugitive air emissions reported. Quantities reported as 100 percent pure based on amount purchased when actually the chemical was purchased at 67 percent purity. Chemical reported as treated off-site when in fact chemical was neutralized (pH above 6.0) prior to discharge to the POTW. | A very small amount should have been reported as an air emission. Quantity reported as "treated off-site" should have been reported as "treated on-site" and reduced by 1/3 because the chemical was reported as 100 percent pure when actually it was 67 percent pure. | ||
phosphoric acid | No fugitive air emissions reported. In TRI reports prior to 1993, quantity treated off-site (no neutralization, pH less than 6.0) and sent to POTW, was also reported as quantity released. | A very small amount should have been reported as an air emission. Quantity reported as "treated off-site" should not have been reported as "quantity released" to the environment. Quantity released was over-reported by 10,000 percent. | ||
sulfuric acid nitric acid chromium | The nitric acid report was filled out correctly except that in conversation with the industry, they did not correct the quantity of nitric acid purchased to 100 percent purity. Therefore, the amounts reported were higher than actually treated on-site. The sulfuric acid report was incorrect. The amount used for wastewater neutralization was added to the quantity treated off-site. According to EPA, if a mineral acid is used in wastewater treatment and the discharge of the treated waste is above pH 6.0, the amount of mineral acid used in waste treatment is reported as zero in Section 8.0. In conversation with the industry, the amount of sulfuric acid used in waste treatment should have been added to other amounts in the quantity treated on-site. Also, the amount of sulfuric acid reported was less than 100 percent pure and should have been corrected. The chromium report appears to be fairly accurate. | The amounts of nitric acid and sulfuric acid reported are higher than the actual amount that should have been reported because they were reported as 100 percent purity when in actuality they were less than 100 percent. | ||
ammonia glycol ethers copper compounds sulfuric acid hydrochloric acid nitric acid | The ammonia and glycol ethers reports appear to be accurately completed. The sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, and nitric acid reports were completed inaccurately in that the amounts reported as treated on-site, were not adjusted to 100 percent pure chemical. Therefore, the amount reported as treated on-site, should be lower that the amount reported. The copper compound report appeared to be in error, as the majority of copper was removed from the waste stream and recycled off-site. The applicant double counted copper, reporting the full amount of copper as treated on-site and recycled off-site. Generally, EPA guidance is to report the amount in the column of final deposition. In this case, that would be recycled off-site. Additionally, the applicant did not report any quantity treated off-site in Section 8 where previously in the report, a small amount (11 to 499 pounds) was reported as being discharged to a POTW. | The applicant double counted the amount of copper, reporting the same amount in treated on-site and recycled off-site. | ||
ammonia ammonia sulfate sulfuric acid phosphoric acid acetone | All of these reports appear to be accurately completed. | No corrections to these reports are necessary. | ||
| xylene methyl methacrylate N1N Dimethylanilene maleis anhydride ethylene glycol Di(2-ethylhexyl)PHT BIS(2-ethylhexyl)AD styrene phthalic anhydride dibutyl phthalate 4,4-isopropylidenid N-butyl alcohol | All of these Form R reports except for the BIS(2-ethylhexyl) AD report appear to have been completed correctly. It appears BIS(2-ethylhexyl) AD under-reported the quantity treated off-site. The amounts listed in other parts of the report were slightly greater than the amount reported in Section 8.7 treated off-site. | BIS(2-ethylhexyl) AD was slightly under-reported in the category of treated off-site. | |
| Dichloromethane antimony compounds chloroprene chloroform toluene glycol ethers 2-ethoxyethanol ammonia | The TRI reports for chloroprene, toluene, glycol ethers, 2-ethoxyethanol and ammonia appear to be properly completed. The TRI reports for chloroform, antimony compounds, and dichloromethane appear to be in error for 1993. A portion of each of the chemicals were spilled, but not released to the environment. The spilled chemicals were recovered and treated off-site. The industry improperly reported these quantities as released to the environment in Section 8.8 when in actuality, the chemicals were treated off-site and should have been reported in Section 8.7. | One time reporting of chloroform, antimony, and dichloromethane spills were reported as releases to the environment because the chemicals were recovered and sent off-site for treatment; they should have been reported as treated off-site. |
Table A.2: Comments on FORM R's for various industries by chemical
reported.
Chemical Reported & Monitored | Comments | |
Chromium | The industry reported on FORM R a range value of 11 to 500 lb per year discharged to the POTW. The amount (concentration) reported in the self monitoring report, when calculated to an annual amount was within the FORM R report range. | |
Copper | The industry reported on FORM R a range value of 11 to 500 lb per year discharged to the POTW. The amount reported in the self monitoring report, based on flows and concentrations indicated that the amount released on an annual basis fell within this range reported on the FORM R. | |
Acetone | The industry reported on the FORM R that approximately 34,000 lb of acetone was discharged to the POTW. Calculations based on self-monitoring information indicated that if acetone was discharged daily at the monitored rate, over six times the amount reported on the FORM R would be discharged to the POTW. In responding to this inquiry, the industry indicated that acetone was not discharged on a daily basis which may account for the large discrepancy. Also, acetone is not a pollutant regulated by local limits or categorical limits for this industry because it is biodegradable in the sewer system and data is based on limited sampling. | |
BIS 2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate Di-butyl Phthalate | For both of these chemicals, actual amounts were reported on the FORM R for discharge to the POTW. The calculated amounts based on self-monitoring reports were very close to the amount reported on the FORM R. | |
Chloroprene chloroform | Chloroprene and chloroform were both reported on FORM R as being discharges to the POTW. Self-monitoring data (one sampling per year) showed a comparable result to the FORM R for chloroform. However, the amount reported on the FORM R for chloroprene was six times the one time sample collected when adjusted to an annual amount by the local agency. Since chloroprene as well as chloroform are not regulated by the local agency, and only one sample was collected, judgement regarding discrepancies were difficult to obtain. |
Table A.3: Summary of industry reports to determine whether
quantities of chemicals reported were treated on-site or off-site.
Industry | Comments |
Quantity reported "treated off-site" should have been reported as "treated on-site" and the amount reported should have been reduced by approximately 33 percent, because the purchased diluted chemical was erroneously reported as 100 percent. | |
Quantity reported as "treated off-site" was also erroneously reported as "quantity released" to the environment. The chemical should have only been reported as "treated off-site." | |
The industry over-reported the amount of mineral acids used at the plant, not correcting the acids to 100 percent purity. Sulfuric acid is used in the industrial process and for pH adjustment. The industry reported the process amount in the category of "treatment on-site" which was correct, but reported the amount used for neutralization as "treated off-site" which was incorrect because the pH leaving the industry was above 6.0. The comparison of FORM R to the self-monitoring report for chromium showed no discrepancies. | |
Amounts were over-reported for the mineral acids because they were not corrected to 100 percent pure. Copper was double reported, the same amount being reported both as "treated on-site" and "recycled off-site." The copper should have been reported as "recycled off-site." The comparison of the amount of copper discharged to the POTW as reported on the FORM R to self-monitoring reports showed not discrepancies. | |
All FORM R's appear to be accurately completed. All comparisons of the amount of acetone discharged to the treatment plant as reported on the FORM R to monitoring reports, showed a large discrepancy. Six times to the amount reported on the FORM R was calculated using limited effluent monitoring data. This discrepancy can be due to the limited sampling (3 samples per year), or from calculating the value on monitoring reports as a daily discharge instead of a once a week event (discussion with the industry indicates that acetone is not discharged on a daily basis). It should be noted that the acetone amount reported on FORM R was estimated from methods other that monitoring and it is possible that a larger amount of acetone is discharged to the POTW than the amount reported on the FORM R. Acetone is not a regulated pollutant and therefore the industry or regulatory agency does not frequently monitor for acetone in the discharge. | |
The chemical BIS(2-ethylhexyl) AD was under-reported in the area "treated off-site." The amounts listed in other sections of the report indicate that the summary number should be larger by 500 pounds. A comparison of the FORM R, discharged to POTW, was in agreement with the self-monitoring reports. | |
FORM R's for chloroform, antimony compounds, and dichloromethane were improperly reported as "released to the environment," when in fact the chemicals were transferred "off-site for treatment." Industrial monitoring reports for chloroform agree with the amount stated on the FORM R for discharging to the POTW. The same cannot be said for chloroprene, which for the value reported on the FORM R was six times the single sample value reported by the local agency. |