Chemicals
in Progress
VOLUME 13 /N0.1
APRIL 1992
745N92001
ul let in
OFFICE OF POLLUTION PREVENTION AND TOXICS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RECEIVED
("r»v 1 n poo
i • • : i ft {• ,;• ,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LIBRARY, REGION V
-6'-'
highlights
2 Environmental Officials Share
Toxics Information through
FOSTTA
4 EPA Considers Broadening PMN
Exemptions
19 OECD Nations Adopt
International Definition of
Polymers
Pollution Prevention Division Moves to OPPT
A key element of EPA's pollution-prevention program has moved into the
Office of Toxic Substances (OTS). To reflect the move, OTS has been renamed
the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Mark A. Greenwood is
director of OPPT.
The Pollution Prevention Division (PPD) was transferred to OPPT in December
1991 from EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE). EPA cre-
ated a central office for pollution prevention in OPPE in 1988 when it estab-
lished pollution prevention as one of the agency's highest priorities. Since then,
the concept of reducing the potential for pollution at its source has gained broad
acceptance in all sectors of the nation and in the international arena as well.
OPPT also administers the voluntary 33/50 Program. Through this program,
more than 700 companies have agreed to reduce their facilities' emissions of 17
highly toxic chemicals. (For an update on the 33/50 Program, see page 17.)
Pollution Prevention Division Activities
PPD is responsible for the overall development and coordination of the agency's
pollution-prevention policies and strategies. Gerald Kotas is director of the
division. The division's specific functions include the following.
• Regulatory support: PPD coordinates review of agency regulations to identify
and promote opportunities for pollution prevention.
• Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse: PPD develops and main-
tains, with EPA's Office of Research and Development, a clearinghouse of tech-
nical, policy, financial, and legislative information about preventing pollution.
• State pollution-prevention grants: PPD issues grants to states to promote
pollution prevention.
• Pollution-prevention strategies: PPD develops strategies for pollution preven-
tion in agriculture, in the energy industry, in the federal sector, and among
consumers.
• Data and measurement: PPD develops standard methods for measuring
progress in preventing pollution and manages an advisory panel of technical
experts focusing on how EPA can improve the collection and dissemination
of data.
Reorganization continued on page 22
VOL.13/N0.1 APRIL 1992
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Forum on State and tribal Toxics Action
Forum Helps Environmental Officials Share Data
And Manage Toxics More Effectively
"If we combine what the
U.S. EPA knows about
toxics with the informa-
tion that states have,
we stand to improve
our understanding of
what the real toxics
problems are."
Roger Kanerva,
environmental policy adviser at
Illinois EPA
Environmental experts working at
the state level last year joined with
EPA to form a group to exchange
information about managing toxics.
The ideas behind FOSTTA—the
Forum on State and Tribal Toxics
Action—were simple: State, tribal,
and federal environmental officials
can (1) learn from one another's ef-
forts to reduce toxic risks to public
health and the environment and (2)
cooperate to improve toxics policies
and programs.
Roger Kanerva, who is environmental
policy adviser at the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency and is
serving as the first chairman of
FOSTTA, points out that the simple
act of sharing toxics data represents a
big improvement in federal and state
cooperation.
"We're out here on the firing line,"
Kanerva said. "We're dealing in real
time with toxics releases, monitoring,
and approving permits. U.S. EPA
(which reviews new chemicals) may
know that a facility is about to begin
using a new chemical, while we have
no idea that it is going to be released
in our state.
"If we combine what the U.S. EPA
knows about toxics with the informa-
tion that states have, we stand to
improve our understanding of what
the real toxics problems are," he said.
Organization's background
The Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) requires EPA to regulate and
monitor the introduction and use of
new and existing chemicals in manu-
facturing and trade. As staff in the
EPA offices that administer and en-
force the act—respectively, the Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) and the Office of Compliance
Monitoring—explored using TSCA
to encourage pollution prevention,
they learned that at least 12 states
already had laws to prevent pollution
or reduce the use of toxics by indus-
try. Indications were that a number
of states pknned to enact similar
laws, but that other states lacked the
technical expertise and resources to
manage toxics problems or were unfa-
miliar with TSCA. With this infor-
mation in mind, the concept for
FOSTTA emerged.
Brainstorming sessions were held.
The structure of the forum grew out
of these sessions, attended by state
and tribal environmental officials and
EPA headquarters and regional staff.
A coordinating committee, made up
of state officials, was formed. This
committee sets the agenda for
FOSTTA, establishes short-term
"projects" for discussion of specific
issues, and invites state experts to
participate in the discussion. These
experts represent their individual
viewpoints on toxics issues, not their
states' positions. Currently, about 40
people are participating in the
projects. The coordinating commit-
tee maintains a list of experts—sug-
gested by a variety of sources—to call
on in the future.
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
Forum on State and Tribal Toxics Action
FOSTTA has five projects under way
State and Tribal Enhancement
and Decentralization Project
This project is discussing the role
that states should play in EPA activi-
ties under TSCA. Topics include the
delegation of TSCA authority to the
states (referred to as decentralization),
development of model state toxics
legislation, decentralization grants to
the states, and whether confidential
business information submitted to
EPA can be provided to the states.
Pollution Prevention Project
This project is investigating state
incentives to encourage companies to
implement pollution-prevention
activities. These include establishing
or expanding technical assistance
programs, tax breaks, and expedited
permitting practices. Project mem-
bers are also reviewing how states'
efforts can support EPA's 33/50 Pro-
gram, which is working with indus-
try to voluntarily reduce releases of
17 toxic chemicals. (See related ar-
ticle on page 17.)
Chemical Information
Management Project
The initial focus of this project has
been the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI), a list of releases and off-site
transfers of more than 300 toxic
chemicals by certain industrial facili-
ties. FOSTTA is reviewing how to
expand and improve the data col-
lected and how states can use the TRI
and other information sources to
greater effect. (See TRI articles on
pages 10 through 13.)
Lead Project
FOSTTA established the Lead Project
to study how states can support federal
efforts to reduce exposure to lead. (See
articles on pages 16 and 17.) One
issue is how to train and accredit lead-
abatement professionals. Another is
the technical problems associated with
lead abatement. Some states, such as
Massachusetts, already have legislation
to manage the hazards from exposure
to lead and are sharing practical infor-
mation about their experience.
Chemical Management Project
This team has focused on improving
toxics management by increasing
awareness of EPA's review process for
new and existing chemicals. The team
is working on defining how to do that,
as well as how to involve states in
follow-up activities. For instance,
EPA's New Chemicals Program some-
times establishes effluent limits for
new chemicals for specific facilities
through negotiations with a manufac-
turer or processor. Unaware of this,
the states that issue National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System
permits to facilities are unable to
monitor these new chemical sub-
stances or to coordinate such limits.
The Chemical Management Team is
working with EPA to resolve the
problem. One approach calls for re-
quiring the manufacturer or processor
to notify the state in which the facil-
ity is located of the negotiated efflu-
ent limits.
Early success
By improving communication among
state and federal environmental offi-
cials, FOSTTA can improve the way
toxic substances are managed. An
early example involves "letters of
concern."
In 1991, OPPT began using letters of
concern to ask companies to reduce or
eliminate generation of chemicals
that, in the early stages of agency
review, were identified as posing a
potential risk to human health or the
environment. While further review
is under way, OPPT sends these let-
ters to companies that manufacture,
process, or use the chemicals.
When one FOSTTA member learned
about OPPT's letters of concern, he
suggested that states with facilities
that manufacture, process, or use a
chemical subject to a letter be al-
lowed to review the letter before it is
sent. He pointed out that (1) state
officials would benefit from knowing
that EPA has a concern about a facil-
ity in their state; (2) state officials
might have useful information to
share with EPA; and (3) state person-
nel could monitor facilities that re-
ceive letters. OPPT agreed that pro-
viding drafts of the letters to states
was a good idea and promptly devel-
oped a process for doing so.
VOL.13 /N0.1 APRIL 1992
-------
New Chemicals Program
EPA Is Considering Broadening PMN Exemptions
Amendments Would Provide Regulatory Relief for Industry
EPA is preparing three amendments
that would expand the number of new
chemical substances eligible for an
abbreviated premanufacture notice
(PMN) review. The regular PMN
review period is 90 days.
The agency's New Chemicals Program
uses PMNs to assess new substances
before they enter commerce. By ex-
panding the number of lower-risk
substances that are subjected to a
shorter review, the New Chemicals
Program will (1) allow lower-risk sub-
stances to enter commerce quickly and
(2) shift staff resources to management
of new substances posing greater risks.
The agency also hopes the changes will
motivate manufacturers and importers
to substitute lower-risk chemicals,
which are eligible for shorter review,
for other substances. (A more com-
plete description of the New Chemi-
cals Program is in Chemicals-in-Progress
Bulletin, volume 12, number 4.)
Publication in Federal Register expected
in October
OPPT is preparing to propose three
amendments to current rules govern-
ing submission of PMNs. In addition,
OPPT is evaluating amendment of the
expedited Significant New Use Rule
(SNUR) procedures under certain cir-
cumstances. (See article on page 5 for
information about the proposed SNUR
amendment.) OPPT expects to pub-
lish the proposed amendments in the
Federal Register by October 1992. At
that time, public comment will be
solicited.
Summary of proposed PMN
amendments
The proposed polymer exemption
rule amendment would
1. require manufacturers to notify
EPA within 30 days after manufac-
turing an exempt polymer;
2. expand the exemption criteria for
polymers; and
3. reduce the information required for
reporting on exempt polymers.
The agency hopes the changes
will motivate manufacturers and
importers to substitute lower-risk
chemicals that are eligible for
shorter review for other
substances.
The proposed low-volume exemption
rule amendment would
1. increase the low-volume produc-
tion thresholds to 10,000 kilo-
grams a year, from 1,000 kilo-
grams a year, for exemption of
substances from full PMN review
and
2. introduce a new exemption for
chemical substances produced us-
ing specified pollution-prevention
practices that reduce exposure and
releases.
The proposed PMN rule procedural
amendment would
1. amend the 2 percent rule for poly-
mers to give greater flexibility to
submitters in determining the
amount of reactant used to manu-
facture a polymer;
2. require submitters to provide the
chemical identity as a Chemical
Abstracts Service (CAS) index
name or preferred name, which
would expedite searches of the
TSCA (Toxic Substances Control
Act) Inventory and save agency
resources now expended on estab-
lishing correct chemical identities;
3. revise the information required in
bona fide requests for EPA to
search the confidential portion of
the TSCA Inventory to require the
submitter to demonstrate a serious
commercial intent, a change that
would enhance protection of
confidential business information
submitted under TSCA;
4. require submitters to provide mul-
tiple copies of PMNs to expedi
review;
lite
5. allow electronic transmission of
PMNs; and
6. standardize the form for notices of
commencement of manufacture.
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
New Chemicals Program
Agency May Propose Amending the Expedited Rulemaking Procedures for SNURs
Change Would Allow EPA to Manage Many New-Chemical Activities through Non-section 5(e) SNURs
EPA is evaluating an amendment to
the expedited rulemaking procedures
for significant new use rules (SNURs).
SNURs require that manufacturers,
processors, and importers notify EPA
90 days before beginning any activi-
ties that are defined as significant new
uses of a chemical substance. The
advance notification allows EPA to
prevent potentially adverse exposure
to or effects from the new use of the
substance.
The agency uses expedited rule-
making to promulgate SNURs under
two circumstances.
1. EPA's New Chemicals Program
may limit the use of new substances
through consent orders negotiated
under section 5(e) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA).
However, section 5(e) consent or-
ders apply only to the company
that submitted a premanufacture
notice (PMN) for the new substance
to EPA. The agency routinely
follows section 5(e) consent orders
with issuance of a SNUR. These
SNURs typically define new uses
as the activities prohibited by the
section 5(e) consent order, includ-
ing the manufacture or processing
of the new substance without
specified controls in place that
EPA considers necessary to ad-
equately control exposures to and
releases of the substance. For
SNURS that follow section 5(e)
consent orders, EPA generally
chooses these chemical controls
from a list of regulatory options.
See 40 CFR 721 Subpart B for a
list of these options.
2. EPA promulgates SNURs for sub-
stances without issuing a section
5(e) consent order. In these cases,
the requirements EPA can impose
on new uses are limited. Specifi-
cally, they do not include work-
place safety and hazard communi-
cations programs, such as the use of
protective clothing for workers
exposed to the substance, labeling,
and material safety data sheets.
Summary of proposed change
The proposed amendment would
allow the agency to use all of the
provisions available under expedited
rulemaking procedures for section
5(e) SNURs when promulgating
non-section 5(e) SNURs.
Broadening the available options
would permit EPA to (1) avoid nego-
tiation of section 5(e) consent orders
when the activities proposed in the
PMN are acceptable to the agency
and (2) control and manage many
new-chemical activities through pro-
mulgation of non-section 5(e)
SNURs. This change would help the
agency regulate new chemical sub-
stances more efficiently and effec-
tively and allow the PMN submitter
to commence commercial manufac-
ture of new chemical substances
sooner.
New Chemicals Program to Solicit Environmental Fate Testing
EPA's New Chemicals Program has
begun requesting environmental fate
testing for certain chemicals pro-
duced in high volumes and released
to the environment in substantial
quantities. The term "environmental
fate" refers to a chemical's behavior in
the environment. The New Chemi-
cals Program, which is part of the
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT), reviews new chemical
substances and identifies those that
require regulatory action before they
enter the marketplace.
The New Chemicals Program de-
cided to solicit environmental fate
testing after an internal study of sub-
missions. The study evaluated sub-
missions over a seven-month period
to determine (1) the substances for
which environmental fate testing
would be appropriate and (2) the
types of environmental fate data that
would be useful in assessing these
substances.
Environmental fate testing will add a
component to the New Chemicals
Program's exposure-based testing
policy. The New Chemicals Program
began using its authority under sec-
tion 5 of the Toxic Substances Con-
trol Act (TSCA) to solicit exposure-
based toxicity testing on new sub-
stances in 1988.
The additional data will help EPA
assess the behavior of the substance
under review, as well as the environ-
mental fate of other new chemicals.
New Chemicals continued on page 6
VOL.13 / NO. 1 APRIL 1992
-------
New Chemicals Program
PMN Review of Dyes Contributes to Safer Workplaces, Use of Less Toxic Dyes,
And Development of Health Effects Data
Over the past year, not one company
has submitted a premanufacture no-
tice (PMN) to EPA notifying the
agency of plans to use bioavailable
benzidine or its derivatives in a new
dye. In contrast, from 1987 to 1990,
EPA received 10 PMNs to use the
chemical or its derivatives in new
dyes. The declining use of benzidine
illustrates how EPA's New Chemicals
Program affects the use of chemi-
cals—in dyes, in particular.
Dyes account for about 12 percent of
the nonpolymeric new chemicals sub-
mitted to EPA for review each year.
The agency receives an average of
2,300 PMN submissions a year. As a
result, decisions the agency makes
about dyes have a significant effect on
both worker safety and the chemical
marketplace.
EPA analysis of bioavailable benzidine
indicated the chemical and its deriva-
tives may pose significant risk of can-
cer. The agency consistently re-
sponded to PMNs for the chemical
and its derivatives by banning their
use pending industry's development
of test data on cancer risk. The cost
and duration of these tests—they took
five years to complete—eventually
spurred industry to search for substi-
tutes that would not require such
tests. Today, benzidine and its de-
rivatives are rarely used in new dyes.
The agency has identified grave con-
cerns about six other categories of
chemicals commonly used in dyes,
however. One of these categories is
naphthylamine, which is among the
chemicals that industry has sought to
substitute for benzidines. When EPA
identified naphthylamine as a chemi-
cal category of concern, industry
moved to sulfonated naphthylamines,
which some data indicated were a less
toxic subclass of the chemical. EPA
found the data on sulfonated naph-
thylamines to be conflicting, however,
and chose to ban their use pending
additional testing.
Sulfonated naphthylamines are a com-
mon component of dyes for which
PMNs are currently submitted, so
EPA's action had serious implications
for the marketplace. In response,
producers have undertaken mutagen-
icity testing of at least two subsets of
sulfonated naphthylamines. The test
results demonstrated to EPA that
these particular subsets could be safely
used in dyes.
The agency hopes that industry groups
will undertake similar testing for
other subsets of sulfonated naphthy-
lamines as well as other aromatic
amines of concern, such as substituted
anilines.
In clearly defining its chemical cat-
egories of concern, EPA has also iden-
tified its health and ecotoxicity con-
cerns and recommended specified tests
that would address these concerns.
Some of these concerns are already
being addressed through testing by
chemical manufacturers. A major
objective of making this information
public is to encourage producers of
new chemicals to generate data prior
to submitting a new chemical for
review. More complete data allow
EPA to make better-informed deci-
sions about new chemicals.
New Chemicals continued from page 5
EPA hopes the New Chemicals
Program's emphasis on examining
environmental releases of new chemi-
cals will encourage submitters to
incorporate pollution-prevention
activities throughout the chemicals'
life cycles.
Criteria are established
The criteria for soliciting environ-
mental fate testing are
• whether the substance will be pro-
duced in substantial quantities;
• whether EPA predicts substantial
or significant human exposure to
or environmental release of the
substance;
• what environmental medium or
media will be exposed to the sub-
stance; and
• the predicted physical and chemical
properties of the substance.
For more information
A guidance document describing the
testing recommendations is available
from the TSCA Assistance Informa-
tion Service (TSCA hotline). The
document includes recommendations
for both toxicity and environmental
fate testing. For information on how
to contact the TSCA hotline, see
page 37.
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
Establishment of a
blanket certification
that importers can
submit annually to
EPA will reduce
the administrative
burden for both
importers and EPA.
Importing
EPA Initiates Blanket Certification Procedures
For Chemicals Imported through the Mail
EPA has established a procedure for "blanket" certification of small quantities of
chemical substances imported through the mail on a regular basis.
Section 13 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires importers to
certify that chemical substances brought into the United States are in compli-
ance with all applicable rules and orders under the act. Importers provide this
certification to the U.S. Customs Service when the substance enters the country
through a port of entry. When the substance is mailed into the United States
and is not inspected by the U.S. Customs Service, however, certification is pro-
vided to EPA. Until now, companies were required to submit certification to
EPA for each parcel imported through the mail.
Establishment of a blanket certification that importers can submit annually to
EPA will reduce the administrative burden for both importers and EPA. The
U.S. Customs Service also allows blanket certification for repeated imports of
the same chemical substance. The steps for submitting a blanket certification to
EPA are as follows:
1. The company must file a TSCA section 13 import certification with EPA for
a chemical substance the first time the substance is imported by mail. With
this certification, the company must include a statement of its intent to use a
blanket certification for future shipments of the substance.
2. The company must submit an annual report to EPA, postmarked by January
31, for each chemical that is imported under a blanket certification. The
annual report should identify each shipment of the chemical during the pre-
ceding year. Reports should be sent to TSCA Section 13 Coordinator, Chemi-
cal Assessment Rules Section (TS-778), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
3. The company must maintain, and have available for EPA inspection, records
of all chemicals imported under a blanket certification.
For more information
For more information about EPA's blanket certification, contact Joan
Kuchkuda, Existing Chemical Assessment Division (TS-778), U.S. EPA,
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460; telephone, (202) 260-3467.
For information about U.S. Customs procedures, see EPA's A Guide for Chemical
Importers/Exporters, which is available from the TSCA Assistance Information
Service (TSCA hotline). See page 37 for information on contacting the hotline.
The guide is also available from the Government Printing Office.
VOL.13/NO. 1 APRIL 1992
-------
Importing
Importers of Hazardous Waste Must Comply with RCRA and TSCA
Hazardous waste is sometimes im-
ported into the United States when
the nation in which it originated does
not have adequate capacity, facilities,
or sites for proper treatment or dis-
posal. EPA regulates the import of
hazardous waste under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) and
the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act (RCRA).
Any person who imports hazardous
waste into the United States must
comply with both TSCA and RCRA
regulations. This article provides
general information about these regu-
lations. Procedures sometimes vary
because of the exporting country's
requirements or the individual prop-
erties of the waste involved. Specific
instructions for individual cases are
available from EPA headquarters or
regional offices. Headquarters infor-
mation resources are listed in this
article.
TSCA requirements
At the port of entry, importers must
certify to the U.S. Customs Service
that (1) the shipment is subject to
TSCA and complies with all appli-
cable rules and orders under the stat-
ute or (2) the shipment is not subject
to TSCA. Section 3 of TSCA broadly
defines the chemical substances and
mixtures regulated by the statute.
In general, importers can make a
positive certification for waste im-
ported to be burned as a fuel, dis-
posed of, or used for extraction of
component chemical substances.
Before providing a positive certifica-
tion, importers must make sure they
are in compliance with regulations
promulgated under section 5 of
TSCA. In addition, importers should
be aware of EPA authorities under
sections 4, 6, 7, and 8 of TSCA.
Summaries of key provisions of
TSCA follow.
Specific instructions for
individual cases are available
from EPA.
I Section 5 of TSCA requires that a
premanufacture notice (PMN) be
provided to EPA prior to importing
any new chemical substance into
the United States. However,
PMNs do not have to be submitted
for (1) waste that is imported solely
for use in the extraction of a com-
mercial chemical substance or (2)
chemical byproducts that were
produced without a separate com-
mercial intent during the manufac-
ture, processing, or use of another
chemical substance. Such
byproducts include spent solvents,
spent cleaning agents, used motor
oil, and manufacturing waste.
I Waste used as a feedstock for a
manufacturing process requires a
positive certification, and the im-
porter must provide a PMN to EPA
if the waste is a new chemical sub-
stance.
I Under section 4 of TSCA, EPA can
require importers to develop data
on a potentially harmful chemical's
health and environmental effects.
• Certain chemicals imported into
the United States may be subject to
restrictions under section 6 of
TSCA. For example, waste contain-
ing greater than 50 parts per mil-
lion of PCBs cannot be imported
except in limited situations.
• Under section 7 of TSCA, EPA can
file a civil action to seize an immi-
nently hazardous chemical or to
obtain relief from the importer. A
chemical that a court has ordered
seized because of imminent hazard
cannot be imported into the United
States.
• Section 8 of TSCA may require
(1) reporting on substances that are
constituents of waste burned as a
fuel and (2) submission of unpub-
lished studies for certain chemicals.
For more information
• See 40 CFR 720.30 for information
about chemicals that are not subject
to PMN requirements.
• Contact the TSCA Assistance Infor-
mation Service (TSCA hotline),
Monday through Friday, from 8:30
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, at
(202) 554-1404.
• Contact Joan Kuchkuda, Existing
Chemical Assessment Division
(TS-778), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460;
telephone, (202) 260-3467;
FAX (202) 260-8168.
RCRA requirements
RCRA requires that a Uniform Haz-
ardous Waste Manifest accompany
hazardous waste transported within
the United States. The importer is
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
Importing
frequently responsible for completing
the manifest before a hazardous waste
shipment enters the United States.
Information about how to complete
the manifest appears at 40 CFR
262.60.
Notification procedures
RCRA requires that importing facili-
ties notify the appropriate EPA re-
gional administrator 30 days before
receipt of the waste. The treatment,
storage, or disposal facility is re-
quired to provide notification to
state authorities, rather than to EPA,
if the state in which a facility is lo-
cated is authorized by EPA to oversee
the hazardous waste program. Facili-
ties can accept only the hazardous
waste that is within the scope of
their permits.
Procedures differ for imports from
Canada and Mexico
The procedures for importing hazard-
ous waste from Canada and Mexico
are set out in bilateral agreements
between the United States and those
countries. Canadian and Mexican
exporting facilities are required to
notify their governments of the intent
to export waste to the United States.
The Canadian or Mexican government
provides this information to EPA
headquarters, which then contacts the
EPA regional office in which the im-
porting facility is located. The re-
gional office determines, in consulta-
tion with the state, if the treatment,
storage, or disposal facility is allowed
to receive the waste. EPA must notify
the government of Canada within 30
days and the government of Mexico
within 45 days whether it objects to
the import.
For more information
• See 40 CFR 260, 261, 262, 263,
264, 265, and 271: Hazardous
Waste Management System;
Exports of Hazardous Waste;
Final Rule.
I See the June 25, 1985, memo clari-
fying who in the United States
assumes the responsibilities of the
"generator" of hazardous waste
when the waste is imported. The
document can be obtained by writ-
ing to RCRA Docket RIC (OS-
305), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, or
calling (202) 260-9327, Monday
through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. Eastern time.
I Contact the RCRA hotline, Mon-
day through Friday, from 8:30 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, at (800)
424-9346 or (703) 920-9810.
I Contact Mary Jean Osborne in the
RCRA Enforcement Division (OS-
520), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460;
telephone, (202) 260-8728.
Basel Convention Will Affect Waste Importing and Exporting
Agreement Becomes Effective in May
A new international agreement gov-
erning the movement of waste be-
tween nations will go into effect on
May 5, 1992. The agreement is the
Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazard-
ous Wastes and Their Disposal, and it
is expected to improve environmental
controls on waste management.
Fifty nations, including the United
States, signed the Basel Convention in
1989. Since then, 20 nations have
ratified the agreement, signaling they
are able to implement the terms of
the agreement. The United States is
unable to ratify the convention with-
out establishing additional federal
authority for managing the import-
ing and exporting of waste. Legisla-
tion to provide this authority has
been introduced in both the Senate
and the House of Representatives.
The Basel Convention establishes
controls on the movement of waste
between nations and subsequent
management of the waste. After
May 5, hazardous waste, household
waste, and household waste combus-
tion ash cannot leave or enter ratify-
ing nations unless the provisions of
the Basel Convention are met. Im-
ports and exports between a ratifying
nation and a nonratifying nation are
forbidden unless a separate bilateral
agreement that provides for environ-
mentally sound waste management
exists.
VOL.13 /N0.1 APRIL 1992
-------
Toxics Release Inventory
Expansion of TRI
Reporting Considered
EPA is evaluating how to expand the
scope of the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI). Since 1987, section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) has
required certain manufacturing facili-
ties to report to the TRI their releases
and off-site transfers of any of more
than 300 chemicals and chemical
categories.
TRI information has been a powerful
tool for individuals, environmental
groups, regulators, and industry itself
in gaining a picture of toxics emis-
sions in their communities and states.
This picture, however, is incomplete,
since (1) only a limited number of
industries are subject to TRI report-
ing requirements and (2) reporting is
required only for specified chemicals.
To address these issues, EPA has
convened two workgroups to study
new regulatory options. One
workgroup is screening chemicals
that are listed in other federal and
state statutes to determine which
should be added to the TRI reporting
list established by section 313 of
EPCRA. The second workgroup is
looking at requiring additional cat-
egories of industrial facilities to re-
port their releases to TRI. Once the
initial phases of these activities are
complete, the two workgroups will
combine the information they have
gathered and propose expansion of
the current section 313 reporting
requirements. EPA expects to pub-
lish a notice of proposed rulemaking
later this year.
U.S. Right-to-Know Law Is Gathering
International Attention
The United States is the only nation in the world that collects and provides
public access to data about toxic chemicals emitted to the environment by in-
dustry. Two nations—Canada and the United Kingdom—are in the midst of
establishing public right-to-know programs, and others are expected to imple-
ment similar programs in the future.
The U.S. program is serving as a model for these nations' efforts. In the United
States, EPA collects emissions estimates for more than 300 toxic chemicals and
20 chemical categories that are manufactured or used by certain industrial fa-
cilities. Compiled in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), the data are used
extensively by EPA, state governments, industry, public health experts, and
environmental groups. The 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act (EPCRA) established the TRI.
Last November, 73 representatives of government, industry, and public interest
groups from 20 nations listened to their U.S. counterparts describe how envi-
ronmental data are collected in the United States. Countries represented in-
cluded Western and Central European nations, Canada, Japan, and Australia.
Held in Vienna, Austria, the conference was cosponsored by the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development and EPA's Office of Toxic Sub-
stances, now the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
The International Conference on Reporting Releases of Toxic Chemicals pro-
vided practical information about toxics release reporting, citizen right-to-
know programs, and the way the TRI program benefits U.S. environmental
policy. In smaller break-out sessions, attendees discussed the details of report-
ing requirements and how TRI data are managed and used. EPA provided
participants with online access to TRI data on the National Library of
Medicine's database and demonstrated other available data-use tools.
Participants also heard a representative from Environment Canada discuss his
nation's efforts to establish a national pollutant release inventory and make it
available to the public by 1994.
During discussion in the concluding session of the conference, many attendees
indicated that a chemical-release reporting system would be of value in their
nations. The attendees indicated the need for international cooperation in de-
veloping and implementing such programs. Central Europeans, though, put
more basic environmental problems first on their agendas.
For more information
For more information about international efforts to develop a TRI, contact the
TSCA Assistance Information Service (TSCA hotline). See page 37 for informa-
tion about how to contact the hotline.
m
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
Toxics Release Inventory
How to Obtain TRI Data
• Through a Computer network. Online access to national and state TRI data is available from the National Library of
Medicine's TOXNET. To obtain an account, call (301) 496-6531, or write TRI Representative, Specialized Information
Services, National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20894. Account holders also have ac-
cess to other National Library of Medicine databases on toxicology, health, and chemical substances.
• At the library. Access to state TRI data is available at most federal depository and county public libraries. The deposi-
tory libraries holding the fiche or CD-ROM in their collections are listed in Federal Depository Libraries: Your Source for the
Toxic Release Inventory; the names and addresses of the public libraries that have TRI on fiche are listed in the Directory of
Public Libraries. To obtain a list of the libraries that provide TRI access or to obtain the brochure Public Access to the Toxic
Release Inventory, call EPA's EPCRA Information Hotline at (800) 535-0202 or (703) 920-9877.
• By purchasing one of these formats: CD-ROM, microfiche, diskette, magnetic tape, or written report. These formats
can be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) or the U.S. Government Printing Office
(GPO). Listed below are the years for which the data are available and ordering numbers. For additional information,
contact NTIS at (703) 487-4650 or GPO at (202) 783-3238 (microfiche, CD-ROM, and report form) or (202) 275-0186
(magnetic tape and diskette).
TRI Data Available for Purchase
CD-ROM
Microfiche
Diskette
Magnetic Tape Report
NTIS 1987 national
inventory
#PB90-502311
1987-1989 national
inventory
#PB92-500024
GPO 1987 national 1987 national
inventory inventory
#055-000-00356-4 #055-000-00320-3
1987-1989 1988 national
national inventory inventory *
#055-000-00396-3
1987 and 1988
individual state *
1987,1988,1989
national inventory *
1987, 1988, 1989
individual state *
1988 and 1989
national inventory *
1988 and 1989
individual state *
1987 national
inventory
#PB-89-1 86068
1988 national
inventory
#PB-90-502030
1989 national
inventory
#PB-91 -507509
1987 national
inventory *
1988 national
inventory *
1989 national
inventory *
1987 complete
report
#PB-208144
1987 executive
summary
#PB-208151
1987 complete
report
#055-000-0290-8
1987 executive
summary
#055-000-0289-4
1988 complete
report
#055-000-00363-7
1989 complete
report
#055-000-00387-4
* Order number can be obtained from the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Information
Hotline at (800) 535-0202 or (703) 920-9877.
VOL.13/N0.1 APRIL 1992
-------
I
Toxics Release Inventory
Toxics Release Inventory Section 313 Petitions
Receipt Date Chemical Name
Submitter
Action 180-Day Proposed Rule Final Rule or
Requested Deadline FR Pub Date Denial Pub Date
PETITIONS DENIED
11/25/86
04/30/87
05/15/87
05/15/87
05/15/87
07/13/88
07/13/88
09/09/88
04/14/89
04/14/89
05/15/89
06/27/89
08/07/89
09/05/89
09/07/89
09/1 9/89
12/12/89
01/29/90
05/21/91
Inorganic Fluorides
Orthophenylphenol
Cobalt & Compounds
Nickel & Compounds
Manganese & Compounds
Ethytene
Propytene
Cydohexane
Cadmium Selenide
Cadmium SuKide
Decarbromodiphenyl Oxide
Cr/Sb/TiBuffRutile
Barium Sulfate
Antimony Compound
Zinc Borate Hydrate
Barium Sulfate
SulfuricAcid
Zinc Sulfide
Chromium(lll) Compounds
Safe Water Foundation of Texas
Dow Chemical Company
Hall Chemical Company
Hall Chemical Company
Hall Chemical Company
Chemical Manufacturers Assoc.
Chemical Manufacturers Assoc.
Chemical Manufacturers Assoc.
SCM Chemicals, Inc.
SCM Chemicals, Inc.
Great Lakes Chemical Corp.
Dry Color Manufacturers Assoc.
Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Assoc.
Synthetics Product Company
U.S. Borax Research Corp.
Dry Color Manufacturers Assoc.
ECOLAB Inc.
Ore and Chemical Corp.
California Products Corp.
List /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ 02/12/90
/ / /
/ / /
/ 02/12/90
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
05/29/87
10/29/87
12/03/87
12/03/87
12/03/87
01/27/89
01/27/89
03/15/89
10/19/89
10/18/89
11/03/89
01/08/90
05/23/91
02/13/90
03/20/90
05/23/91
06/18/90
08/01/90
11/22/91
PETITIONS GRANTED
08/24/87
08/19/87
08/19/87
10/06/87
10/06/87
10/06/87
10/07/87
04/22/88
06/01/88
06/01/88
06/01/88
08/09/88
09/30/88
07/27/89
01/09/90
Titanium Dioxide
Titanium Dioxide
Titanium Dioxide
Titanium Dioxide
Cl Acid Blue 9
Cl Acid Blue 9
Melamine Crystal
Sodium Hydroxide Solution
Cl Pigment Blue 15
Cl Pigment Green 7
Cl Pigment Green 36
Sodium Sulfate
Alum. Oxide (Non-Fibrous)
TerephthalicAcid
Seven CFCs and Hatons
Dupont De Nemours and Co.
SCM Chemicals, Inc., and Didier
Taylor Refractories Corp.
Didier Taylor Refractories Corp.
Kemira Oy.
Ecological and lexicological Assoc.
of the Dyestuffs Manufacturing Industry
Ecological and lexicological Assoc.
of the Dyestuffs Manufacturing Industry
Melamine Chemical Company
Chlorine Institute Inc.
Dry Color Manufacturers Assoc.
Dry Color Manufacturers Assoc.
Dry Color Manufacturers Assoc.
Hoechst Celanese Corp.
Aluminum Association et al.
Amoco Corp.
Natural Resources Defense Council
and Governors Mario Cuomo of New York,
Madeleine Kunin of Vermont, Thomas Kean
of New Jersey
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
Delist /
List /
/ 02/19/88
/ 02/19/88
/ 02/19/88
/ 02/19/88
/ 04/12/88
/ 04/12/88
/ 06/20/88
/ 12/09/88
/ 05/15/91
/ 05/15/89
/ 05/15/89
/ 02/17/89
/ 04/12/89
/ 02/15/90
/ 03/21/90
06/20/88
06/20/88
06/20/88
06/20/88
10/07/88
10/07/88
03/29/89
12/15/89
05/23/91
05/23/91
05/23/91
06/20/89
02/14/90
12/10/90
08/03/90
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
Toxics Release Inventory
Receipt Date Chemical Name
Submitter
Action 180-Day Proposed Rule Final Rule or
Requested Deadline FR Pub Date Denial Pub Date
PETITIONS PENDING
11/19/90
09/11/91
09/24/91
09/24/91
11/06/91
12/03/91
01/28/92
03/04/92
Phosphoric Acid
Hydrochloric Acid
Acetone
Barium Sulfate
Barium Sulfate
HCFCs
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
82 Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act U Listed Chemicals
The Fertilizer Institute
Vukan/Dupont/BASF/Monsanto
Eastman Chem./ Hoechst Celanese
Chemical Products Corp.
Dry Cobr Manufacturers Assoc.
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Friends of the Earth, Environmental
Defense Fund
Vista Chemical Company
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Governor Mario Cuomo of New York
Delist
Modify
Delist
Delist
Delist
List
Delist
List
05/18/91 / / / /
03/09/92 / / / /
03/22/92 / / / /
03/22/92 / / / /
03/22/92 / / / /
05/31/92 / / / /
07/26/92 / / / /
08/31/92 / / / /
PROPOSED RULES
02/09/87 Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
01/23/89 Ammonium Sulfate (SOLN)
12/24/90 SulfuricAcid
PETmONS WITHDRAWN
01/27/88 Iron Chrom'ite
01/27/88 Molybdenum Trioxide
07/21/88 Phthalic Anhydride
09/09/88 Methyl Ethyl Ketone
09/09/88 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
11/22/88 Diethyl Phthalate
11/28/88 Trifluralin
12/14/89 Phosphoric Acid
Monsanto Chemical Co.
Allied Signal, Inc.
American Cyanamid
American Minerals
Amax Mineral Resource Co.
Chemical Manufacturers Assoc.
Chemical Manufacturers Assoc.
Chemical Manufacturers Assoc.
Firmenich, Inc.
Eli Lilly and Co.
Ecolab, Inc.
CHEMICALS ADDED TO TRI REPORTING LIST BY EPA
/ / 2,3-Dichtoropropene EPA
/ / m-Dinitrobenzene EPA
/ / p-Dinitrobenzene EPA
/ / o-Dinitrobenzene EPA
/ / Allyl Alcohol EPA
/ / Isosafrote EPA
/ / Creosote EPA
/ / Dinitrotoluene-mixed Isomers EPA
/ / Toluenediisocyanate-mixed Isomers EPA
Delist
Delist
Modify
Delist
Delist
Delist
Delist
Delist
Delist
Delist
Delist
List
List
List
List
List
List
List
List
List
07/20/87
03/30/90
07/26/91
06/25/90
04/21/89
04/21/89
0451/89
0451/89
04/21/89
0451/89
0451/89
04/21/89
0451/89
12/01/89
12/01/89
12/01/89
1201/89
12/01/89
1201/89
12/01/89
12/01/89
1201/89
VOL.13/NO. 1 APRIL 1992
-------
Existing Chemicals Program
Unpublished Exposure Data Are Sought on RM1 Chemicals
The Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT) is seeking unpublished
exposure information on five chemicals
and one chemical group. These sub-
stances have been selected to enter
OPPT's Risk Assessment One (RM1)
process. The purpose of RM1 is to
identify chemicals that may require
action to reduce or eliminate possible
harm to human health or the environ-
ment. The information being sought
will help OPPT determine which of
the selected substances require further
action on the part of EPA.
The substances are
m triethylene glycol ethers,
• trichlorobenzene,
• diethylenetriamine,
• crotonaldehyde,
• 4-nonylphenol, and
• methanol.
The data sought are
• methods used for production;
• commercial uses;
• quantities released or disposed of;
• exposed populations;
• environmental monitoring;
• planned or ongoing testing;
• risk-assessment activities; and
• pollution-prevention or exposure-
reduction efforts.
Testing has been required on all these
chemicals under section 4 of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
and will be completed soon. The
agency has also required submission
of unpublished health and safety
studies on these chemicals under
section 8(d) of TSCA.
How to submit information
OPPT's premanufacture notice
(PMN) form is suggested as a guide
to understanding the types of expo-
sure data that EPA is seeking. EPA
is not seeking information already
submitted to the agency.
OPPT will pkce all information
received in the public RM1 adminis-
trative record unless the submitter
asserts a ckim of confidentiality in
accordance with section 14 of TSCA.
TSCA does not allow confidentiality
claims for health and safety studies.
Information should be sent to
EPA/OPPT/IMD (TS-793)
RM1 Process
Attention: [name of chemical]
Washington, D.C. 20460
For more information
If you have a question about this
request, contact John Leitzke, Exist-
ing Chemical Assessment Division
(TS-778), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460;
telephone, (202) 260-3507; FAX,
(202) 260-8168.
Companies Receive Letters about Amine/Nitrite Combinations
EPA has identified significant risk
associated with machinists' use of
metalworking fluids containing com-
binations of amines and nitrites.
Amines and nitrites in metalworking
fluids form nitrosamines—primarily
N-nitrosodiethanolamine (NDELA).
NDELA is a potent human carcino-
gen, and most of the other nitro-
samines are suspect carcinogens. Safe
substitutes for nitrites in metalwork-
ing fluids are generally available.
On January 24, 1991, EPA published
a proposed significant new use rule
(SNUR) requiring notice before com-
mencing the manufacture, import, or
processing of alkali metal nitrites for
use in metalworking fluids contain-
ing amines.
In providing comments on the pro-
posed SNUR to EPA, one company
stated it was selling sodium nitrite to
customers who may be involved in
metalworking. A second company
stated it manufactured a metalwork-
ing fluid containing amines and ni-
trites. Both firms provided a list of
companies that may use amines and
nitrites in metalworking fluids.
In a letter sent to nine companies in
November 1991, EPA asked for in-
formation about the use of metal-
working fluids containing nitrites
and amines. Seven companies told
EPA they do not manufacture, im-
port, or sell any metalworking fluids
that contain nitrites and amines. The
company that sells sodium nitrite to
customers who may be involved in
metalworking agreed to provide writ-
ten warning to customers that ni-
trites should not be added to metal-
working fluids which contain amines.
The company that manufactures a
metalworking fluid containing
amines and nitrites agreed to stop
making the product.
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
Asbestos
EPA to Reexamine Products Affected by Remand of Asbestos Rule
Court Did Not Dispute Health Risks Posed by Asbestos
On October 18, 1991, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated
the Asbestos Ban and Phase Out
(ABPO) Rule and remanded it to EPA
(Corrosion Proof Fittings et al. v. EPA,
No. 89-4596). The court said EPA
failed to meet the legal requirements
of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), the statutory authority under
which the rule was issued. Most im-
portant, the court found that EPA had
not shown that it had selected the least
burdensome regulation that provided
an adequate level of protection, as re-
quired by TSCA.
The court did not dispute the fact that
asbestos, a widely recognized carcino-
gen, is a hazardous substance that poses
serious health risks. Rather, the court
criticized EPA's cost/benefit analysis
and EPA's analysis of the toxicity,
operational safety, and availability of
substitutes. The court thought that
EPA had not sufficiently justified the
costs of the ban when weighed against
its benefits and that satisfactory sub-
stitutes were not available for some
products. EPA had decided to use a
three-stage ban in order to provide
time for substitutes to be phased into
production and to stimulate the devel-
opment of substitutes. None of the
likely substitutes was known to be as
hazardous as asbestos.
On November 15, 1991, in response
to an EPA motion, the court issued a
clarification which said that EPA
could regulate new uses of asbestos and
those products included in the ABPO
Rule that were not being manufac-
tured, processed, or imported on July
12, 1989, when the rule was pub-
lished. On November 27, 1991, the
court denied an EPA petition for re-
hearing. EPA had 90 days from that
date to appeal the decision to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
On March 2, 1992, the agency an-
nounced that the Fifth Circuit's deci-
sion would not be appealed. EPA in-
tends to reexamine the products af-
fected by the court's decision, however,
and will take appropriate action to
address any continuing unreasonable
risks related to use of those products.
The agency will also pursue any regula-
tory actions under section 6 of TSCA
that it deems appropriate.
HEI Report Supports EPA's Asbestos-Management Policy
A recent study of asbestos literature
supports EPA's major policies on
reducing exposure to asbestos in
buildings, especially those policies
that emphasize management rather
than removal. The study was com-
pleted in September 1991 by the
Health Effects Institute-Asbestos
Research (HEI-AR). Congress se-
lected HEI in 1989 to evaluate the
effectiveness of asbestos-management
and -abatement strategies.
HEI-AR's report affirmed three key
elements of EPA's asbestos policy.
• Building occupants are generally
exposed to very low levels of asbes-
tos, based on available data.
• Removal of asbestos is often not the
best course of action to reduce ex-
posure to asbestos. In fact, an im-
proper removal can create a danger-
ous situation where none existed
previously.
• Maintenance and service personnel
may face higher levels of exposure
and risk because of their work ac-
tivities.
"We believe the HEI-AR study is a
valuable addition to our own evalua-
tion of asbestos information," said
Linda Fisher, assistant administrator
for the Office of Prevention, Pesti-
cides, and Toxic Substances.
Reducing building workers' exposure
The HEI-AR findings echo EPA's
concerns about reducing building
workers' exposure to asbestos. EPA is
working with the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) to address the potential risks
to workers in public and commercial
buildings. OSHA, which is respon-
sible for workplace safety for many of
the nation's workers, is taking the
lead in developing rules to protect
workers in public and commercial
buildings from exposure to asbestos.
EPA will use the Toxic Substances
Control Act to match OSHA's ac-
tions to ensure that workers not cov-
ered by OSHA are equally protected.
VOL.13/NO. 1 APRIL 1992
-------
Lead Activities
Universities Receive Funds to Set Up Lead-Abatement Training
EPA is establishing a national net-
work to train people how to inspect
and abate lead in homes and other
structures. The program is part of
the agency's plan for reducing the
health risks caused by lead exposure,
particularly in children.
The agency awarded grants to five
university-based consortia on March
9, 1992, to set up the national net-
work of regional lead-training cen-
ters. Each center will receive be-
tween $190,000 and $390,000 this
year, depending on the size of the
geographical area it is working in and
the scope of the lead problem. Sec-
ond-year funding is expected to be
between $100,000 and $150,000 for
each center.
The EPA Regional Lead Training
Centers are expected to begin opera-
tions in July 1992. The centers will
be responsible for setting up training
and outreach networks throughout
their regions. Center activities will
involve (1) working with other col-
leges and universities, community
organizations, and trade groups to
make training available in as many
locations as possible and (2) helping
state health and state environmental
officials, public interest groups, doc-
tors and other health professionals,
and professional associations learn
about and deal effectively with risks
posed by lead.
Development of standardized training
EPA has been developing the na-
I Training Network
Centers based at these universities
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
University of Maryland and
University of Cincinnati
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Kansas
University of California at San Diego
Will set up a training network
for these states and U.S. territories
Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachu-
setts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York,
New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands
Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia,
Delaware, Virginia, the District of Columbia,
Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois,
Indiana, and Ohio
Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida,
New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and
Louisiana
Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana,
Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, North Dakota, and
South Dakota
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Nevada,
Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, and
Guam
tional program in cooperation with
the National University Continuing
Education Association. The associa-
tion, which provides training to
people in many professions, will con-
tinue to coordinate the activities of
the regional centers.
The centers will offer standardized
training based on EPA's model course
materials. The training is for state
and local officials, lead inspectors,
abatement supervisors, project de-
signers, and contractors. Addition-
ally, $2.4 million in grants will be
provided to labor organizations and
others unions this year for training
abatement workers.
The EPA Regional Lead Training
Centers are expected to improve the
quality of the training currently
available, train greater numbers of
people than is currently possible,
and establish consistent guidance
for property owners and others who
are dealing with lead testing and
abatement.
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
Lead Activities/Update
Technical Lead-Based Paint Activities
Update: 33/50 Program
EPA is studying the efficacy of differ-
ent methods to abate lead-based paint
in housing. To do so, the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) is carrying out two projects
over the next two years.
The first project, the Comprehensive
Abatement Performance Study, will
assess lead-based paint abatement
methods used by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) in 197 single-family FHA
homes in Denver. OPPT plans to test
the homes this year and, thereafter,
annually for three or four years.
The second project, the Repair and
Maintenance Study, will evaluate a
number of lower-cost abatement
strategies in housing containing lead-
based paint in Baltimore. Abate-
ments are scheduled to be performed
this year, and periodic evaluation of
long-term efficacy will take place for
the next three to four years.
Coordinated federal effort
The two projects are part of a federal
effort to eliminate childhood lead
poisoning from exposure to lead-
based paint in housing. HUD, EPA,
the Centers for Disease Control, and
11 other federal agencies are working
together in the effort. Ronald J.
Morony, deputy director of HUD's
Office of Lead-based Paint Abatement
and Poisoning Prevention, and Joseph
J. Merenda, Jr., director of OPPT's
Exposure Evaluation Division, are co-
chairing a federal interagency task
force to coordinate activities and the
exchange of information.
The task force is focusing on three
activities:
• establishing a federal clearinghouse
and hotline to provide information
on lead to the public;
• evaluating and improving methods
to measure lead in paint, dust, soil,
and blood, which involves assessing
laboratory protocols, creating ana-
lytical standard reference materials,
and forming a laboratory accredita-
tion program; and
• developing a national plan for reduc-
ing exposure to lead.
Other EPA activities
In 1991, a grant was awarded to the
University of Lowell, in Massachu-
setts, to develop testing protocols for
lead-based paint encapsulant products.
This effort will continue in 1992.
OPPT and EPA's Office of Research
and Development are working to-
gether to develop abatement-contrac-
tor and homeowner test kits and to
evaluate methods for detecting and
measuring lead, including the por-
table X-ray fluorescence analyzer and
improved chemical extraction meth-
ods. OPPT is also forming a labora-
tory accreditation program to assure
accurate and precise lead measure-
ments in environmental media.
HUD restructuring
HUD has moved its lead-based paint
abatement activities into the newly
created Office of Lead-based Paint
Abatement and Poisoning Prevention,
which reports directly to HUD Secre-
tary Jack Kemp. The new office is
responsible for coordinating lead-
based paint activities among HUD's
various housing programs.
More than 700 companies have agreed
to voluntarily reduce emissions of 17
high-priority toxic chemicals at their
industrial facilities. These companies
are participating in EPA's 33/50 Pro-
gram, which is designed to prevent
pollution by reducing generation of
industrial toxics at their source.
The written commitments from in-
dustry indicate that 1995 emissions
of the 17 chemicals will decrease by
more than 300 million pounds from
1988 levels. In 1988, 1.4 billion
pounds of the chemicals were released
into the environment or transferred to
off-site management facilities. The
goal of the 33/50 Program is to re-
duce this quantity by at least 50 per-
cent, or 700 million pounds, by the
end of 1995.
"A growing number of companies are
discovering both economic and envi-
ronmental advantages of taking steps
to prevent pollution by reducing
waste early in the manufacturing
process," EPA Administrator William
K. Reilly said in February. "With the
33/50 Program, we're heading toward
market-based environmental protec-
tion, where toxic-waste reduction can
provide a real competitive advantage."
For more information
For additional information about the
33/50 Program, contact Susan Hazen,
director, Special Projects Office
(TS-792A), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460;
telephone, (202) 260-1761.
VOL.13/N0.1 APRIL 1992
-------
International
Governments and Industry Identify Data Needed to Assess Safety of CFC Substitutes
Five chemicals developed as substi-
tutes for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
will undergo additional testing to
generate data needed to assess the
safety of the substances.
In October 1991, the United States,
the European Community, Japan,
and the Program for Alternative
Fluorocarbon Toxicity Testing
(PAFT), which represents an interna-
tional consortium of manufacturers of
CFC alternatives, announced their
common understanding regarding
the need for additional testing. The
consortium of manufacturers of CFC
alternatives will perform the tests.
The need for CFC substitutes is in-
creasing because the use of CFCs is
being phased out under an interna-
tional agreement. CFCs deplete the
Earth's ozone layer.
The five hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs) that will undergo additional
testing are
• HFC-134a • HCFC-123
• HCFC-141 b • HCFC-124
• HFC-125
EPA's evaluation of data from testing
to date indicates these chemicals can
safely be used when proper controls are
in place. The agency will review new
test data as they are received, however,
and reassess the range of recommended
exposure levels and uses. For example,
the agency is closely evaluating
HCFC-123, since preliminary test
results indicate benign tumors in rats
that inhaled HCFC-123. In response
to this finding, U.S. manufacturers
have lowered the industry-recom-
mended occupational exposure levels
for the chemical.
The United States, the European Com-
munity, and Japan are continuing to
work together to identify areas for
which supplementary information is
needed to assess the safety of CFC
substitutes.
Montreal Protocol
Seventy-five nations are signatories to
the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which
calls for (1) a complete phaseout by
2000 of fully halogenated CFCs and
carbon tetrachloride; (2) a phaseout by
2000 of halons, with exemptions for
essential uses; and (3) a complete
phaseout of methyl chloroform by
2005.
In response to new findings that indi-
cate increased stratospheric ozone
depletion, President Bush announced
in February that the United States
will accelerate the complete phaseout
of CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride,
and methyl chloroform to 1995. Fur-
ther negotiations on limiting the use
of ozone-depleting substances under
the Montreal Protocol were scheduled
for April.
List of Additional Testing on CFC Substitutes
CFC
Substitute
HFC-134a
HCFC-123
HCFC-141b
HCFC-124
HFC-125
Acute
Toxicity
X
X
X
X
X
Subchronic
Toxicity
X
X
X
X
X
Developmental
Toxicity
X
X
X
X
X
Combined Chronic
Toxicity/Carcinogenicity
X
X
X
X
Mutagenicity
X
X
X
X
X
Reproductive
Effects
X
X
Neurotoxiciry
(with limited
neuropathology)
X
X
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
International
International Definition of Polymers Adopted
Efforts to Harmonize Polymers' Assessment Less Successful
Many member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and De-
velopment (OECD) are beginning to exchange information on how to identify
low-risk polymers. One of the first steps in this process is to define what a
polymer is. At the second OECD Expert Group meeting on polymer issues,
held in October 1991, the nations unanimously adopted the definition used by
the United States. The definition states,
"Polymer" means a substance consisting of molecules character-
ized by the sequence of one or more types of monomer units
and comprising a simple weight majority of molecules contain-
ing at least three monomer units which are covalently bound to
at least one other monomer unit or other reactant and which
consists of less than a simple weight majority of molecules of
the same molecular weight. Such molecules must be distrib-
uted over a range of molecular weights wherein differences in
the molecular weight are primarily attributable to differences
in the number of monomer units.
The advantages of a harmonized polymer definition are many, especially as
international efforts grow in the areas of chemical testing, data exchange, and
controlling chemical hazards.
Polymer assessment
The meeting concluded without establishment of an OECD standard for col-
lecting data on and reviewing new polymers. Participants did agree, however,
to evaluate the differences among their nations' requirements for polymer re-
porting. Many nations, though, do not have the resources to address polymers,
which constitute a large portion of the chemicals in commerce.
EPA's review of new polymers is the most comprehensive in the world, and
OECD members had requested information about the U.S. program. The
United States has required reporting on new chemical substances, including
polymers, since 1979- The Toxic Substances Control Act requires that chemi-
cal manufacturers and importers submit information about new substances to
EPA for review at least 90 days before they manufacture, process, or import the
substance. The agency's New Chemicals Program has reviewed nearly 10,000
polymers, which account for about half the total number of new chemicals sub-
mitted for review.
The advantages of a
harmonized polymer
definition are many,
especially as
international efforts
grow in the areas of
chemical testing, data
exchange, and control-
ling chemical hazards.
i
VOL.13/NO. 1 APRIL 1992
-------
International: SIDS Update
OECD Assigns Chemicals to Member Nations in Third Round of SIDS Program
The International Screening Informa-
tion Data Set (SIDS) program is re-
questing data on 63 chemicals that
are produced in large quantities
worldwide. Few test data are avail-
able publicly on these chemicals,
which have been identified as posing
potential health or environmental
concerns.
After the SIDS program collects and
assesses the data, the chemical indus-
tries of 14 nations will voluntarily
develop additional base-level data for
the chemicals. The 63 chemicals and
the nations that are responsible for
managing them are listed in the ac-
companying table. The United
States is handling 16 chemicals.
The SIDS program is under the aus-
pices of the Organization for Eco-
nomic Cooperation and Development
(OECD). This is the third round of
chemicals assigned in the SIDS test-
ing program. Ninety-one chemicals
were in the first two testing rounds.
(See Chemicals-in-Progress Bulletin,
volume 12, number 1, for more infor-
mation about the SIDS program.)
List of Nations Conducting Tests
CAS Number Chemical Name
Nation Conducting Tests
50817
75989
79947
80057
81118
82451
89612
92706
93834
100527
101688
102012
102716
104767
104905
105997
106423
107222
107642
108441
108894
109068
110270
110305
110918
111693
112243
112356
112505
112709
112721
112903
115117
116154
L-Ascorbic acid
2,2-Dimethyl propanoic acid
Tetrabromo bisphenol A
Bisphenol A
Benzenesulfonic acid, 2-2'-(1 ,2-ethenedi
1-aminoanthraquinone
Benzene, 1 ,4-dichloro-2-nitro-
2-Hydroxy-3-napthoic acid
9-Octadecenamide, N,N-bis(2-hydroxy ethyl
Benzaldehyde
M.D.I.
Acetoacetanilide
Triethanolamine
2-Ethylhexanol
5-ethyl-2-picoline
Di-butyl adipate
p-Xylene
Glyoxal
1-Octadecanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-octad
m-Toluidine
4-Picoline
2-Picoline
iso-Propyl myristate
Octadecanamide, N,N'1 -2-ethanediylbis-
Motpholine
1 ,4-Dicyanobutane
Triethytene tetramine
Ethanol, 2-(2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethoxy)-
Triethylene glycol, monoethyl ether
1-Tridecanol
1-Tetradecanol
9-Octadecen-1 -amine
2-Methylpropene
1-Propene, hexafluoro
United Kingdom
Netherlands
United States
Switzerland
Japan1
Japan1
Japan1
Germany
Japan1
Netherlands
United States
United States
United Kingdom
Sweden/United States
Switzerland
Japan1
Italy
France
Germany
Japan1
Belgium
Belgium
Germany
United States
United Kingdom2
France
Germany
United States
United States
United Kingdom2
United States
United States
France
Italy/United States
Workshop Held on Models for Environmental Exposure Assessment
What method should be used to assess
exposure when a chemical is released
into a particular environmental me-
dium? That question was the main
topic of an international workshop,
Application of Simple Models for
Environmental Exposure Assessment,
held in December 1991- The answer,
it turns out, depends on the nation in
which the release is occurring.
Fourteen nations participated in the
Organization for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development (OECD)
workshop, which the German Envi-
ronmental Agency hosted in Berlin.
The workshop's primary objectives
were to discuss (1) exposure assess-
ment methods that member countries
could use in performing screening-
level assessments for Screening Infor-
mation Data Set (SIDS) high-volume
chemicals and (2) what additional
data would be needed to perform
these assessments.
All the participating nations assess
exposure data to determine whether
certain chemicals warrant further
testing. (See accompanying article
about the SIDS program.) Each of
these nations, however, uses different
models for assessment, is concerned
Ml CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
International: SIDS Update
CAS Number Chemical Name
118694 2,6-Dichlorotoluene
120785 Benzthiazole disulfide
121335 Vanilla
123013 Dodecylbenzene
123319 Hydroquinone
123728 Butyraldehyde
123773 Diazenedicarboxamide
127195 Dimethylacetamide
135193 2-Naphthol
140669 Phenol, 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)-
141797 Mesityl oxide
142223 Allyl diglycol carbonate
512561 Trimethyl phosphate
611063 Benzene, 2,4-dichloro-1 -nitro-
623916 2-Butenedioic acid (E)-, diethyl ester
629118 Hexamethylene glycol
13674845 tri(1 -chtoro-2-propyl)phosphate
674828 Diketene
872059 1-Decene
923262 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate
1163195 Di-pentabromobenzene ether
1854268 2-lmidazolidinone, 4,5-dihydroxy-1,3-bis
1879090 6-tert-Butyl-2,4-xylenol
3687465 9-Octadecenoic acid (Z)-, decyl ester
4979322 N,N-Dicyclohexyl-2-benzothiazo
5392405 Citral
6742547 Benzene, undecyl
68648873 Benzene, C10-C16 alkyl derivatives
162109753 Ethylidene norborene
Nation Conducting Tests
Japan
Germany
Norway
United States3
United States
United States
Germany
Italy
Germany
Switzerland
United States
Japan1
Japan1
Japan1
Japan1
Germany
United States
United Kingdom
Finland
Japan1
United States
Germany
Japan1
Japan1
Japan1
Japan1
United States3
United States
United Kingdom
1 Four of the chemicals assigned to Japan may be withdrawn.
^This chemical may be withdrawn or replaced.
3The United States is handling this mixture of "detergent range" alkyl benzenes in lieu of handling a
series of individual alkyl benzenes including undecyl- and dodecylbenzene, found on the OECD's
list of high-volume chemicals.
Note: If you have information on any
of these chemicals, please contact
Charles Auer, director of EPA's Exist-
ing Chemical Assessment Division,
through the TSCA Assistance Infor-
mation Service (TSCA hotline). See
page 37 for information on how to
contact the hotline. Or, contact
Sandra L. Tirey, of the Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA),
2501 M Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20037; telephone, (202) 887-
1274; FAX, (202) 887-1237.
about different exposure endpoints, is
dealing with different environments,
and has different levels of data avail-
able to them when performing expo-
sure assessments. Rather than try to
eliminate the differences among the
approaches, the nations decided to use
the complementary information they
yield to prioritize the SIDS program's
30 first-round chemicals for further
assessment.
In the United States, EPA's Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) will apply the exposure-
assessment approaches used in
OPPT's New Chemicals Program in
assessing the chemicals it has been
assigned. Because sufficient expo-
sure-related data are not available
from the SIDS program, OPPT will
ask companies manufacturing SIDS
chemicals in the United States to
submit exposure information to the
agency. OPPT may ask that the same
level of information be submitted as is
required on the premanufacture notice
(PMN) form used by the New Chemi-
cals Program. OPPT expects to issue
a request for information on the 30
chemicals before summer.
Consumer and occupational exposure
assessment approaches were the subject
of a separate OECD workshop, held in
Orlando, Florida, in February 1992.
VOL.13/N0.1 APRIL 1992
-------
Reorganization
Gerald Kotas Manages Pollution Prevention Division
Gerald Kotas is director of the Pollu-
tion Prevention Division in the Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT). Mr. Kotas has managed the
division since it was established as
part of a central pollution prevention
office in the Office of Policy, Plan-
ning, and Evaluation in 1988.
Mr. Kotas joined EPA's Office of
Water (OW) in 1978. In OW's
Nonpoint Source Program, he worked
with state and local governments in
protecting local ground water under
section 208 of the Clean Water Act.
In OW's Office of Drinking Water,
he directed a team developing regula-
tions for the Underground Injection
Control Program. In 1982, Mr.
Kotas moved to the Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, which is part
of the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, where he di-
rected a technical section supporting
enforcement of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act of 1980
(Superfund). He then headed the
technical and regional support branch
for enforcement of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act for
two years.
From 1985 through 1988, Mr. Kotas
was director of the National Pesticide
Survey. The project, conducted by
EPA's Office of Drinking Water and
Office of Pesticide Programs,
sampled and analyzed drinking-water
wells across the nation to determine
the extent and gravity of their con-
tamination by pesticides. Mr. Kotas
also served for three months as
deputy director of the waste manage-
ment division in EPA's regional
office in Denver, Colorado, as a rota-
tional assignment.
Before coming to EPA, Mr. Kotas
served on the joint state/federal Great
Lakes Basin Commission, where he
worked on the development and
implementation of coastal zone man-
agement programs in the Great Lakes.
Prior to that, Mr. Kotas worked for
the Ohio Department of Natural Re-
sources on coastal zone issues on Lake
Erie. While in graduate school, he
was a research assistant for the Texas
Bureau of Economic Geology.
Mr. Kotas is a hydrogeologist. He has
a bachelor of science degree in geology
from the University of Notre Dame
and a master of science degree in envi-
ronmental geology and regional plan-
ning from the University of Texas at
Austin.
Reorganization continued from page 1
• Training and outreach: PPD oper-
ates a pollution-prevention training
program for state and federal offi-
cials, works with industry and busi-
ness groups to develop opportuni-
ties for pollution prevention, and
publishes Pollution Prevention News.
Three new organizations
At the same time that EPA Adminis-
trator William K. Reilly transferred
PPD to OPPT, he also created three
new pollution-prevention organiza-
tions in the agency.
The Senior Policy Council helps
Administrator Reilly develop pollu-
tion-prevention policies that require
cross-program coordination. Deputy
Administrator Hank Habicht chairs
the council.
The Pollution Prevention Policy
Staff supports the Senior Policy
Council and works with PPD to de-
velop policies for all agency pollu-
tion-prevention activities. The policy
staff, located in EPA's Office of the
Administrator, reports to Deputy
Administrator Habicht.
The Pollution Prevention Executive
Committee proposes options for re-
view by the Senior Policy Council
and tracks implementation of pollu-
tion-prevention activities. OPPT
Director Greenwood chairs the execu-
tive committee.
For more information
The Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse operates Monday
through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time. Among the materials
available from the clearinghouse is
Pollution Prevention Training Opportuni-
ties, an annual guide to courses and
workshops throughout the nation. To
order pollution-prevention materials
or to arrange online access to the clear-
inghouse's computerized information
network, call (703) 821-4800.
To subscribe to the monthly newslet-
ter Pollution Prevention News, write to
Priscilla Flattery, Pollution Prevention
Division (PM-222B), Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
I Other Changes Are
Planned in OPPT
Mark A. Greenwood, director of the
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT), announced on Janu-
ary 29, 1991, that he planned to reor-
ganize some OPPT programs. Mr.
Greenwood said his objective is to
consolidate management of similar
activities that are now handled by
different divisions.
As an example of how the consolida-
tion will work, Mr. Greenwood cited
the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
and asbestos programs, each of which
is spread among two or three divi-
sions. Mr. Greenwood proposes mov-
ing the various components of these
programs into one division.
Teams have been formed to make
recommendations on issues connected
with reorganization, such as the orga-
nizational changes that are needed to
improve the timeliness of chemical
risk assessments. The teams will
report to Mr. Greenwood by
April 30, 1991.
Reorganization/Indoor Air Activities
EPA Is Addressing Indoor Air Pollution
In the past several years, EPA and
other federal agencies have increased
their efforts to address the problem of
indoor air pollution. Many of these
efforts have focused on lessening ex-
posure to chemical contamination by
increasing ventilation. In addition to
these efforts, EPA's Office of Pollu-
tion Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
has two projects under way that are
concerned with identifying and reduc-
ing the indoor sources of chemical
contamination. These two projects
are described below.
Indoor Air Cluster Project
Many consumer and commercial
products contain chemicals that can
pollute the air in people's homes and
workplaces. The objective of the
Indoor Air Cluster Project is to obtain
existing data on these chemicals.
In 1991, the project collected and
organized data from various sources
into a database. Using this informa-
tion, OPPT identified about 270
chemicals found in consumer prod-
ucts. Examination of the existing
data on a product-by-product basis
indicated three product categories
that required further screening. One
of these categories, spray paints, is
undergoing screening-level risk as-
sessment for OPPT's Risk Manage* ''^
ment One (RM1) process. Wood
stains and varnishes and adhesives
will be screened next.
Based on the existing data, OPPT also
identified a number of chemicals that
are of high concern. The data, how-
ever, do not establish a strong enough
link between the chemical and the
products they are used in for OPPT to
initiate risk-management activities.
The project is considering use of a
Comprehensive Assessment Informa-
tion Rule (CAIR) to collect data to
link high-concern chemicals to con-
sumer and commercial products.
CAIRs allow EPA to collect informa-
tion from industry about the chemi-
cals subject to the rules.
Indoor Air Source Characterization
Project
The objective of the Indoor Air Source
Characterization Project is to collect
new data to determine (1) the sources
of indoor air pollution, (2) the chemi-
cals contained in those sources, (3) the
chemicals' emission rates, and (4) the
total volatile organic chemical emis-
sion rates.
The project chose interior paint for its
first source-characterization efforts.
Interior paint, which generally con-
tains one or more solvents, is applied
in large quantities throughout build-
ings. As the paint dries, the solvents
evaporate and contribute to indoor
pollution. The project is working to
identify the chemicals emitted from
the paint.
In other activities, the project is
• establishing categories of sources of
indoor air pollution;
• developing a system to prioritize
these categories for characterization;
and
• developing analytical methods for
testing products for chemical
emissions.
The Indoor Air Source Characteriza-
tion Project is a joint project of EPA's
Office of Atmospheric and Indoor Air
Programs and OPPT.
VOL.13/N0.1 APRIL 1992
-------
Indoor Air Activities
Agency Is Evaluating Options to Protect Public from Exposure
To Indoor Formaldehyde Emissions
EPA is developing a notice of pro-
posed rulemaking (NPRM) to solicit
public comment on
• regulatory options pertaining to
restricting formaldehyde emissions
from particleboard flooring that
contains urea-formaldehyde (UF)
adhesive resins and
• labeling requirements for kitchen
cabinets and other consumer prod-
ucts in which UF-pressed woods are
frequently used.
UF-particleboard flooring and other
UF-pressed woods emit formalde-
hyde, which can elevate formaldehyde
concentrations in indoor air. UF-
pressed woods include particleboard,
hardwood plywood, and medium-
density fiberboard.
During the 1980s, the UF-pressed
wood industry modified UF-pressed
wood products to reduce emissions of
formaldehyde. EPA recognizes these
efforts and has incorporated these
emission reductions into the agency's
assessment of potential indoor expo-
sure from formaldehyde in new,
single-family homes. At issue is
whether these emission reductions are
sufficient to protect the public from
the harmful health effects associated
with exposure to elevated levels of
formaldehyde.
Particleboard flooring
Known as underlayment or mobile
home decking, UF-particleboard
flooring is commonly used in manu-
factured housing and in about 10
percent of conventional houses. It is
generally recognized as the single
largest source of indoor formaldehyde
emissions when installed in indi-
vidual homes, primarily because of
the large quantities used.
EPA's current exposure assessment
indicates that flooring products—
especially when they are new—can
elevate indoor formaldehyde concen-
trations to levels above 0.1 parts per
million (ppm) for an extended period
of time. EPA's 1987 formaldehyde
risk assessment indicates that people
who are exposed to formaldehyde
levels above 0.1 ppm can experience
adverse health effects, including eye,
nose, and throat irritation.
EPA is considering control options
To control emissions from UF-par-
ticleboard flooring, EPA is consider-
ing a number of options, from tight-
ening emissions standards for UF-
particleboard flooring to restricting
the use of the product. At least two
commercial pressed-wood flooring
materials represent feasible, moder-
ately priced substitutes for UF-par-
ticleboard: oriented strand board and
softwood plywood. Both contain
low-emitting phenol-formaldehyde
(PF) resins.
Other sources of indoor formaldehyde
Wall paneling, doors, shelving,
kitchen and bathroom cabinets, and
furniture often contain UF-pressed
wood. Whether these products may
elevate formaldehyde in homes, of-
fices, and schools depends on
(1) the amount of wood present and
(2) whether the wood has been
treated or covered to prevent or
retard emissions.
EPA is considering requiring that
certain cabinet and furniture prod-
ucts containing significant amounts
of UF-pressed wood components be
labeled to (1) inform consumers of
the products' hazardous emissions
potential and (2) provide consumers
with information for choosing among
products containing UF-pressed
woods.
Coordinated federal activity
In addition to EPA, the Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
the Consumer Product Safety Com-
mission, and the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration have
regulatory authority over formalde-
hyde. EPA is consulting with all of
these bodies regarding the agency's
regulatory activities.
Any proposed rule issued by EPA
will be open to public comment.
These comments will be reviewed
before a final rule is issued.
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
Grants
EPA to Support Research on Alternate Designs of Synthetic Chemicals
EPA is funding research to design
environmentally safer pathways for
synthesizing chemicals. The agency
will provide a total of $330,000 to up
to three universities.
The Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT) established the
grants program this year. Histori-
cally, chemical companies have manu-
factured chemical compounds by
whatever synthetic route produced the
highest yield, regardless of the toxic
substances used, generated, or released
as waste. The use of alternative syn-
thetic sequences, however, could re-
duce or eliminate these toxic
substances.
By providing funds for research to find
alternative synthetic sequences, EPA
is moving toward its goal of eliminat-
ing pollution at its source. The grants
program is part of OPPT's effort to
integrate Design for the Environment
(DfE) principles into its pollution-
prevention activities. The DfE move-
ment advocates incorporating environ-
mental factors—such as taking steps
to lessen the potential for pollution—
into the early stages of product design.
(See Chemicals-in-Progress Bulletin,
volume 12, number 4, for information
about OPPT's DfE initiatives.)
EPA expects to announce the awards
in June 1992. Sixteen universities
submitted preproposals in February.
All of the universities that submitted
preproposals have graduate chemistry
departments accredited by the Ameri-
can Chemical Society.
The agency will use the following
factors to select a university or uni-
versities to receive the funds:
• How large an effect will the pro-
posed research have on preventing
pollution? The answer to this ques-
tion will depend on (1) whether the
chemical or chemical class proposed
for research is produced in large
volume and (2) how likely it is that
the alternative synthetic method
will be widely used.
• How hazardous is the substance
addressed by the proposed research?
• Does the university have adequate
facilities to conduct the research?
• Will the university be able to sus-
tain the research in the future if
further grants are not available?
States Offered Enhancement Grants for Asbestos Projects
In February 1992, EPA offered $1.2 million in grants to 19 states and the Dis-
trict of Columbia to support projects regulating asbestos. To receive the funds,
the recipients must provide a matching contribution of at least 25 percent of
the project cost. Eligible projects include
• developing comprehensive statewide asbestos-management plans;
• increasing the number and quality of state inspection, accreditation, and
assistance programs;
• consolidating and integrating existing asbestos programs; and
• improving the collection of data on asbestos abatement and making the data
accessible to the public.
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) received applications
for 21 projects and offered funds for all of them. In reviewing applications, the
agency gave special consideration to proposals to upgrade asbestos-training
programs to meet the more stringent federal accreditation standards that are
expected to become effective late this year. The more stringent Model Accredi-
tation Plan standards were mandated by the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement
Reauthorization Act of 1990.
State
Akbama
Hawaii
Illinois
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New York
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington, D.C.
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Allocation
$ 49,253
$ 26,244
$100,000
$ 76,212
$ 25,000
$148,753
$ 80,000
$ 50,000
$ 50,747
$ 51,528
$ 30,000
$109,782
$ 26,729
$ 86,914
$ 75,000
.$ 55,000
$ 62,250
$ 30,000
$ 41,588
$ 25,000
VOL.13/NO. 1 APRIL 1992
-------
General Information
EPA Denies Section 21 Petition on Introducing Pesticide-Tolerant Plants
Into Environment
EPA has denied a petition asking the
agency to use the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) to regulate the
introduction of pesticide-tolerant
plants into the environment. In de-
nying the petition, the agency cited a
number of other federal laws that
adequately address the petitioner's
concerns. In addition, EPA stated it
found no basis to conclude that intro-
ducing pesticide-tolerant plants pre-
sents an unreasonable risk to human
health or the environment.
Plants that can resist pesticides,
which include plants that can resist
herbicides and insecticides, are devel-
oped through genetic modifications.
For example, scientists can take a
gene for herbicide tolerance from a
microorganism living in soil and put
it into a plant. Rice, corn, wheat,
potato, sorghum, and soybean are
among the crops undergoing genetic
research. Such crops would broaden
the range of pesticides available for
controlling weeds and pests without
harming crops.
Some people believe development of
pesticide-tolerant crops and trees will
allow the agricultural industry to
increase the amount of pesticides
used to control pests and weeds. Pe-
titioner Henry Gluckstern, a private
citizen, asked EPA to use its author-
ity under TSCA to prohibit use of
these plants unless it can be proved
that increased use of pesticides will
not adversely affect human health or
the environment.
The petitioner filed the petition in
July 1991 under section 21 of TSCA
on behalf of himself and his family.
EPA denied the petition on October
15, 1991- Section 21 gives petition-
ers 60 days in which to file a civil
suit following denial of a petition;
that period expired in December
1991-
Current review processes
In denying the petition, EPA deter-
mined that current processes for
evaluating risks associated with use
of pesticides are adequate.
First, the Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
cide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
requires registration of all pesticides
used in the United States. During
the FIFRA registration process, EPA
evaluates the cumulative effects of use
of a pesticide, including the contami-
nation of surface waters, ground wa-
ter, and land. Once a product is reg-
istered, it cannot be applied to un-
listed crops or in excess of label appli-
cation rates. Use of a pesticide on a
crop for which it has not been regis-
tered, including pesticide-tolerant
crops, would require amendment of
the existing registration. EPA would
not amend the product's registration
to permit application to tolerant
crops if agency review indicated such
a use would present an unreasonable
risk to human health or the
environment.
Second, under the Federal Plant Pest
Act and the Plant Quarantine Act,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) reviews applications to re-
lease pesticide-resistant plants into
the environment, to move them be-
tween states, and to import them.
USDA is required by the National
Environmental Policy Act to consider
environmental and health factors
during its reviews.
Third, USDA works with EPA to
ensure the appropriate use of pesti-
cides. Specifically, USDA, in its
reviews, must assess whether applica-
tion of pesticides to the plants will
meet applicable requirements of fed-
eral laws, including FIFRA.
No basis to conclude unreasonable risk
EPA shares the petitioner's concerns
regarding potential risks to human
health and the environment caused
by applying pesticides to tolerant
plants. EPA, however, cannot con-
clude at this time that there is, or
will be, an unreasonable risk from
pesticide use associated with releases
of tolerant plants.
All new pesticide uses require regula-
tory evaluation and approval. EPA
will use the pesticides registration
program to address the possible long-
term effects of increased pesticide use
and to evaluate application of pesti-
cides to tolerant plants.
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
General Information
Workshop on Assessing Risks of Bioremediation Is Planned
The United States and Canada plan to
hold a workshop on how to assess the
risks related to use of bioremediation
microorganisms at polluted sites.
Some of the U.S. sites under discus-
sion have been designated for cleanup
under the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund) and
the Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act. Other sites have been identi-
fied in Canada.
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT) and Office of Re-
search and Development are develop-
ing the workshop with Environment
Canada, the Canadian counterpart of
EPA. The workshop will be the first
meeting of which OPPT is aware that
will be dedicated strictly to address-
ing concerns about risks from
bioremediation agents.
An issue paper for the workshop will
be available in September 1992. The
workshop will be held in the summer
of 1993 in Washington, D.C.
I What is Bioremediation?
Bioremediation involves the use of
microorganisms to degrade persistent
and often toxic chemicals. These mi-
croorganisms (1) may already be
present at a polluted site and require
only that materials such as nutrients
be provided to enhance degradation,
(2) may be naturally occurring but not
present at the site, or (3) may
require genetic alteration to increase
their degradative capabilities.
Bioremediation microorganisms have
been used to degrade pollutants in
industrial waste streams prior to envi-
ronmental release, as well as at pol-
luted sites.
Discussion topics
The workshop will consist of three
concurrent sessions, each of which
will focus on one of the following
topics:
• Which chemicals are most likely to
be remediated using biological
techniques? Can potential toxic
metabolites be identified from
known information on metabolic
pathways?
• How can potential adverse ecologi-
cal and human health effects result-
ing from use of bioremediation
agents be identified for both simple
and complex chemical/microorgan-
ism mixtures?
• What site characteristics and
bioremediation processes are likely
to result in exposing humans and
other organisms to microbes or
their products? What unique mi-
croorganism and chemical transport
questions are associated with
bioremediation applications?
Information about attending
To find out when the workshop will
be held or to arrange attendance,
contact Philip Sayre, Health and
Environmental Review Division (TS-
796), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C., telephone (202)
260-9570; FAX (202) 260-1283.
EPA and CPSC Are Addressing Issues of Mutual Concern
EPA and the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) have
formed a committee to discuss and
coordinate consumer-related toxics
activities. The Toxics and Consumer
Products Committee held its first
meeting on January 9, 1992, and will
continue to meet every two months.
EPA and CPSC share concern on a
number of issues. Both agencies, for
example, have taken action to im-
prove the quality of indoor air.
Other areas of mutual interest are
consumers' exposure to pollution
caused by solvents, formaldehyde,
and lead.
Within EPA, the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) man-
ages many of the activities related to
these issues, and OPPT is represent-
ing EPA on the joint committee.
First actions
At the first meeting, EPA and CPSC
decided that
• the two agencies will work toward
developing a mutual strategy and
position for negotiations with in-
dustry on formaldehyde and
• OPPT will continue to communi-
cate with CPSC on the timing and
technical concerns involved in es-
tablishing requirements for label-
ing lead solder.
VOL.13/NO. 1 APRIL 1992
-------
EPA Reopens Case after
Inspection Shows School
Failed to Abate Asbestos
EPA reinstated a $5,500 penalty
against St. John's Lutheran School, in
Denver, Colorado, after agency in-
spectors found the school had not
completed its abatement of asbestos.
The school had agreed in 1988 to
fully abate the asbestos in its build-
ing, which houses students in kinder-
garten through eighth grade, to settle
an EPA complaint.
In the 1988 complaint, EPA sought
an administrative fine of $6,000 from
the school administration for failure
to (1) inspect, sample, and analyze
friable asbestos at the school and (2)
keep adequate records as required by
the 1982 Friable Asbestos-Contain-
ing Materials in Schools Rule, pro-
mulgated under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). At the time, St.
John's Lutheran School paid a fine of
$500 and agreed to abate the friable
asbestos found in the school by Sep-
tember 1988. The agreement pro-
vided that St. John's would pay the
balance of the fine if it failed to fully
abate the material.
During a 1990 reinspection, EPA
inspectors discovered that asbestos in
certain areas of the school had not
been abated. The agency nullified
the 1988 agreement and reinstated
the full penalty. Through negotia-
tions, St. John's agreed to pay the full
penalty in 12 installments of
$458.34. However, the school has
since completed its asbestos abate-
ment at an approximate cost of
$75,000. Under the law, if the cost
of abatement exceeds the amount of
the penalty, the penalty need not be
paid.
Enforcement
Company to Pay $730,000 for PCB Violations
United Technologies Corporation will
pay $730,000 to settle charges that
the company failed to comply with
regulations governing polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) at five manufactur-
ing and research facilities in Con-
necticut and New Hampshire.
On March 10, 1989, the Hartford-
based company detected PCBs in
excess of 200 parts per million in an
air-compression system at one of its
facilities. PCB levels in air-compres-
sion systems must not exceed 2 parts
per million, according to EPA rules
promulgated under the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act (TSCA). United
Technologies Corporation reported
the violation to the Connecticut De-
partment of Environmental Protec-
tion on August 28, 1989- During the
time that had elapsed since discover-
ing the problem, the company did not
act to correct the problem; a later
inspection of the air-compression
system showed it contained PCBs at
up to 35,000 parts per million.
The Connecticut Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection and EPA in-
spected five company facilities. EPA
proposed a $1.2 million fine against
United Technologies for 13 violations
of PCB regulations. The fine in-
cluded a daily penalty of $6,750 for
the period over which United Tech-
nologies Corporation knew of and did
not report the high level of PCBs in
the air-compression system. The
agency also cited the company for
high levels of PCB contamination in
heat-transfer equipment and for im-
proper storage of PCBs.
In July 1991, EPA and United Tech-
nologies signed a consent agreement
settling the charges. EPA lowered the
fine to $730,000 to reflect the
company's voluntary disclosure of
certain vioktions, its cooperative atti-
tude in settlement negotiations, and
its commitment to improve its com-
pliance with PCB regulations. United
Technologies agreed to remove and
properly dispose of PCBs from electric-
equipment at three facilities. This
program, which goes beyond the re-
quirements of the law, is expected to
cost about $150,000.
In the settlement, United Technolo-
gies also agreed to allow an indepen-
dent consulting firm to conduct a
PCB compliance audit at four facili-
ties. Auditors will focus on detecting
excess PCB levels in manufacturing
equipment, air compressors, hydraulic
systems, heat-transfer equipment, air-
filtration systems, and electrical
equipment. The company will pay
stipulated penalties for any PCB viola-
tions disclosed by the audit.
The audit and removal of PCBs from
equipment are expected to reduce the
risks of PCB spills, improper disposal
of PCBs, PCB fires, and other human
and environmental exposure to PCBs
at facilities.
Four Connecticut facilities were in-
volved in the complaint: the Pratt
and Whitney Aircraft Division, the
Wilgoos Test Laboratory, and the
United Technologies Research Center,
all in East Hartford, and the Hamilton
Standard Division, in Windsor Locks.
The agreement also settled PCB viola-
tions at The Essex Group, Inc., in
Newmarket, New Hampshire, which
has since been sold.
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
Enforcement
Chemical Company Fined
$710,000 for Violating
TSCA Importing and TRI
Regulations
SIPCA Industries of America, a
chemical company with offices in
New Jersey and Virginia, has agreed
to pay a $710,000 penalty to settle
charges that it violated two environ-
mental statutes.
In April 1990, EPA proposed a pen-
alty of $1.148 million against the
company for 119 violations of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
and a penalty of $34,000 for two
counts of failing to file Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) reports. The total
proposed penalty amounted to $1.182
million.
A 1988 EPA inspection showed that
SIPCA imported nine chemicals in
1985 for which the company did not
provide updated information to the
TSCA Inventory, mandated by section
8 of TSCA. In addition, the company
failed to submit a premanufacture
notice (PMN) to EPA for a new
chemical substance imported from
1984 through 1986. PMN submis-
sion is required by section 5 of TSCA.
The company also falsely certified to
the U.S. Customs Service that the
imported substances complied with
all applicable rules or orders under
TSCA. This false certification vio-
lated section 13 of TSCA.
EPA mitigated the proposed penalties
to $710,000. This mitigation re-
flected the company's willingness to
audit its TSCA-covered imports and
its voluntary disclosure of additional
TSCA violations. The mitigated
penalty includes fines for the addi-
tional disclosures.
Steel Company Fined $125,000 for EPCRA Violations
Steel of West Virginia has paid a $125,000 penalty for failing to submit Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) reports on emissions of four chemicals in 1987 and
1988. Company officials said they were unaware of the reporting requirement
and immediately submitted TRI reports for the chemicals—chromium, nickel,
manganese, and xylene—to EPA for the 1987, 1988, and 1989 reporting years.
The TRI was established by section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Com-
munity Right-to-Know Act. The first year for which TRI data submission was
required was 1987.
EPA had proposed a penalty of $176,000 for the violation. The agency agreed to
reduce the penalty after the company documented it was unable to pay the pro-
posed fine. Additional reductions were made in recognition of the company's
prompt submission of data about TRI emissions and demonstration of good faith.
Steel of West Virginia is located in Huntington, West Virginia. The company
designs and manufactures special steel sections used for truck trailers and mining
equipment.
Other Enforcement Actions
• To settle an EPA complaint, the Calumet Baptist School, Inc., of Gary, Indi-
ana, will begin instructing students in kindergarten through the eighth grade
on protection of natural resources and habitats. In February 1991, EPA charged
the school with failing to provide parent, teacher, and employee organizations
with written notification regarding the school's asbestos management plan dur-
ing the 1989-1990 school year. EPA proposed a penalty of $4,000 for the As-
bestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) violation. The school, how-
ever, demonstrated it was unable to pay the fine and, instead, agreed to institute
the pollution-prevention curricula.
• Har-Conn Chrome Company, of West Hartford, Connecticut, has agreed to
donate protective jackets and bib overalls worth $4,584 to the town's fire de-
partment and to pay a $12,416 penalty to settle an EPA complaint that it failed
to file Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reports. The donated equipment will
improve the fire department's emergency response capabilities. The company
owns and operates a metal pkting and finishing facility.
• EPA has proposed a penalty of $25,000 against Prochimie International, Inc.,
for failing to meet agency testing requirements for the substance
mercaptobenzothiazole (MET). Prochimie officials have provided EPA with a
copy of a letter stating that the company was a member of a consortium of com-
panies that was going to test the chemical. EPA has been unable to find such a
letter in its files and, thus, cannot verify it was mailed. In addition, the com-
pany has not provided documentation of its membership in the consortium. A
1989 EPA inspection of the company revealed that the company imported MET
in 1988. The New York company has since ceased to import the substance.
VOL.13/NO. 1 APRIL 1992
-------
I
Interagency Testing Committee
TSCA Section 4(e) Priority List Revised
In its 29th Report, the TSCA
Interagency Testing Committee
(ITC) placed one chemical sub-
stance—white phosphorus—and one
chemical group—diaryl ethers—on
the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Section 4(e) Priority Testing
List. TSCA requires EPA to give the
substances on this list priority con-
sideration in promulgation of test
rules.
Congress created the ITC to screen
chemicals for their potential health
and ecological effects and chemical
fate. The chemicals reviewed by the
ITC and recommended for testing
may present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or to the environ-
ment, or they may involve significant
or substantial human exposure or
substantial environmental release. In
the case of diaryl ethers, the ITC
identified exposure or hazard con-
cerns through its computerized sub-
structure-based chemical selection
expert system.
Voluntary information solicited
EPA automatically adds ITC-recom-
mended substances to the TSCA
section 8(a) Preliminary Assessment
Information Rule (PAIR) and the
TSCA section 8(d) Health and Safety
Data Reporting Rule. These rules
require anyone who manufactures,
imports, processes, or distributes the
chemicals to report production, use,
unpublished health and safety data,
and exposure-related information to
EPA.
The committee encourages manufac-
turers, processors, and users to volun-
tarily submit additional use, expo-
sure, release, and physical chemical
property data not required under the
two rules. This information will help
the ITC to make informed decisions
before designating chemicals. EPA
must act upon designated chemicals
within 12 months by beginning
rulemaking to test the chemical or by
publishing in the Federal Register its
reasons for not doing so. See 40 CFR
712 and 716 for more information
about TSCA sections 8(a) and 8(d).
Congress created the ITC to
screen chemicals for their
potential health and ecological
effects and chemical fate.
Recommended
White Phosphorus
Testing: chemical fate, ecological
effects.
Rationale: The Department of the
Interior is concerned about the persis-
tence of white phosphorus in wetland
sediments, the adverse effects of
white phosphorus on birds and wild-
life that feed on sediments contami-
nated with white phosphorus, the
potential for food chain effects, and
the potential elimination of endan-
gered species that may feed on car-
casses of birds and wildlife contami-
nated with white phosphorus.
Diaryl ethers
Testing: physical chemical proper-
ties, biodegradation rate, health ef-
fects and ecological effects.
Rationale: Based on information
from its computerized substructure-
based chemical selection expert sys-
tem, the ITC recommended 14
alkyl-, bromo-, chloro-, and hydroxy-
methyl diaryl ethers for testing. The
resulting data will allow the ITC to
evaluate the persistence and toxicity
of the diaryl ether substructure.
The ITC screened 278 aryl ethers in
the 1986 Chemical Update System
and selected 61 diaryl ethers. Further
screening eliminated all but 14 diaryl
ethers.
Six were eliminated because they were
previously recommended for testing;
an additional 39 were eliminated
because they contained other sub-
structures more likely to influence
toxicity, e.g., xanthenes, anthraqui-
nones, and sulfonic acid surfactants.
Sixteen diaryl ethers remained after
this process. One of these 16, a
bromodiphenyl ether, was eliminated
because the ITC would like to review
data developed for bromodiphenyl
ethers designated in the 25th Report
before recommending others for test-
ing. One other diaryl ether was
eliminated because it is a pesticide,
and pesticides are regulated under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, not under TSCA.
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
TSCA PAIR and 8(d) Rules
EPA Adds Substances from ITC's 27th Report to PAIR and 8(d) Rules
EPA has added one substance and four
chemical groups to two information-
gathering rules. These rules require
anyone who manufactures, imports,
processes, or distributes the chemicals
to report production, use, unpublished
health and safety data, and exposure-
related information to EPA. A list of
the substances begins on this page.
On November 19, 1990, the TSCA
Interagency Testing Committee (ITC)
recommended that EPA give these
substances and chemical groups prior-
ity consideration in the proposal of
test rules. The ITC also designated
certain chemicals for EPA action
within 12 months. (SeeChemicals-in-
Progress Bulletin, volume 12, number
3, for more information about the
ITC.) The Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) allows EPA to automati-
cally add ITC-listed substances to the
TSCA section 8(a) Preliminary Assess-
ment Information Rule (PAIR) and
the TSCA section 8(d) Health and
Safety Data Reporting Rule.
Chemicals added to the PAIR
Chemical Substance
PAIR reporting requirements
The ITC and EPA use the PAIR to
quickly gather current information on
chemicals of concern. The PAIR re-
quires one-time reporting, on EPA
Form 7710-35, of general volume, end
use, and exposure-related information.
Any companies that manufactured or
imported the chemical substances
named in the PAIR during the report-
ing period of September 30, 1991, to
November 27, 1991, should have
submitted a PAIR report form cover-
ing activities in their latest corporate
fiscal year. A separate form should
have been completed and submitted
for each site at which the substance
was manufactured or imported.
Details of the reporting requirements,
the basis for exemptions, and a fac-
simile of the reporting form are pro-
vided in 40 CFR 712. PAIR report-
ing forms are available from the Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) Document Control Office;
the address is listed to the right.
TSCA section 8(d) reporting requirements
Under section 8(d) of TSCA, EPA is
requiring past, current, and prospec-
tive manufacturers, importers, and
processors of the listed chemicals to
submit copies of unpublished studies
for those chemicals for a 10-year re-
porting period, ending on September
30,2001. These studies provide the
ITC and EPA with useful information
for decision making.
Detailed guidance about reporting
unpublished health and safety data
and exemptions to reporting is pro-
vided in 40 CFR 716.
To obtain or submit information
To obtain forms or submit completed
information, contact
OPPT Document Control Office
(TS-790)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
{Insert either PAIR or 8(d) reporting}
Phone: (202)260-1532
CAS No.
Chemical Substance
CAS No.
N-Phenyl-1-naphthylamine 90-30-2
Category: Aldehydes
1-Naphthalenecarboxaldehyde 66-77-3
Acetaldehyde 75-07-0
Acetaldehyde, trichloro- 75-87-6
Propanal, 2-methyl- 78-84-2
2-Propenal, 2-methyl- 78-85-3
Benzenepropanal,4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-
.alpha.-methyl- 80-54-6
Acetaldehyde,
(1,3-dihydro-1,3,3-trimethyl-2H-indol-2-ylidene) 84-83-3
Benzaldehyde, 2-chloro-
Benzaldehyde, 2-hydroxy-
Benzaldehyde, 2,5-dimethoxy-
Benzeneacetaldehyde, .alpha.-methyl-
Benzaldehyde, 2,4-dihydroxy-
Benzaldehyde, 2-hydroxy-5-nitro-
2-Furancarboxaldehyde
2-Thiophenecarboxaldehyde
Benzeneacetaldehyde, 4-methyl-
Benzaldehyde, 4-(dimethylamino)-
3-Cyclohexene-1 -carboxaldehyde
Benzaldehyde
89-98-5
90-02-8
93-02-7
93-53-8
95-01-2
97-51-8
98-01-1
98-03-3
99-72-9
100-10-7
100-50-5
100-52-7
VOL.13 /N0.1 APRIL 1992
-------
TSCA PAIR and 8(d) Rules
Chemicals added to the PAIR, continued
Chemical Substance
CAS No.
Chemical Substance
CAS No.
2-Propenal, 2-methyl-3-phenyl- 101-39-3
Octanal, 2-(phenylmethylene)- 101-86-0
Benzenepropanal, .alpha.-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)- 103-95-7
2-Propenal, 3-phenyl- 104-55-2
Benzaldehyde, 4-methyl- 104-87-0
Benzaldehyde, 4-chloro- 104-88-1
6-Octenal, 3,7-dimethyl- 106-23-0
2,6-Octadienal, 3,7-dimelhyl-, (Z)- 106-26-3
5-Heptenal, 2,6-dimethyl- 106-72-9
2-Propenal 107-02-8
Acetaldehyde, chloro- 107-20-0
Ethanedial 107-22-2
Octanal, 7-hydroxy-3,7-dimethyl- 107-75-5
Undecanal, 2-methyl- 110-41-8
Pentanal 110-62-3
Pentanedial 111-30-8
Heptanal 111-71-7
Decanal 112-31-2
Undecanal 112-44-7
10-Undecenal 112-45-8
Dodecanal 112-54-9
Benzaldehyde, 3,4-dimethoxy- 120-14-9
Benzaldehyde, 4-(diethylamino)- 120-21-8
1,3-Benzodioxole-5-carboxaldehyde 120-57-0
Benzaldehyde, 3-ethoxy-4-hydroxy- 121 -32-4
Benzaldehyde, 4-hydroxy-3-methoxy- 121-33-5
Heptanal, 2-(phenylmethylene)- 122-40-7
Benzeneacetaldehyde 122-78-1
Hexanai, 2-ethyl- 123-05-7
Benzaldehyde, 4-hydroxy- 123-08-0
Benzaldehyde, 4-methoxy- 123-11 -5
Propanal 123-38-6
Octanal 124-13-0
Nonanal 124-19-6
4a(4H)-Dibenzofurancarboxaldehyde,
1,5a,6,9,9a,9b-hexahydro- 126-15-8
Benzaldehyde, 2-methoxy- 135-02-4
2,6-Octadienal, 3,7-dimethyl-, (E)- 141 -27-5
9-Undecenal 143-14-6
Benzaldehyde, 4-(trifluoromethyl)- 455-19-6
02-Hexenal 505-57-7
Benzaldehyde, 2-nitro- 552-89-6
Butanal, 3-methyl- 590-86-3
Propanal, 3-hydroxy-2,2-dimethyl- 597-31-9
Benzaldehyde, 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)- 939-97-9
2-Pyridinecarboxaldehyde 1121 -60-4
Benzaldehyde, 4-butyl 1200-14-2
2-Propenal, 3-phenyl-, monopentyl deriv. 1331 -92-6
Benzaldehyde, methyl- 1334-78-7
3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 2,4.6-trimethyl- 1423-46-7
2-Propenal, 3-(2-methoxyphenyl)- 1504-74-1
1-Piperidinecarboxaldehyde 2591-86-8
Benzaldehyde, 3-bromo- 3132-99-8
Propanal, 3-(methylthio)- 3268-49-3
Octanal, 7-methoxy-3,7-dimethyl- 3613-30-7
3-Cydopentene-1 -acetaldehyde, 2,2,3-trimethyl- 4501 -58-0
Hexanai, 3,5,5-trimethyl- 5435-64-3
1,3-Benzodioxole-5-carboxaldehyde, 7-methoxy- 5780-07-4
6-Octenal, 3,7-dimethyl-, (S)- 5949-05-3
Octanal, 3,7-dimethyl- 5988-91-0
Benzaldehyde, 4-ethoxy- 10031-82-0
2-Propenal, 3- 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl) phenyl -2-methyl- 13586-68-0
Benzaldehyde, 4-(diethylamino)-2-hydroxy- 17754-90-4
Hexenal, 2-ethyl- 26266-68-2
3-Cydohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, dimethyl- 27939-60-2
Benzaldehyde, (dimethylamino)- 28602-27-9
3-Cyclohexene-1 -carboxaldehyde,
4-(4-hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)- 31906-04-4
3-Cyclohexene-1 -carboxaldehyde,
4-(4-methyt-3-pentenyl)- 37677-14-8
Benzaldehyde, 3-phenoxy- 39515-51-0
3-Cyclohexene-1 -carboxaldehyde,
1 -methyl-4-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)- 52475-86-2
3-Cyclohexene-1 -carboxaldehyde,
1 -methyl-4-(4-methylpentyl)- 66327-54-6
Category: IRIS chemicals
2,4 Dinitrophenol 51-28-5
3,4 Dinethylphenol 95-65-8
Category: Sulfones
Dimethylsulfone 67-71-0
3-Sulfolene 77-79-2
Sulionyl bis-(4-chtorobenzene) 80-07-9
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
TSCA PAIR and 8(d) Rules
Chemical Substance
CAS No.
Chemical Substance
CAS No.
4,4'-Diaminodiphenyl sulfone 80-08-0
BisphenolA 80-09-1
2-Amino-4-(methylsulfonyl)phenol 98-30-6
Sulfolane 126-33-0
Diphenylsulfone 127-63-9
2,2'-Sulfonyl bis-ethano I2580-77-0
1,1 '-[Methylene bis(sulfonyl)]bisethene 3278-22-6
2-[(3-Aminophenyl)sulfonyl]ethanol 5246-57-1
3-[N-Ethyl-4-[[6-(methyteulfonyl)
-2-benzothiazolyl] azo]-m-toluidino]-propionitrile 16588-67-3
6-(Methylsul»onyl)-2-benzothiazolamine 17557-67-4
2-Amino-4-[(2-hydroxyethyl) sulfonyl]phenol 17601-96-6
4-Phenylthiomorpholine, 1,1 -dioxide 17688-68-5
4-[4-[(2,6-Dichloro-4-nitrophenyl)
azo]phenyl]thiomorpholine, 1,1 -dioxide- 17741 -62-7
3-(Decyloxy) tetrahydrothiophene 1,1-dioxide 18760-44-6
l-(Diiodomethyl) suHonyl-4-methyl benzene 20018-09-1
1,1 '-[Oxybis(methylenesulfonyl)] bisethene 26750-50-5
2,2'-[Oxybis(methylenesulfonyl)] bisethanol 36724-43-3
1,1 '-[Methylenebis(sulfonyl)] bis-2-chloroethane 41123-59-5
2,2'-[Methylenebis(sulfonyl)] bisethanol 41123-69-7
2-[(3-Nitrophenyl)sulfonyl] ethanol 41687-30-3
2-[(6-Amino-2-naphthalenyl)sulfonyl] ethanol 52218-35-6
1,1'-[0xybis(methylenesulfonyl)] bis-2-chloroethane 53061-10-2
4-[[4-(Phenylmethoxy) phenyl]sulf onyl] phenol 63134-33-8
Category: Chemicals in need of subchronic tests
p,p'-0xybis (benzenesulfonylhydrazide) 80-51-3
Naphthalenedicarboxylic anhydride 81 -84-5
2-Ethylanthraquinone 84-51-5
7-Amino-4-hydroxy-2-naphthalenesulfonic acid 87-02-5
1-Naphthol 90-15-3
3-Hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid 92-70-6
Triethylene glycol bis (2-ethylhexanoate) 94-28-0
2-(4-Morpholinyldithio)-benzothiazole 95-32-9
1,3-Benzenedisullonic Acid 98-48-6
3,4-Dichloronitrobenzene 99-54-7
Isophthaloyl chloride 99-63-8
Terephthaloyl chloride 100-20-9
4-Ethoxynitrobenzene 100-29-8
Acetoacetanilide 102-01-2
Butyric anhydride 106-31-0
Isobutyl acrylate
Diethylene glycol dimethyl ether
Carbitol acetate
Bromamine add
4-Methyl-2-nitro-phenol
4-(Acetylamino) benzenesulfonyl chloride
2,4-Pentanedtone
Propanoic anhydride
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-2-butenedioate
Perfluorotrbutylamine
Perfluoro-N-hexane
Trichloromethanesulfenyl chloride
1,2-Dichlorobutane
1,3-Dicyanobenzene
3,4-Dichtorobutene
2-(2-Aminoethoxy)-ethanol
Quinacridone
Ammonium carbamate
Hexa(methoxymethyl) melamine
106-63-8
111-96-6
112-15-2
116-81-4
119-33-5
121-60-8
123-54-6
123-62-6
142-16-5
311-89-7
355-42-0
594-42-3
616-21-7
626-17-5
760-23-6
929-0^6
1047-16-1
1111-78-0
3089-11-0
A list of chemicals added to the TSCA section 8(d)
Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule begins on
page 34.
VOL.13 /N0.1 APRIL 1992
-------
TSCA PAIR and 8(d) Rules
Chemicals added to TSCA section 8(d) rule
Chemical Substance
CAS No.
Chemical Substance
CAS No.
N-Phenyl-1-naphthylamine 90-30-2
Category: Aldehydes
1-Naphthalenecarboxaldehyde 66-77-3
Acetaldehyde 75-07-0
Acetaldehyde, trichloro- 75-87-6
Propanal, 2-methyl- 78-84-2
2-Propenal, 2-methyl- 78-85-3
Benzenepropanal,
4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)- .alpha.-methyl- 80-54-6
Acetaldehyde, (1,3-dihydro-1,3,
3-trimethyl-2H-indol-2-ylidene) 84-83-3
Benzaldehyde, 2-chloro- 89-98-5
Benzaldehyde, 2-hydroxy- 90-02-8
Benzaldehyde, 2,5-dimethoxy- 93-02-7
Benzeneacetaldehyde, .alpha.-methyl- 93-53-8
Benzaldehyde, 2,4-dihydroxy- 95-01-2
Benzaldehyde, 2-hydroxy-5-nrtro- 97-51-8
2-Thiophenecarboxaldehyde 98-03-3
Benzeneacetaldehyde, 4-methyl- 99-72-9
Benzaldehyde, 4-(dimethylamino)- 100-10-7
3-Cyclohexene -1-carboxaldehyde 100-50-5
Benzaldehyde 100-52-7
2-Propenal, 2-methyl-3-phenyl- 101-39-3
Octanal, 2-(phenylmethylene)- 101-86-0
Benzenepropanal, .alpha.-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)- 103-95-7
2-Propenal, 3-phenyl- 104-55-2
Benzaldehyde, 4-methyl- 104-87-0
Benzaldehyde, 4-chloro- 104-88-1
6-Octenal, 3,7-dimethyl- 106-23-0
2,6-Octadienal, 3,7-dimethyl-, (Z)- 106-26-3
5-Heptenal, 2,6-dimethyl- 106-72-9
2-Propenal 107-02-8
Acetaldehyde, chloro- 107-20-0
Ethanedial 107-22-2
Octanal, 7-hydroxy-3,7-dimethyl- 107-75-5
Undecanal, 2-methyl- 110-41-8
Pentanal 110-62-3
Pentanedial 111-30-8
Heptanal 111-71-7
Decanal 112-31-2
Undecanal 112-44-7
10-Undecenal 112-45-8
Dodecanal 112-54-9
Benzaldehyde, 3,4-dimethoxy- 120-14-9
Benzaldehyde, 4-(diethy!amino)- 120-21-8
1,3-Benzodioxote -5-carboxaldehyde 120-57-0
Benzaldehyde, 3-ethoxy-4-hydroxy- 121-32-4
Benzaldehyde, 4-hydroxy-3-methoxy- 121-33-5
Heptanal, 2-(phenylmethylene)- 122-40-7
Benzeneacetaldehyde 122-78-1
Hexanal, 2-ethyl- 123-05-7
Benzaldehyde, 4-hydroxy- 123-08-0
Benzaldehyde, 4-methoxy- 123-11-5
Propanal 123-38-6
Octanal 124-13-0
Nonanal 124-19-6
4a(4H)-Dibenzofurancarboxaldehyde,
1,5a,6,9,9a,9b-hexahydro- 126-15-8
Benzaldehyde, 2-methoxy- 135-02-4
2,6-Octadienal, 3,7-dimethyl-, (E)- 141-27-5
9-Undecenal 143-14-6
Benzaldehyde, 4-(trifluoromethyl)- 455-19-6
02-Hexenal 505-57-7
Benzaldehyde, 2-nitro- 552-89-6
Butanal, 3-methyl- 590-86-3
Propanal, 3-hydroxy-2,2-dimethyl- 597-31-9
2-Pyridinecarboxaldehyde 1121-60-4
Benzaldehyde, 4-butyl 1200-14-2
2-Propenal, 3-phenyl-, monopentyl deriv. 1331-92-6
Benzaldehyde, methyl- 1334-78-7
3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, 2,4,6-trimethyl- 1423-46-7
2-Propenal, 3-(2-methoxyphenyl)- 1504-74-1
1-Piperidinecarboxaldehyde 2591-86-8
Benzaldehyde, 3-bromo- 3132-99-8
Propanal, 3-(methylthio)- 3268-49-3
Octanal, 7-methoxy-3,7-dimethyl- 3613-30-7
3-Cyclopentene-1-acetaldehyde, 2,2,3-trimethyl- 4501-58-0
Hexanal, 3,5,5-trimethyl- 5435-64-3
1,3-Benzodioxote-5-carboxaldehyde, 7-methoxy- 5780-07-4
6-Octenal, 3,7-dimethyl-, (S)- 5949-05-3
Octanal, 3,7-dimethyl- 5988-91-0
Benzaldehyde, 4-ethoxy- 10031 -82-0
2-Propenal, 3- 4-(1,1-dimethylethyl) phenyl -2-methyl- 13586-68-0
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
TSCA PAIR and 8(d) Rules
Chemical Substance
CAS No.
Chemical Substance
CAS No.
Benzaldehyde, 4-(diethylamino)-2-hydroxy- 17754-90-4
Hexenal, 2-ethyl- 26266-68-2
3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxaldehyde, dimethyl- 27939-60-2
Benzaldehyde, (dimethylamino)- 28602-27-9
3-Cyclohexene-1 -carboxaldehyde,
4-(4-hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)- 31906-04-4
3-Cyclohexene-1 -carboxaldehyde,
4-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)- 37677-14-8
Benzaldehyde, 3-phenoxy- 39515-51 -0
3-Cyclohexene-1 -carboxaldehyde,
1-methyl-4- (4-methyl-3-pentenyl)- 52475-86-2
3-Cyclohexene-1 -carboxaldehyde,
1 -methyl-4-(4-methylpentyl)- 66327-54-6
Category: IRIS chemicals
2,4 Dinitrophenol 51-28-5
3,4 Dinethylphenol 95-65-8
Category: Sulfones
Dimethylsulfone 67-71-0
3-Sulfolene 77-79-2
Sulfonyl bis-(4-chlorobenzene) 80-07-9
4,4'-Diaminodiphenyl sulfone 80-08-0
BisphenolA 80-09-1
2-Amino-4- (methylsulfonyl)phenol 98-30-6
Sulfolane 126-33-0
Diphenylsulfone 127-63-9
2,2-Sulfonyl bis-ethano I2580-77-0
1,1 '-[Methylene bis(sulfonyl)]bisethene 3278-22-6
2-[(3-Aminophenyl) sulfonyljethanol 5246-57-1
3-[N-Ethyl-4-[[6-(methylsulfonyl)
-2-benzothiazolyl] azo]-m-toluidino]-propk>nitrile 16588-67-3
6-(Methylsulfonyl)-2-benzothiazolamine 17557-67-4
2-Amino-4-[(2-hydroxyethyl) sulfonyl]phenol 17601 -96-6
4-Phenylthiomorpholine, 1,1-dioxide 17688-68-5
4-[4-[(2,6-Dichloro-4-nitrophenyl)
azo]phenyl]thiomoipholine, 1,1-dioxide- 17741-62-7
3-(Decyloxy) tetrahydrothiophene 1,1 -dioxide 18760-44-6
l-(Ditodomethyl) sulfonyl-4-methyl benzene 20018-09-1
1 ,r-[0xybis(methylenesulfonyl)] bisethene 26750-50-5
2,2'-[Oxybis(methylenesulfonyl)] bisethanol 36724-43-3
1,1 '-[Methylenebis(sulfonyl)] bis-2-chloroethane 41123-59-5
2,2'-[Methylenebis(sulfonyl)] bisethanol 41123-69-72
2-[(3-Nitrophenyl)sulfonyl] ethanol 41687-30-3
2-[(6-Amino-2-naphthalenyl) sulfonyl] ethanol 52218-35-6
1,1 '-[Oxybis(methylenesulfonyl)] bis-2-chloroethane 53061 -10-2
4-[[4-(Phenylmethoxy) phenyljsulfonyl] phenol 63134-33-8
Category: Chemicals in need of subchronic tests
p,p'-0xybis (benzenesulfonylhydrazide) 80-51-3
Naphthalenedicarboxylic anhydride 81-84-5
2-Ethylanthraquinone 84-51-5
7-Amino-4-hydroxy-2-naphthalenesulfonic acid 87-02-5
1-Naphthol 90-15-3
3-Hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid 92-70-6
Triethylene glycol bis (2-ethylhexanoate) 94-28-0
2-(4-Morpholinyldithio)-benzothiazole 95-32-9
1,3-BenzenedisulfonicAcid 98-48-6
3,4-Dichloronitrobenzene 99-54-7
Isophthaloyl chloride 99-63-8
Terephthaloyl chloride 100-20-9
4-Ethoxynftrobenzene 100-29-8
Acetoacetanilide 102-01-2
Butyric anhydride 106-31 -0
Isobutyl acrylate 106-63-8
Diethylene glycol dimethyl ether 111 -96-6
Carbitol acetate 112-15-2
Bromamine acid 116-81-4
4-Methyl-2-nitro-phenol 119-33-5
4-(Acetylamino) benzenesulfonyl chloride 121-60-8
2,4-Pentanedione 123-54-6
Propanoic anhydride 123-62-6
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-2-butenedioate 142-16-5
Perfluorotributylamine 311-89-7
Perfluoro-N-hexane 355-42-0
Trichloromethanesulfenyl chloride 594-42-3
1,2-Dichbrobutane 616-21 -7
1,3-Dicyanobenzene 626-17-5
3,4-Dichlorobutene 760-23-6
2-(2-Aminoethoxy)-ethanol 929-06-6
Quinacridone 1047-16-1
Ammonium carbamate 1111 -78-0
Hexa(methoxymethyl) melamine 3089-11 -0
VOL.13/N0.1 APRIL 1992
-------
TSCA Hotline
TSCA Hotline: Question & Answer
Q: How can I search the TSCA
Inventory?
Al EPA's Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance
Inventory—commonly referred to as
the TSCA Inventory— lists the
chemical substances currently in the
U.S. marketplace. The inventory also
includes substances that have been in
commerce but are not at this time
being manufactured, used in process-
ing, or imported into the United
States.
Any substance that is not on the
TSCA Inventory is classified as a
"new" chemical substance. New
substances cannot enter commerce
without undergoing review by EPA.
There are a number of ways to con-
sult the TSCA Inventory to deter-
mine whether a chemical substance is
listed.
1. A copy of the TSCA Inventory in
report form can be purchased from
the Government Printing Office
(GPO) in Washington, D.C., or from
any of GPO's 23 bookstores. The
most current edition of the TSCA
Inventory was printed in 1985 and
updated with a supplement in 1990.
Superintendent of Documents
Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
(202) 783-3238
1985 TSCA Inventory:
# 055-000-00254-1
U.S. and Canada: $161.00
Other nations: $ 201.25
1990 Supplement:
# 055-000-00361-1
U.S.: $ 15.00
Other nations: $18.75
2. The TSCA Inventory, current
through June 1991, can be purchased
on computer tape from the National
Technical Information Service. The
tape is available in either 1600BPI or
6250BPI formats.
National Technical
Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
Computer tape: #PB91-510024
U.S. and Canada: $ 590.00
Other nations: $1,180.00
3. Two companies maintain the
TSCA Inventory on computer data-
bases. CAS ONLINE is maintained
by the Chemical Abstracts Service,
and DIALOG is maintained by
Lockheed Corporation. Contact the
vendors for information about ser-
vices and fees.
CAS Online: (800) 848-6533
Dialog (file 52): (800) 334-2564
4. The TSCA Inventory is available
through libraries participating in the
Federal Depository Library Program.
A list of these libraries can be ob-
tained by calling EPA's Public Infor-
mation Center at (202) 260-2080 or
GPO at (202) 783-3238.
Note: The TSCA Inventory is not
available on computer disk or CD-
ROM.
Searching the confidential section of the
TSCA Inventory
The identity of a chemical substance
that has been claimed as confidential
business information will not be
listed on the public portion of the
TSCA Inventory. In these cases, EPA
will search the confidential and
nonconfidential portions of the TSCA
Inventory if a bona fide intent to
manufacture or import the chemical
substance is submitted.
The procedure to follow for submit-
ting a bona fide inquiry and the in-
formation required on the bona fide
inquiry are listed in 40 CFR 720.25.
EPA requires 30 days to complete the
search.
Bona fide submissions should be
sent to
Document Control Office (TS-790)
U.S. EPA
Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics
Attn: Chemical Inventory Section
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
For more information
If you have a question about making
a bona fide submission, contact the
TSCA Assistance Information Service
(TSCA hotline). See page 37 for
information about contacting the
hotline.
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
TSCA Hotline/New Publications
TSCA Hotline: Call (202) 554-1404
The TSCA Assistance Information Service (TSCA hotline) operates Monday
through Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time. To speak to an informa-
tion specialist, call (202) 554-1404. FAX requests for documents are received
every day, at all times, on (202) 554-5603. Documents can also be requested by
deaf persons who have TDD equipment by dialing (202) 554-0551.
To request assistance by mail, write to the Environmental Assistance Division at
the address provided on page 38.
New Publications
From the TSCA Hotline
• A Guide to Performing Reinspections under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response
Act (AHERA)
• New Chemicals Program, Chemicals of Concern (revised in January 1992)
• New Chemicals Program (description of program)
• Indoor Air Quality and New Carpet: What You Should Know (brochure),
Executive Summary of the carpet policy dialogue, and TSCA Carpet Policy
Dialogue Information Package
Single copies of these publications can be obtained by calling or sending a FAX
to the TSCA hotline or by filling out and mailing the form on page 38.
From the Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse
A new report, Pollution Prevention Options in Metal Manufacturing: A Bibliographic
Report, is available from the Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse.
The clearinghouse operates Monday through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time. To order the report, call (703) 821-4800.
From the OPPT Public Docket Office
The Pollution Prevention Scoping Document for Acrylonitrile (CAS No. 107-
13-1), November 21, 1991, is available from the OPPT Public Docket Office.
To contact the docket, call (202) 260-7099, or write to OPPT Public Docket
Office (TS-793), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Room G-004, Washington,
B.C.20460.
From the National Technical Information Service
The Carpet Policy Dialogue: Compendium Report can be purchased from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161; telephone, (703) 487-4650. The publication costs $66; its
order number is PB92-115005.
VOL.13/N0.1 APRIL 1992
-------
General Information
Send All Correspondence to
Environmental Assistance Division (TS-799)
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Editor: Jane Gurin
Would You Like to Receive the
Chemicals-in-Progress Bulletin?
The Cbemicals-in-Progress Bulletin is published by EPA's Office of Pollu-
tion Prevention and Toxics. If you are not currently receiving the bulle-
tin and would like to become a subscriber, or if you would like to stop
receiving the bulletin, please fill out and send in the form below. Or,
tape a mailing label onto it.
[J Please add my name to the mailing list for the Chemicah-in-Progress
Bulletin.
CD I no longer want to receive the Chemicah-in-Progress Bulletin.
CD I'd like a copy of the following publication(s):
Name
Title
Company or Organization Name
Type of Business
Street Address
City
State
Zip Code
Clarification about
Letters of Concern
The December 1991 issue of Chemi-
cals-in-Progress Bulletin reported that
the Office of Toxic Substances, now
the Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, sent "letters of concern"
to a number of companies asking
them to voluntarily implement pol-
lution-prevention measures for acry-
lonitrile, hydrazine, chlorinated par-
affins, and 1,2-dichloroethane.
During preliminary review of readily
available data on the chemicals, the
agency identified a potential risk to
human health or the environment.
The letters asked the companies to
submit existing hazard or exposure
data that would help EPA fully as-
sess the chemicals' risks.
EPA sent the letters to 92 compa-
nies, each of which manufactures,
processes, or uses one or more of the
four chemicals. The article did not
intend to suggest that EPA asked
each company to reduce or eliminate
generation of all four chemicals. We
regret any confusion that may have
occurred.
CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS
-------
TSCA Section 8(e) & FYI Information
TSCA Section 8(e) Notices Indicate Voluntary Actions to Reduce Pollution
When a company discovers new in-
formation about substantial risks
posed by chemical substances to hu-
man health and the environment, it
must report the information to EPA.
The agency received more than 3,800
"substantial risk" notices—required
by section 8(e) of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act (TSCA)—be-
tween January 1, 1977, and Septem-
ber 30, 1991.
Over the last 12 years, the agency has
followed up on submission of section
8(e) notices by asking companies
what steps they are taking to reduce
or eliminate the risks indicated by
the new information. In response to
these inquiries, EPA has learned that
many companies are acting voluntar-
ily to minimize or eliminate exposure
to and risk from the substances.
Specifically, companies have estab-
lished internal review committees to
evaluate new toxicity and exposure
information and determine whether
I Activities Reported in TSCA Section 8(e) Notices
Engineering
modifications
Use or application
halted
Manufacturing
halted
Yearly Totals
FY89
9
3
10
22
FY90
45
13
31
89
FY91
43
15
17
75
Three-Year Total
97
31
58
186
to submit the information to EPA.
These committees also generally con-
sider the need for voluntary actions to
minimize or eliminate specific
chemical exposures.
Some companies report their efforts
to prevent pollution in their section
8(e) reports. Of the 1,750 section
8(e) notices submitted since October
1, 1988, 186 contained information
about voluntary pollution-prevention
actions. In addition, 250 of the sec-
tion 8(e) notices reported that the
submitting company planned to vol-
untarily test or already was voluntar-
ily testing a substance to better char-
acterize its chemical hazards and
risks. The companies use this infor-
mation to assess the need for risk-
reduction activities.
Availability of 8(e) Notices and FYI Submissions
Section 8(e) notices and FYI submis-
sions are available to the public in a
from 8 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
I Chronological indices of section
8(e) and FYI notices are available
-------
FYI Submissions
TSCA Section 8(e) & FYI Information
TSCA Section 8(e) Notices
For Your Information (FYI) submissions are voluntary submissions that cover a
wide variety of information and may include data on chemical toxicity and
exposure, epidemiology, monitoring, and environmental fate, FYIs are submit-
ted by chemical manufacturers and processors, federal, state, and local agencies,
foreign governments, academic institutions, public interest and environmental
groups, and the general public.
The agency established the FYI classification system to distinguish such sub-
missions from notices submitted formally to EPA under section 8(e) of TSCA.
The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) received 11 FYI submis-
sions from August 1, 1991, to December 31, 1991.
Compliance Audit Program
On February 1, 1991, EPA announced the Compliance Audit Program (CAP), a
one-time voluntary program to encourage companies to audit their files for sub-
stantial risk information. Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) requires that substantial risk information be submitted to EPA.
The deadline for reporting health effects information and ecotoxicity studies was
February 28, 1992. The deadline for reporting information on the release of
chemicals to and detection of chemicals in environmental media has been ex-
tended. The new deadline will be six months after publication in the Federal
Register of EPA's final guidance on reporting, which is expected this spring.
EPA has received more than 350 CAP submissions since October 1, 1991. In
addition, many companies have been granted extensions for filing health effects
information and ecotoxicity studies.
Under section 8(e) of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act (TSCA), anyone
who obtains information that indi-
cates a chemical may pose a substan-
tial risk of injury to human health or
the environment must report that
information to EPA within 15 work-
ing days of obtaining it.
The Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT) received more
than 500 TSCA section 8(e) notices
from August 1, 1991, through De-
cember 31, 1991. Most of these no-
tices were submitted by companies
participating in EPA's Compliance
Audit Program (CAP).
In the past, Chemicals-in-Progress Bul-
letin has listed recent section 8(e)
submissions. Due to the volume of
notices recently submitted, however,
the list is not being published in this
issue. For information on how to
obtain an index of section 8(e) notices
or copies of the notices, see page 39.
-------
I
TSCA Section 8(e) & FYI Information
TSCA Section 8(e) Notices Indicate Voluntary Actions to Reduce Pollution
When a company discovers new in-
formation about substantial risks
posed by chemical substances to hu-
man health and the environment, it
must report the information to EPA.
The agency received more than 3,800
"substantial risk" notices—required
by section 8(e) of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act (TSCA)—be-
tween January 1, 1977, and Septem-
ber 30, 1991.
Over the last 12 years, the agency has
followed up on submission of section
8(e) notices by asking companies
what steps they are taking to reduce
or eliminate the risks indicated by
the new information. In response to
these inquiries, EPA has learned that
many companies are acting voluntar-
ily to minimize or eliminate exposure
to and risk from the substances.
Specifically, companies have estab-
lished internal review committees to
evaluate new toxicity and exposure
information and determine whether
I Activities Reported in TSCA Section 8(e) Notices
FY89
FY90
FY91
Three-Year Total
Engineering
modifications
Use or application
halted
Manufacturing
halted
Yearly Totals
9
3
10
22
45
13
31
89
43
15
17
75
97
31
58
186
to submit the information to EPA.
These committees also generally con-
sider the need for voluntary actions to
minimize or eliminate specific
chemical exposures.
Some companies report their efforts
to prevent pollution in their section
8(e) reports. Of the 1,750 section
8(e) notices submitted since October
1, 1988, 186 contained information
about voluntary pollution-prevention
actions. In addition, 250 of the sec-
tion 8(e) notices reported that the
submitting company planned to vol-
untarily test or already was voluntar-
ily testing a substance to better char-
acterize its chemical hazards and
risks. The companies use this infor-
mation to assess the need for risk-
reduction activities.
Availability of 8(e) Notices and FYI Submissions
Section 8(e) notices and FYI submis-
sions are available to the public in a
number of ways, which are listed
below. Note: EPA is no longer issu-
ing submission summaries of section
8(e) notices.
• Section 8(e) notices and FYI sub-
missions can be reviewed and pho-
tocopied at EPA headquarters in
the OPPT Public Reading Room,
NE-G004, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460; phone,
(202) 260-7099. The room is open
from 8 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
I A copy of a full section 8(e) or FYI
submission can be obtained by
writing to EPA, Freedom of Infor-
mation Office (A 101), Washington,
D.C. 20460. Duplication of the
first 166 pages of any document is
free. At the 167th page, there is a
$25 fee and an additional $0.15
charge for each page. For example,
duplication of a 167-page docu-
ment will cost $25.15.
I Chronological indices of section
8(e) and FYI notices are available
from the TSCA Assistance Informa-
tion Service (TSCA hotline) two to
three months after the end of each
fiscal quarter. The fiscal quarters
end on September 30, December
31, March 31, and June 30. See
page 37 for information on how to
contact the hotline.
VOL.13 /N0.1 APRIL 1992
-------
TSCA Section 8(e) & FYI Information
FYI Submissions
For Your Information (FYI) submissions are voluntary submissions that cover a
wide variety of information and may include data on chemical toxicity and
exposure, epidemiology, monitoring, and environmental fate. FYIs are submit-
ted by chemical manufacturers and processors, federal, state, and local agencies,
foreign governments, academic institutions, public interest and environmental
groups, and the general public.
The agency established the FYI classification system to distinguish such sub-
missions from notices submitted formally to EPA under section 8(e) of TSCA.
The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) received 11 FYI submis-
sions from August 1, 1991, to December 31, 1991.
Compliance Audit Program
On February 1, 1991, EPA announced the Compliance Audit Program (CAP), a
one-time voluntary program to encourage companies to audit their files for sub-
stantial risk information. Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) requires that substantial risk information be submitted to EPA.
The deadline for reporting health effects information and ecotoxicity studies was
February 28, 1992. The deadline for reporting information on the release of
chemicals to and detection of chemicals in environmental media has been ex-
tended. The new deadline will be six months after publication in the Federal
Register of EPA's final guidance on reporting, which is expected this spring.
EPA has received more than 350 CAP submissions since October 1, 1991. In
addition, many companies have been granted extensions for filing health effects
information and ecotoxicity studies.
TSCA Section 8(e) Notices
Under section 8(e) of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act (TSCA), anyone
who obtains information that indi-
cates a chemical may pose a substan-
tial risk of injury to human health or
the environment must report that
information to EPA within 15 work-
ing days of obtaining it.
The Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT) received more
than 500 TSCA section 8(e) notices
from August 1, 1991, through De-
cember 31, 1991. Most of these no-
tices were submitted by companies
participating in EPA's Compliance
Audit Program (CAP).
In the past, Chemicals-in-Progress Bul-
letin has listed recent section 8(e)
submissions. Due to the volume of
notices recently submitted, however,
the list is not being published in this
issue. For information on how to
obtain an index of section 8(e) notices
or copies of the notices, see page 39-
xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(TS-799)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty lor Private Use
$300
077685 LIS
EPA LIBRARY
REG 5
-£34- S DCARCORN G T—ThtTCT
CHICAGO, IL 606C4
First Class Mail
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
Permit No. G-35
------- |