Chemicals  in Progress
           VOLUME 14/NO 2  JUNE 1993

      2 OPPT Wants More People
        to Use Its Environmental

     13 Public Education Campaign
        To Prevent Lead Poisoning

     37 OPPT Plans to Ask
        Companies to Give Risk
        Information to Chemical
Getting the Lead Out

EPA Acting to Prevent Childhood  Lead Poisoning

By Joseph S. Carra
Deputy Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Lead poisoning is a serious health problem, particularly among young
children. A high blood lead level can lower a child's intelligence, impair
his or her hearing, retard physical and mental growth, and cause memory '
loss or hyperactivity. EPA estimates that one in six U.S. children under
six years old have high levels of lead in their blood.

Lead-based paint is a major source of exposure for these children. Urban
soil and dust are also sometimes contaminated with lead from paint,
gasoline, and industrial sources. Drinking water can contain lead from
solder, brass fittings, and service lines. Most of the lead in these sources is
a remnant from the past. Over the past 20 years, the nation switched to
unleaded gasoline, paint manufacturers were banned from using lead in
residential products, and the use of lead in the solder and pipes of public
drinking water systems was banned.

Federal agencies take action
While much has been  accomplished, much remains to be done. By 1989,
it was clear that additional action was necessary, both to protect people
from exposure to lead left in the environment from previous uses and to
prevent exposures to lead from current uses. To tackle the number one
problem—children's exposure to lead-based paint—EPA joined the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in organizing a
federal interagency task force. Today, 18 federal organizations participate
in the task force, cooperating on many projects and sharing information
about many  others.

In 1991, EPA completed a comprehensive strategy for dealing with expo-
sures to lead from all sources, including paint. HUD also developed a
lead strategy. In October 1992, Congress strengthened these efforts with
passage of the Residential Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction Act. The
                                   Lead continued on page 14
                                                                             Printed on paper that contains
                                                                             at least 50% recycled fiber

                                        Information Access
OPPT Is  Improving  Public  Access to Information
EPA's Office of Pollution Preven-
tion and Toxics (OPPT) is taking
steps to improve and increase pub-
lic access to data. OPPT believes
that environmental data are valu-
able to people outside of EPA who
are interested in producing safer
chemicals and reducing risks posed
by hazardous chemicals.

To increase public access to data,
OPPT has created the Information
Access  Branch  in the Information
Management Division. In addition
to public access issues, the branch
will address how to integrate
OPPT data with environmental
information collected by other
EPA offices. Development of inte-
grated information products would
be useful to EPA, federal agencies,
and state agencies, all of which use
environmental data to develop pol-
lution prevention strategies.

Three federal statutes direct  OPPT
to collect test results, risk studies,
environmental releases, and other
data: the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA), the Pollution Preven-
tion Act (PPA), and the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act (TSCA). These
three statutes—cross-media  in
nature—encompass the complete
cycle of development, production,
use, and disposal of products.

Expanding information access
In improving and expanding its
information products, OPPT is
relying on its extensive experience
in managing the Toxics Release
Information (TRI) data base. This
experience has shown it is essential
to do more than make data avail-
able; data must also be presented
in a format that users can easily
understand and apply to  their
needs. In managing TRI  data,
OPPT learned the public will use
data in ways that OPPT cannot
foresee. In response to this lesson,
OPPT plans to make information
publicly available before  EPA com-
pletes its own analysis and inter-
pretation, when appropriate.

OPPT currently disseminates
information in many ways. For
example, one program in which
information plays a vital  role is
OPPT's Design for the Environ-
ment (DfE) program. This pro-
gram works with a number of
industries to develop safety and
performance data about chemicals
and processes. The result is that
many industries will receive infor-
mation that can be used to build
environmental factors into design
decisions. (See pages 9 to 12 for an
update on the DfE program.)

Process for change
OPPT is interested in encouraging
more people and companies to use
the information it has collected.
Over the next year, the Informa-
tion Access Branch will work
within OPPT to
• gain better knowledge of con-
  stituencies for OPPT data and
  understand and define informa-
  tion issues;
• define the kinds of interpreta-
  tive information that would be
  most  helpful to users;

• develop more useful formats for
  supplying information, and
  improve existing data;

• provide greater online capabili-
  ties to the public through pub-
  licly accessible data lines,
  improved access to existing EPA
  data bases, or other options;

9' increase eleettpnic submission of
  "3ata to provide access to more
  data and in a more timely man-
  ner; and

• educate OPPT staff to consider
  information needs and products
  throughout the cycle of its work
  on  chemicals, processes, and

To support this process, OPPT ha^s
established a workgroup to devel-
op a comprehensive strategy for
collecting, processing, and dis-
seminating information. OPPT is
engaged in other activities to fur-
ther this mission, such as mini-
mizing TSCA confidential busi-
ness information claims to increase
public access to information.
Development of the strategy will
depend  to some degree on similar
activities being  undertaken
throughout EPA, such as integrat-
ing data from other EPA offices
into OPPT data.
                                        CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                       Pollution Prevention
EPA Proposes  Voluntary Program to  Promote
Pollution Prevention and  Sustainable Development
EPA is proposing a national pro-
gram that would recognize and
reward long-term commitment to
pollution prevention and sustain-
able development in  the manufac-
turing sector. A pilot of the pro-
gram is planned for one or more
states prior to implementing the
full program.

The objectives of the Environ-
mental Leadership Program are to
encourage companies to go beyond
compliance with the  law and to
incorporate pollution prevention
into all of their operations, includ-
ing purchasing, product design,
manufacturing, marketing, and

The proposal is in the early stages
of development. In a Federal Regis-
ter notice on January  15, 1993,
EPA explained the program con-
cepts, outlined the proposed crite-
ria for participation, and asked for
public reaction (58 FR 4802).
Comments received from the pub-
lic will be considered in shaping
the final program.

Proposed structure
The Environmental Leadership
Program proposed by EPA would
comprise dual components.
1.  One component,  the Model
    Facility Program, would recog-
    nize individual plants that
    meet stringent environmental
    criteria by employing quality
    management and pollution
    prevention technologies.
 2.  The second component would
    encourage corporatewide
    changes that are beyond the
    control of individual plant
    managers. To accomplish this,
    EPA would require corpora-
    tions to agree to (1) conduct
    operations according to the
    Corporate Statement of Princi-
    ples that will be established
    by EPA and (2) work toward
    sustainable development by
    setting specific goals for
    designing, manufacturing,
    marketing, and distributing
    their products.

Fundamental assumptions
EPA has identified eight assump-
tions that are fundamental to
development of the program:
• Standards for the program will be
  stringent enough to include only
  the best companies and practical
  enough to motivate companies to
  strive to meet them.
• Facilities that apply to the pro-
  gram are expected to have excel-
  lent records of compliance with
  existing environmental laws and
  regulations and to maintain or
  improve those records during

• Pollution prevention and sustain-
  able development will be key
  components of the program.
  Incentives to encourage manufac-
  turers to strive toward both will
  be incorporated into the program.
• Ambitious goal setting will be
  incorporated into the program.
  However, the program seeks to
  avoid prescriptive judgments of
  measures used to attain the goals.
• Coordination with state and
  local regulatory and voluntary
  programs is critical to avoid
  duplicating efforts.
• Information will be available for
  the public to track the program's
  success. Information must be
  verifiable and quantifiable.
• Consistent measurement stan-
  dards will be developed and
  applied in a fair and objective
  manner to minimize the time
  needed to review and process

For more information
For further information about the
proposed Environmental Leader-
ship Program, contact Linda
Glass-Rimer, Pollution Prevention
Policy Staff (1102), U.S. EPA, 401
M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460; telephone, (202) 260-8616.
To view comments submitted to
EPA about this proposal,  contact
the TSCA Non-Confidential Infor-
mation Center.  For information
about contacting the center, see
page 42.
                                      VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                       Pollution Prevention
Administrator  Browner:  Pollution Prevention Is Becoming
EPA's  Guiding  Principle
On April 22, 1993, EPA Adminis-
trator Carol M. Browner announced
that EPA is fundamentally shifting
the nation's environmental protec-
tion strategy toward pollution pre-
vention. Excerpts of Ms. Browner's
Earth Day statement follow.

"Twenty years of end-of-pipe regu-
lation have taught us an important
lesson—that the best way to clean
up the environment is to prevent
environmental deterioration in the
first place. Taking this lesson to
heart, this administration is com-
mitted to making pollution pre-
vention the guiding principle of
all our environmental efforts.

".. .1 am committing EPA to adopt
a major policy integrating pollution
prevention into every EPA activity,
program, and operation. I also will
appoint an EPA task force that will
develop a concrete action plan to
implement the new pollution pre-
vention policy. The task force will
provide opportunities for the public
to have input as the action plan is
developed	By the policy I am
announcing today, pollution pre-
vention will be the central ethic in
everything we do at EPA.

The policy's five key parts are sum-
marized below.

1.  Using pollution prevention in EPA's
   regulatory activities.
All EPA regulatory development,
permitting and enforcement will
utilize pollution prevention as the
principle of first choice.

2. Building a network of state, local,
  and tribal programs.

EPA will provide grants to state,
local, and tribal governments for
pollution prevention programs.
The new pollution prevention task
    prevention will  be
   the central ethic in
    everything we do
          at EPA."
force will help these governments
apply the grants to a variety of
pollution prevention activities.
3. Emphasizing cross-media prevention.
EPA will expand its environmental
programs that emphasize cross-
media prevention, reinforce the
mutual goals of economic and envi-
ronmental well-being, and repre-
sent new models for cooperation
between government and the pri-
vate sector. As part of the fiscal year
'94 budget, EPA is proposing sig-
nificant new commitments for the
Green Programs, Design for the
Environment, and other pollution
prevention programs. (See pages 9
to 12 for information about Design
for the Environment projects.)

4. Recognizing the value of publicly
   accessible information.

EPA will increase its efforts to gen-
erate and share information to pro-
mote prevention and track progress
through measurement systems such
as the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI). To build on President Clin-
ton's announcement that all  federal
agencies will begin reporting to the
TRI, the pollution prevention task
force will examine expanding the
TRI  to include additional chemicals
and industrial sources. (See page 18
for a report on President Clinton's
5. Developing partnerships in  techno-
   logical innovation.
EPA will develop partnerships in
technological innovation with oth-
er agencies and the private  sector
to increase industrial competitive-
ness  and enhance environmental
stewardship. The 1994  budget
proposal for EPA includes $36
million for a new interagency envi-
ronmental technology initiative.
A substantial portion of these
funds will be used to promote pol-
lution prevention, particularly for
small businesses.
                                        CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                       Pollution Prevention
33/50 Program  Is Reducing Risks through Voluntary Action
EPA's 33/50 Program has received
commitments from 1,135 compa-
nies to voluntarily reduce their
releases and transfers of 17 toxic
chemicals. According to the com-
bined goals of about two-thirds of
the companies, releases and transfers
of the chemicals would be reduced
by 354 million pounds by the end of
1995. The remaining one-third of
the companies are in the process of
setting reduction goals.

EPA began the 33/50 Program in
January 1991 to encourage compa-
nies to prevent pollution during the
manufacturing process rather than
release wastes into the environment
or transfer them to waste manage-
ment facilities. Participation is com-
pletely voluntary. The program's
objective is to cut releases and off-
site transfers of 17 high-priority tox-
ic chemical wastes by 50 percent by
the end of 1995. The program is
measuring progress through reports
to the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI). Data from 1988 are being
used as the baseline.
Seventeen Priority Chemicals Targeted
By the 33/50 Program
Cadmium and compounds
Carbon tetrachloride
Chromium and compounds
Lead and compounds
Mercury and compounds
Methyl ethyl ketone

The program's interim goal was to
achieve a 33 percent cut by the end
of 1992. EPA will use TRI reports
for 1992, which are due by July
1993, to determine whether this
goal was met. Compilation and
analysis of the data will be complet-
ed in 1994. However, TRI data from
1990 show that releases of the 17
chemicals dropped 20 percent from
1988. This downward trend indi-
cates that it is likely the 33/50 Pro-
gram met its interim goal for  1992.
The TRI data indicate that many
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Nickel and compounds
companies that are not participat-
ing in the 33/50 Program are also
reducing releases and transfers of
the 17 chemicals. The data also
indicate that participating compa-
nies are achieving greater reduc-
tions than pledged.

For information on joining the
33/50 Program
To learn how to participate, contact
the TSCA Assistance Information
Service (TSCA hotline). See page
43 for information on contacting
the hotline.
Industry Backs the Minnesota-50  Project
Releases and transfers of 17 toxic
chemicals in Minnesota are expect-
ed to drop by half by the  end of
1995. Manufacturing facilities in
the state are voluntarily taking
steps to cut their releases  as part of
the Minnesota-50 Project, an envi-
ronmental partnership between
industry and the state.

In 1988, about 300 manufacturing
facilities in Minnesota released or
transferred 44.9 million pounds of
17 toxic chemicals. Over the past
year, 68 facilities have pledged to
reduce their annual releases of the
chemicals by 22 million pounds
within three years.

Among the companies participating
in the project is the 3M Company,
Minnesota's biggest source of toxic
pollution. The  3M Company has
committed to paring its emissions
by 70 percent. Boise Cascade Min-
nesota also signed on, saying it
expects to reduce chloroform emis-
sions at its International Falls
plant by more than 80 percent.

"Nonregulatory approaches to envi-
ronmental problems are effective,"
said Diane Wesman, Minnesota
Office of Waste Management's

Minnesota-50 continued on page 6
                                       VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                          Pollution Prevention
Minnesota-50 continued from page 5

director. "The Minnesota-50 Pro-
ject clearly demonstrates that vol-
untary approaches, where business-
es prevent pollution at its source,
can achieve significant benefits for
Minnesotans. We will continue
to ask companies to join the
Minnesota-50 Project."

Modeled after EPA program
The Mmnesota-50 Project is mod-
eled on EPA's  33/50 Program. The
Minnesota-50 Project targets the
same 17 chemicals selected for
reduction by the EPA program,
and companies that agree to par-
ticipate in the Minnesota-50 Pro-
ject are automatically enrolled  in
EPA's 33/50 Program. (See page  5
for information about the 33/50

The Minnesota Office of Waste
Management and the Minnesota
Chamber of Commerce are spon-
soring the Minnesota-50 Project.
Although the  overall project goal
is to reduce releases and transfers
of the chemicals statewide by 50
percent, companies can establish a
higher or lower goal. Participation
in the project  is completely volun-
tary, and there are no penalties for
companies that do not participate.

The program promotes pollution
prevention as  the best way to
achieve reductions in toxic releas-
es. By  not generating waste in  the
first place, companies save on raw
materials, increase efficiency, and
reduce liability costs.
Companies Participating  in the
Minnesota-50 Project
These companies are voluntarily taking steps to prevent pollution.
Andersen Corp., Bayport
Arctco, Inc., Thief River Falls
Boise Cascade Corp.,
   International Falls
Buckbee-Mears Corp., St. Paul
Bureau of Engraving, Industrial
   Division, Minneapolis
Cardiac Pacemakers, Arden Hills
Conklin Company, Inc., Shakopee
Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.,
Crystal Cabinet Works, Inc.,
   Baldwin Township
Dresser/Rand Electric Machinery,
Dura Supreme, Howard Lake
Eaton Corp. Hydraulics Division,
   Eden Prairie
Elf Atochem North America, Inc.,
   Blooming Prairie
Naval Systems Division of FMC, Fridley
Foto Mark, Inc., Eden Prairie
Frigidaire Co. Freezer Products,
   St. Cloud
Frost Paint & Oil Corp., Minneapolis
Gillette Co., St. Paul
Goebel Fixture Company, Hutchinson
Hartzell Manufacturing, Inc., St. Paul
Honeywell, Plymouth
Honeywell, Golden Valley
Honeywell-Military Avionics Division,
   St. Louis Park
Honeywell-Military Avionics Division,
International Business Machines Corp.,
ICI Fiberite, Inc., Winona
John Roberts Co., Minneapolis
Joyner's, Brooklyn Park
Knapp Woodworking, Inc., Ham Lake
Marvin Windows and  Doors, Warroad
M.E. International, Duluth
Micom Corp., New Brighton
Midwest Electric Products, Mankato
3M Co., Maplewood
3M Co., Chemolite Center,
   Cottage Grove
3M Co., Fairmont
3M Co., Hutchinson
3M Co., Pine City
3M Co., St. Paul
3M Co., Electrical Products Division,
   New Dim
Minnesota Valley Engineering, Inc.,
   New Prague
Mixon, Inc., St. Paul
National Computer Systems, Owatonna
New Dimension Plating, Inc.,
Northern Wire Products, St. Cloud
North Star Steel Co., Minnesota-
   St. Paul
PDI, Inc., Blaine
Polaris Industries, Inc., Roseau
Potlatch Corp., Cloquet
Progress Casting Group, Albert  Lea
Progress Casting Group, Plymouth
Rayven Inc., St. Paul
Sheldahl, Northfield
Smith System Manufacturing Co.,
Snyder General Corp., Faribault
Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Baudette
Streater Store Fixtures, Plants I  and II,
   Albert Lea
Superior Plating Inc., Minneapolis
Tapemark, West St. Paul
Thermo King Corp., Bloomington
Truth Division, SPX Corp., Owatonna
Unisys Corp., Roseville
Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc.,
Valley Craft, Inc., Lake City
Viracon, Inc., Owatonna
Waldorf Corp., St. Paul
Winco, Inc., Le Center
                                           CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                        Pollution Prevention
Three Programs  Provide Grants for Pollution  Prevention Activities
EPA's Office of Pollution Preven-
tion and Toxics (OPPT) partici-
pates in three grants programs that
support pollution prevention.

NICE^—National Industrial Com-
petitiveness Through Efficiency:
Energy, Environment, Economics—
aims to improve the cost competi-
tiveness of U.S. products by reduc-
ing industrial  energy costs and
minimizing industrial waste. The
program, administered jointly by
the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) and EPA, will award $2.5
million in grants in fiscal year 1993.

Awards are made through the
states, which  must match the fed-
eral grants.  Any combination of
state and industrial funds can be
used for the matching funds.

For information about the pro-
gram, contact Dave Bassett, Pollu-
tion Prevention Division (7409),
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington,  D.C. 20460; tele-
phone, (202)  260-2720; or, Alan
Schroeder, Office of Industrial
Technologies  Office of Conserva-
tion and Renewable Energy
(CE222), Department of Energy,
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington,  D.C. 20585; tele-
phone, (202) 586-1641; FAX,

ACE—Agriculture in Concert with
the Environment—is a research
and education grant program. The

Grants continued on page 8
ACE Program
Regional Offices
David Schlegel
Division of Agriculture and Natural
University of California
300 Lakeside Drive, 6th Floor
Oakland, California 94612-3560
Telephone: (510)987-0033

William H. Brown
Agriculture Experiment Station
P.O. Box 25055
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70894-5055
Telephone: (504) 388-4181

Fred Magdoff
Department of Plant and Soil Science,
University of Vermont
Hills Building
Burlington, Vermont 05405
Telephone: (802) 656-0471

Steve Waller
Agricultural Experimental  Station
University of Nebraska
109 Agriculture Hall
Lincoln, Nebraska 68583
Telephone: (402) 472-2046
States and U.S. Territories

Washington, Oregon, Montana,
Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New
Mexico, Arizona, Utah,  Nevada,
California, Alaska,  Hawaii, Guam
Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana,
Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi,
Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South
Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky,

West Virginia, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey,
New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Maine, Virgin Islands,
Puerto Rico

North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio
Pollution  Prevention Incentives for States
Regional Office                     States and U.S. Territories
Mark Mahoney (PAS)
U.S. EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building, Room 2203
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Telephone: (617) 565-1155

Janet Sapadin (2-PPIB-OPM)
U.S. EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Telephone: (212) 264-1925
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands
                                                                     Table continued on page 8
                                        VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                          Pollution Prevention
Grants continued from page 7

program's goals are to help farmers
adopt sustainable agriculture prac-
tices, reduce the use of highly toxic
herbicides and other pesticides, and
safeguard environmentally sensitive
areas such as critical habitat and

Priority issues and activities for
ACE funding include, but are not
limited to, nutrient management,
environmentally sound multiple
land uses, and animal waste man-

ACE is administered jointly by
OPPT and the Sustainable Agricul-
ture Research and Education Pro-
gram (SAKE) of the U.S. Agricul-
ture Department. ACE will award
$1.89 million in fiscal year 1993.
Requests for proposals will be
mailed in late summer or early fall.
For further information, contact the
appropriate regional representative.

Pollution Prevention Incentives
for States
The Pollution Prevention Incentives
for States program provides funds to
states and Indian tribes for reducing
or eliminating pollution.  The objec-
tive of the grants program is to sup-
port development and implementa-
tion of pollution prevention
methodologies and approaches at
the state and local levels.

In fiscal year  1993, the program will
award  $4.5 million in grants. Grant
recipients are required to match at
least 50 percent of the federal funds.

For further information, contact the
appropriate EPA regional office.
Pollution Prevention Incentives for States,  cont'd.
Regional Office
Kathy Libertz (3ES43)
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Telephone: (215) 597-0765

Carol Monell
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Telephone: (404) 347-7109

Cathy Allen
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590
Telephone: (312) 353-3387

Dick Watkins (6M-PP)
U.S. EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue,12th Fl., Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75202
Telephone: (214) 655-6580

Steve Wurtz
U.S. EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Telephone: (913) 551 -7315

Sharon Childs (8PM-SIPO)
U.S. EPA Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver,  Colorado 80202-2405
Telephone: (303) 293-1471

Jesse Baskir/Hilary Lauer (H-1-B)
U.S. EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 744-2190

Robyn Meeker
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200  6th Avenue
Seattle,  Washington 98101
Telephone: (206) 553-8579
States and U.S. Territories

Delaware, District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
West Virginia
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada,
American Samoa, Guam
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
                                          CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                      Design for the Environment
What Is Design for the Environment?
EPA's Design for the Environment
(DfE) program promotes building
the use of safer chemicals, process-
es, and technologies into products
during their earliest design stages.
The DfE program has three corner-
stones: the gathering of compara-
tive risk and performance data; the
development of analytical tools for
assessing that data; and the dissem-
ination of both data and analytical
tools to people in various industries
for use in making environmentally
responsible choices.
For information on participating in
the DfE program, contact Jean E.
(Libby) Parker, Economics, Exposure,
and Technology Division (TS-779),
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20460; telephone, (202)
260-0667; FAX, (202) 260-0981.
National Science Foundation  and EPA Working to Prevent
Pollution in Synthesis and  Manufacture  of Industrial  Chemicals
On January 28, 1993, EPA and the
National Science Foundation
agreed to work together to pro-
mote pollution prevention in
industrial chemical processes. The
cooperative efforts will be an inte-
gral part of EPA's Design for the
Environment (DfE) initiative,
which incorporates pollution pre-
vention principles into the synthe-
sis and manufacture of industrial
chemicals.  NSF has a similar effort,
called Environmentally Benign
Chemical Synthesis and Processing,
to foster pollution prevention in its
basic research grants program.
The collaboration will allow the
National Science Foundation and
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT) to contribute
their complementary scientific and
technical expertise to address the
difficult problems of pollution
prevention through environmental
design. The National Science
Foundation, as one of the largest
U.S. government supporters of
basic research, is well recognized
for having a unique perspective on
academic scientific research needs
and capabilities. OPPT brings to
the collaboration its unique regu-
latory perspective of the chemical
industry and its risk assessment of
those chemical substances of high-
est environmental and public
health concern.

In a Memorandum of Understand-
ing, EPA and the National Science
Foundation agreed to use a variety
of mechanisms, including grants
to universities and public outreach
programs, to promote pollution
prevention in the design of alter-
native synthetic pathways for
chemicals in  commerce. Research
proposals submitted for funding
under the National Science Foun-
dation program will be reviewed
jointly by the National Science
Foundation and OPPT.
Symposium scheduled for August
Representatives from the National
Science Foundation are participat-
ing in the OPPT-organized sympo-
sium "Alternative Synthetic Path-
ways for Pollution  Prevention."
The symposium is  scheduled for
August 1993, at the American
Chemical Society National Meet-
ing in Chicago, Illinois. It is being
sponsored by the American Chem-
ical Society's Division of Environ-
mental Chemistry.

For more information
Further information on the collabo-
ration is available from Paul  T.
Anastas, Economics, Exposure, and
Technology Division (TS-779),
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460; tele-
phone, (202) 260-2257. Or,  from
Margaret Cavanaugh, Chemistry
Division, Room 340, National Sci-
ence Foundation, 1800 G Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20550;
telephone, (202) 357-7499.
                                      VOL. 14/NO 2 JUNE 1993

                                         Design for the Environment
New Accounting  and Capital Budgeting Tools Are Highlighted
Environmental Costs Affecting  Profits Are  Identified
EPA and outside partners are devel-
oping accounting and budgeting
tools that highlight pollution pre-
vention. Working on the project
with EPA are accounting profession-
als, representatives from various
industries, academics, private citi-
zens, and state and local officials.

The Design for the Environment
(DfE) project is focusing on (1) man-
agerial accounting, which is the
process businesses use to collect and
analyze information for internal deci-
sion making, and (2) capital budget-
ing, which is the process businesses
use for evaluating capital investments.
Financial accounting, used in provid-
ing information to people outside the
company, is not being addressed.

In determining the cost of products
and processes, managerial account-
ing practices often do not consider
environmental costs. Environmental
costs include money spent on waste
disposal, permitting, and labeling,
as well as potential future liabilities.
Ignoring these costs  leaves business-
es without a true picture of how
profitable their products are. Like-
wise, environmental costs are often
not factored into the expense of
buying new equipment and tech-
nology or operating it over the long

EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT) believes that
integrating environmental costs into
accounting practices and capital
budgeting will demonstrate that
preventing pollution is less expen-
sive than controlling it after it
occurs. Moreover, innovative
accounting and capital budgeting
tools and processes can help recon-
cile the needs of business to be
profitable, of communities to have
jobs, and of society to protect the

New tools developed
Over the past few years, EPA has
developed and piloted several tools
for capital budgeting, such as the
total cost assessment methodology.
This methodology and a number of
others are explained in Total Cost
Assessment: Accelerating Industrial Pol-
lution Prevention Through Innovative
Project Financial Analysis, prepared
by the Tellus Institute, a private
not-for-profit research institute.
Information about obtaining the
manual is provided below.

EPA is also working with the
American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) to incorporate the
total cost assessment methodology
into ASTM's Standard Guide for Pol-
lution Prevention. EPA has also pro-
vided funds to the World Resources
Institute to develop and pilot an
innovative managerial accounting

Changing corporate
decision making
EPA has begun several cooperative
efforts with accounting firms and
industry, state and local govern-
ments, and public interest groups to

• stimulate development and adop-
  tion of improved managerial cost
  accounting systems that reveal
  the environmental costs of prod-
  ucts and processes and

• stimulate development and adop-
  tion of tools and practices for
  financial analysis and capital bud-
  geting for evaluating direct and
  indirect benefits of pollution pre-
  vention-oriented projects.

To facilitate dialogue on these
issues, EPA has solicited input from
a network of experts and interested
parties. A workshop, sponsored by
EPA and others, is scheduled for
September 1993.

For more information
• For more information about the
  workshop or development of new
  accounting or capital budgeting
  methods, contact the Pollution
  Prevention Information Clearing-
  house (PM-211A), U.S. EPA,
  401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
  B.C. 20460; telephone, (202)
  260-1023; FAX, (202)  260-0178.
• To obtain Total Cost Assessment:
  Accelerating Industrial Pollution
  Prevention Through Innovative
  Project Financial Analysis, docu-
  ment number EPA/741/R-
  92/002, contact the Pollution
  Prevention Information Clear-

• For information about ASTM's
  Standard Guide for Pollution Pre-
  vention, contact the organization's
  technical information center at
                                         CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                       Design for the Environment
Substitute Assessments for  Printing  Are Under Way
The printing industry and EPA
are assessing substitutes for litho-
graphic blanket washes, screen
reclamation products, and flexo-
graphic inks. Printers are evaluat-
ing how well the substitutes per-
form by using them in day-to-day
operations. EPA will incorporate
the data supplied by the printers
into an overall assessment of sub-
stitute printers' products.

The assessment, which will
include comparative risk, cost, and
performance information, will be
provided to printers at the end of
1993. This information will help
printers make environmentally
informed decisions about the
chemicals, technologies, and work
practices they use.

March meeting
The Design for the Environment
project held a meeting in March
attended by about 100 printers,
products vendors, trade group rep-
resentatives, and EPA staff. At the
meeting, participants were
informed of the status of EPA's
assessments and of current EPA,
regional, and state activities
affecting their industry. Industry
was asked to provide additional
substitutes and product formula-
tions for the assessments.
The first information product—a
case study—was distributed to
attendees. The case study provid-
ed information about a litho-
graphic printer who successfully
incorporated pollution prevention
into his facility and saved money
doing so. The case study was
developed by one of the DfE pro-
ject's committees.

For more information
For more information about the
March meeting or the DfE printing
project, contact the Pollution Pre-
vention Information Clearinghouse
(PM-211A); U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street, S.W. 20460; telephone, (202)
260-1023; FAX, (202) 260-0178.
Insurance  Companies Discover A Role  in  Preventing  Pollution
Insurance companies offer lower
premiums to people who drive cars
with anti-lock brakes and to those
who install more secure locks on
the doors to their homes. EPA is
hoping that lower insurance pre-
miums will also some day serve as
an incentive for U.S.  industry to
implement pollution prevention

EPA has started a Design for the
Environment (DfE) initiative to
help insurers (1) use analytical
tools to assess pollution risk and
(2) reward customers for taking
steps to prevent pollution.
In the short run, EPA is working
with the American Institute of
Chartered Property and Casualty
Underwriters (AICPCU) to modify
the curriculum for the Associates
in Risk Management program.
This program reaches a large audi-
ence. AICPCU is a nonprofit orga-
nization offering education pro-
grams and professional certification
to people in the property and lia-
bility insurance program.

The initial effort is to incorporate
EPA's information resources and pol-
lution prevention analytical tools
into the course's text and materials.
Other portions of the Associates in
Risk Management program will also
be revised.
Future insurance DfE projects are
under development and may include
working with the insurance industry
to identify industry groups that
could benefit from targeted insur-
ance products.

For more information
For more information on the DfE
insurance project, contact Julie
Shannon, Pollution Prevention Divi-
sion (7409), 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460; tele-
phone, (202) 260-2736.
                                       VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                       Design for the Environment
Computer  Industry Joins  DIE Efforts
EPA and the computer industry
are working together to minimize
the health and environmental risks
associated with the computer
industry. The goals of the Design
for the Environment (DfE) project
are to develop information and
tools to (1) help designers of com-
puter workstations choose chemi-
cals,  materials, and processes that
prevent pollution and (2) boost the
competitiveness of the U.S. com-
puter industry by encouraging
decisions that will avoid using reg-
ulated chemicals and thus avoid
regulatory expenditures.

The Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT) began develop-
ing the DfE project in August
1992. Among the project's first
steps were compilation of a list of
chemicals used to manufacture
computer workstations and compi-
lation of the federal and state regu-
lations of these chemicals. Also
prepared was a separate list of fed-
eral and state industry-specific reg-
ulations. These regulations will be
compared with the regulations
governing the computer industry
in Japan, the European Communi-
ty, and other nations that have
strong computer industries.

Pilot planned for total cost
Currently, the environmental costs
associated with using individual
chemicals are included in over-
head. As a result, companies have
little incentive for factoring envi-
ronmental costs into individual
product designs. Providing infor-
mation on environmental costs—
including such factors as waste dis-
posal and potential future
liabilities—will aid companies in
attributing costs to particular
product lines. Companies that
have less-costly and less-harmful
chemical alternatives, for instance,
will have an economic incentive to
choose these alternatives.
Under the umbrella of total cost
assessment, the DfE project is
developing various analyses and
methods that computer compa-
nies can use to analyze the regula-
tory impact and environmental
costs of particular products. Plans
are to implement a pilot of Total
Cost Assessment: Accelerating
Industrial Pollution Prevention
through Innovative Project Financial
Analysis in at least one facility
by the end of 1993.

For more information
To obtain more information about
the DfE computer industry pro-
ject, contact Claudia O'Brien, Eco-
nomics, Exposure, and Technology
Division (TS-779), 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460;
telephone, (202) 260-0688; FAX,
Results of Dry Cleaning Demonstration Project Are Being Evaluated
In a large-scale demonstration pro-
ject, more than 1,500 garments
were dry cleaned with a new
method using soaps. The demon-
stration project was the first step
in evaluating chemicals and tech-
nologies that could decrease expo-
sures to the chlorinated solvents
now used in dry cleaning.

EPA, the Neighborhood Cleaners
Association, and the International
Fabricare Institute conducted the
demonstration project during four
weeks in November and December
1992. Two dry cleaners in Wash-
ington, D.C., and one dry cleaner
in New York City participated in
the project. Employees of the U.S.
government and the New York
Department of Environmental
Protection were asked to bring
their clothing to these cleaners for
use in the demonstration project.
All garments were sent to New
York, where they were cleaned
by the Neighborhood Cleaners

The Design for the Environment
Project, which is part of EPA's
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT), and the dry clean-
ing industry are evaluating the
data collected during the demon-
stration. They  are also discussing
other joint research for the future.
                                        CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                    Lead Activities
                               Public Service  Campaign about Lead
                               Poisoning  Begins
"This campaign
is essential in
educating parents
on the...dangers of
lead poisoning...."
On May 4, 1993, EPA Administra-
tor Carol M. Browner joined Tipper
Gore, Bud Ward of the National
Safety Council, Fred Krupp of the
Environmental Defense Fund, and
Surgeon General-Designate Joyce-
lyn Elders in launching a national
public service advertising campaign
to heighten the public's awareness
of the dangers of lead poisoning in
children. EPA and the  National
Safety Council are sponsoring the
campaign, which includes televi-
sion, radio, and print ads.

"This campaign is essential in edu-
cating parents on the very real dan-
gers of lead poisoning  and what
they can do to help protect their
children," said Administrator
Browner. "Lead poisoning in chil-
dren is this country's most serious
childhood environmental threat
and the most preventable. It is our
responsibility to try to make the
public more aware of this."

The English-language broadcast
ads feature actress Phylicia Rashad,
and the Spanish-language radio ads
feature Latino personality Cristina
Saralegui. The ads will be used in
about 50 media markets through-
out the country.
Getting the right message out
It is important that the public learn
about lead poisoning, which affects
people of every age and race, in
every geographic region, and in all
socioeconomic levels. Children,
however, are especially at risk. They
are more vulnerable to damage
because their bodies and nervous
systems are developing, they engage
in frequent hand-to-mouth activity,
which brings them into contact
with lead in paint, dust, and soil,
and they absorb a higher percentage
of ingested lead in proportion to
their body weight than adults do.

To develop a campaign that would
prompt people to call the National
Lead Information Center for infor-
mation on preventing lead poison-
ing, EPA's Office of Pollution Pre-
vention and Toxics (OPPT) worked
closely with the President's Com-
mission on Environmental Quality.
OPPT also coordinated the federal
Lead-based Paint Task Force's
development of public-education
materials for the National Lead
Information Center.

For more information
To obtain copies of the lead public ser-
vice announcements, call the National
Safety Council at (202) 833-1071.
To contact the National Lead Infor-
mation Center, call (800) LEAD-FYI.
                                    VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                         Lead Activities
Lead continued from page 1
act is Title X of the Housing and
Community Development Act of
1992 and is also an amendment to
TSCA. The new law mandates
activities to reduce hazards posed
by lead exposure in housing and
establishes an infrastructure for a
national program to eliminate
childhood lead poisoning.  Con-
gress assigned EPA and HUD
primary responsibility for
implementing title X.

Implementing the act
Implementing the Residential
Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction
Act is a high priority at EPA. EPA
and other federal organizations are
working together to meet the act's
requirements. The Office of Pollu-
tion Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
is coordinating activities for EPA.
The act's key requirements for
EPA fall into four categories,
which  are summarized below. In
cases in which EPA, under its
1991 lead strategy, had begun
work that meets the act's require-
ments, the agency's activities  are
Training, accreditation, and
contractor certification
•  EPA must promulgate regula-
   tions for training people who
   engage in lead-based paint
   activities, for accrediting train-
   ing  programs, and for certifying
   contractors. EPA must also set
   standards for performing lead-
   abatement activities.
•  EPA must develop a model state
   program for accrediting and
  training lead abatement profes-
  sionals. This program would be
  adopted by states seeking to
  administer and enforce a train-
  ing accreditation program. EPA
  has already developed model
  course materials for use in this
  program. (See information
  under "Training" on page 16.)
  EPA is authorized to provide
  grants to states to develop and
  carry out this program. EPA
  must manage accreditation and
  certification programs in any
  states that have not adopted this
  program within two years after
  final regulations are promulgat-
  ed. These states will also be
  ineligible for HUD lead-based
  abatement grants.

Laboratory programs

• EPA must establish protocols
  for laboratory analysis of lead in
  paint, soil, and dust.

• EPA must establish a laboratory
  accreditation program, as
  required by the law, for labora-
  tories analyzing lead in paint,
  dust, and soil. However, if EPA
  determines that voluntary labo-
  ratory accreditation programs
  are operating effectively, these
  voluntary programs can substi-
  tute for the federally mandated
  program. EPA expects the
  National Lead Laboratory
  Accreditation Program to be
  operating by summer 1993. The
  accreditation program  has two
  components. First, laboratories
  seeking accreditation must par-
  ticipate in the Environmental
  Lead Proficiency Analytical
  Testing Program. The  proficien-
  cy testing program was estab-
  lished by EPA, the National
  Institute of Occupational Safety
  and Health, and the American
  Industrial Hygiene Association.
  Second, laboratories must
  undergo on-site audits and meet
  training and recordkeeping
  requirements. The audits will
  be performed by third-party
  accreditation organizations
  approved by EPA.

• Every three years, EPA must
  review how well the mandated
  laboratory accreditation pro-
  gram and voluntary laboratory
  accreditation programs are per-

• EPA must publish a list of
  accredited laboratories.
Public education

• EPA, working with the Agency
  for Toxic Substance Disease
  Registry, the Consumer Prod-
  uct Safety Commission, the
  Centers for Disease Control,
  HUD, and the President's
  Commission on Environmental
  Quality, must sponsor public
  education and outreach activi-
  ties. In April 1993, the National
  Clearinghouse on Lead Poison-
  ing began full operations.
  A toll-free hotline to provide
  information about lead poison-
  ing to the public, the first
  component of the clearinghouse
  to begin operations, opened in
  November 1992.
• EPA, in consultation  with HUD
  and the Department of Health
  and Human Services, must pub-
  lish a lead hazard information
                                         CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                         Lead Activities
   pamphlet focusing on lead risks
   in housing, how to assess and
   avoid those risks, and recom-
   mendations for homeowners and

• EPA and HUD must promul-
   gate rules for disclosing lead-
   based paint hazards to buyers
   and renters of housing built
   before 1978. This requirement
   calls for prospective purchasers
   and renters to be notified of
   known lead hazards, be given 10
   days to have a lead inspection
   conducted, and be given the lead
   hazard information pamphlet
   discussed in the preceding para-
   graph. The purchasing contract
   must contain a warning to notify
   the buyer that the property may
   contain lead-based paint.

Hazard identification

• EPA must identify hazards from
   exposure to lead-based paint,
   lead-contaminated dust, and
   lead-contaminated soil. To do
   this, EPA is developing health-
   based standards for exposure to
   lead through these media. EPA
   will base its classifications of haz-
   ards from paint on the condition
   of the paint in the residence.
   Hazards from dust and soil in
   and  around residential property
   will be described according to
   the levels of lead they contain
   and  whether they could pose an
   adverse health threat to children
   and  pregnant women.

Other EPA activities
The nature of EPA's authority and
expertise allowed the agency to
  EPA's Overall Lead Program Priorities
  The activities that EPA has undertaken since establishing its lead
  strategy in 1990 include:
  1.  Eliminating or reducing the most serious past sources or uses of
      lead, such as lead from gasoline and interior paint.
  2.  Addressing any serious current uses.
  3.  Vigorously  setting and enforcing current standards.
  4.  Establishing a system for preventing any undesirable new uses
      from entering the market.
  5.  Promoting  public education, training, and technical improve-
      ments to reduce exposures.
  6.  Promoting  research to better identify, assess, and abate the risks
      from lead.
  7.  Assisting state and local governments in developing appropriate
      infrastructures to deal with lead problems.
pursue a variety of initiatives
through its 1991  Strategy for
Reducing Lead Exposures. The sta-
tus of both regulatory and nonreg-
ulatory initiatives are described
Pollution prevention activities

Lead and lead compounds are
among the 17 chemicals addressed
in EPA's 33/50  Program. More
than 1,000 companies are volun-
tarily participating in the pro-
gram, whose goal is to reduce
releases and off-site transfers of the
chemicals by  50 percent by the
end of 1995. The program is mea-
suring progress through reports to
the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI). Data from  1988 are being
used as the baseline.

TRI data show  remarkable declines
in releases and off-site transfers in
the four reporting years from 1988
to 1991.
•  In 1988, 41,223 pounds of lead
   were released into the environ-
   ment. By 1991, lead releases
   declined to 25,737 pounds, a
   37.5 percent reduction.

•  In 1988, 30.9 million pounds of
   lead were transferred off-site for
   treatment or disposal. By 1991,
   off-site transfers of lead had
   declined to 20.7 million
   pounds, a 33 percent  reduction.
To prevent future exposures to
lead, EPA is considering regula-
tions to limit or ban current uses of
lead if they present an unreasonable
risk. The agency is also considering
screening new uses of lead.

Lead continued on page 16
                                         VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                         Lead Activities
Lead continued from page 15

Regulatory activities

In June 1991, EPA set new stan-
dards for concentrations of lead in
drinking water. The standards
require water systems that regu-
larly serve at least 25 people to
monitor their tap water for lead.
Systems that serve more than
50,000 people were required to
perform two rounds of monitor-
ing—the first round by June 1992
and the second by December 31,
1992. These large water systems
were also required to automatical-
ly begin using corrosion control
treatment, regardless of the moni-
toring results. Small and medium-
sized public water systems were
required to complete monitoring
by mid-1993.  If lead levels in
more  than 10 percent of the moni-
tored, high-risk household taps
exceed 15 parts per billion, the
system will  have to install optimal
corrosion control. Most corrosion
control efforts will attain full
effect in systems of all sizes by
1997. EPA estimates that the lead
and copper rule will result in low-
ering the blood lead levels of
about 600,000 children to an
acceptable level.
Initial tests submitted to EPA's
Office of Drinking Water showed
that 130 of the nation's 660 largest
public water systems exceeded the
new standard. Many of the public
water systems with elevated levels of
lead have already begun addressing
the problem through public educa-
tion, use of corrosion-controlling
chemicals, or construction of
upgraded water treatment works.
States are working directly with sev-
eral of the systems. EPA has issued
administrative orders to 45 public
water systems that missed the dead-
line for monitoring and reporting.

Other regulatory activities are
under way. OPPT is considering
several options for reducing the
amount of lead in brass plumbing
fittings. In some circumstances,
lead leaching from brass plumbing
fittings contributes to elevated
blood levels in children.

OPPT is also evaluating ways to
eliminate the use of lead solder in
drinking water systems. One
option OPPT is evaluating is  the
use of EPA's authority under TSCA
to extend the ban on lead solder to
private drinking water systems.

In June 1991, EPA concluded a
six-month investigation of the
risks from disposal of lead acid
batteries in landfills and incinera-
tors. EPA's objective was to gather
facts to determine whether to
pursue rulemaking to encourage
battery recycling. However, the
investigation showed that risks
due to disposal of batteries not
already being recycled were small:
Stringent federal and state controls
on smelters, landfills, and incinera-
tors, and state regulations are
already in place, as are state regu-
lations that mandate recycling.

Studies under way

EPA is assessing a number of lead-
based paint abatement methods
used by HUD in Denver and Bal-
timore housing.

OPPT and EPA's Office of
Research and Development are
evaluating methods for detecting
and measuring lead.

OPPT and EPA's Office of Solid
Waste have completed a study on
whether lead from abatement
debris is likely to fall under the
definition of hazardous  waste con-
tained in the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (RCRA). If
so, the debris—which consists of
such materials as windows, doors,
moldings, paint chips, plaster, and
wash water—must be disposed of
according to RCRA regulations.


EPA awarded grants in 1992 to
five university-based consortia to
set up the national network  of
regional lead-training centers. The
centers will  offer professionals
standardized training, based on
EPA's model course materials, in
identifying and controlling lead  in
residential paint, soil, dust, and
Public education
EPA and the National Safety
Council are  sponsoring a national
public service advertising cam-
paign to heighten the public's
awareness of the dangers of lead
poisoning in children. The cam-
paign includes print, television,
and radio ads that will be broad-
cast throughout the nation. Tipper
Gore, wife of Vice President Al
Gore, helped launch the campaign
                                          CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                        Lead Activities
in May. (For more information
about the campaign, see the article
on page 13.)

In April 1993, EPA and other fed-
eral agencies opened a clearing-
house for dissemination of techni-
cal and nontechnical lead-related
information, as required by
title X. The first component of the
clearinghouse, a toll-free hotline,
began operating in November
1992. (See information under
"Public Education" on page 14.)

EPA published the brochure Lead
Poisoning and Your Children in 1992.
The brochure, which is available in
Spanish or English, explains  to par-
ents how to reduce children's expo-
sure to lead in the home.
Compliance and implementation

EPA is developing a cross-program
initiative for ensuring compliance
with existing standards for lead in
drinking water, air, and soil. In
this initiative, the agency plans to
concentrate its resources on  the
geographic areas of the country in
which the greatest potential prob-
lems exist.
The agency is identifying areas
throughout the nation with the
highest combined lead concentra-
tions in water, air, and soil. After
these areas are identified, EPA will
use Census Bureau data to deter-
mine the potential levels of  popu-
lation exposures in each area.
Based on the cumulative multime-
dia risk and the potential for popu-
lation exposure, EPA will rank
each area for action.
EPA's program offices will coordi-
nate their activities under federal
environmental laws to effectively
deal with the problems that are
found. For instance, if cleaning up
the soil at a facility under RCRA
will better control lead risk than
enforcing Clean Air Act require-
ments, EPA's program offices may
choose to act under RCRA. Multi-
media activities will increase the
likelihood that the total risk will be
Enforcement activities play a large
role in this initiative. In 1990, air
offices at EPA headquarters and
regional offices undertook a com-
prehensive program to address air
risk. The program includes air
quality monitoring, federal inspec-
tions, and development of regula-
tions for 29 targeted lead smelters.
The objective of this approach was
to minimize emissions by applying
the most stringent requirements
under federal laws.

EPA is using many tools
Lead is one of the nation's most
toxic multimedia contaminants.
To control lead pollution problems
in the most effective and efficient
way, EPA has engaged in a broad
set of activities using various
statutory authorities. In addition
to traditional regulatory and
enforcement programs, EPA offices
are involved in nonregulatory
activities, including integrated
risk management, public educa-
tion, and research.

Among our most important
activities are those that will
reduce lead poisoning in children.
Title X of the Housing and Com-
munity Development Act pro-
vides EPA  with important tools
for this. Under title X, the feder-
al government is implementing a
comprehensive approach for
reducing exposure to lead-based
paint in the nation's housing
stock. This effort includes train-
ing a work force to abate lead,
developing an adequate supply of
laboratories for analyzing  lead-
contaminated paint, dust, and
soil, developing appropriate lead-
abatement methods, and educat-
ing the public about the dangers
of exposure to lead.
Lead Hotline: Call
(800) LEAD-FYI
To receive information about
lead poisoning and how it can be
prevented, call the U.S. govern-
ment's information service at
(800) LEAD-FYI (532-3394).
                                        VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                      Toxics Release Inventory / International Activities
Clinton Announces Federal  Facilities Will Report to TRI
President Clinton has announced
that he plans to sign an executive
order requiring federal facilities
that manufacture, process, or use
toxic chemicals to publicly report
their wastes and releases under fed-
eral right-to-know laws.
The Emergency Planning and Com-
munity Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) requires EPA to collect
data on industry releases and trans-
fers of more than 300 toxic chemi-
cals and 20 chemical categories. The
information is compiled in the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI), which is
available to the public. EPCRA
exempts federal facilities from TRI
reporting, although government
facilities that are operated by con-
tractors are required to report.

Speaking at the U.S. Botanical
Gardens on Earth Day, President
Clinton said he will also ask all
federal facilities to voluntarily
reduce their releases  of toxic pol-
lutants by 50 percent by 1999-
"This will reduce toxic releases,
control costs associated with
cleanups, and promote clean
technologies. And it will help
make our government what it
should be, a positive example for
the rest of the country,'  President
Clinton said.
  How  to  Obtain TRI  Data
  There are a number of ways to gain access to the Toxics Release
  Inventory. For information about the forms of access, contact the
  Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know (EPCRA)
  Hotline, U.S. EPA (OS-120), 401 M Street, Washington, D.C.
  20460; telephone, (800) 535-0202 or (703) 412-9877.
SIDS  Phase 1  Chemicals Test Data Almost Completed
A base set of data has nearly been
completed for 38 chemicals that
are produced in large quantities
worldwide. The data were devel-
oped voluntarily by industry in the
13 nations participating in the
Screening Information Data Set
(SIDS) program; U.S. industry
developed data for nine of the
chemicals. The SIDS program is
part of the Organization for Eco-
nomic Cooperation and Develop-
ment (OECD).

The SIDS program focuses on sub-
stances of potential health or envi-
ronmental concern for which few
test data are available publicly and
that are manufactured (1) in excess
of 1,000 tons a year in two or more
OECD member countries or (2) in
excess of 10,000 tons a year in one
OECD member country. The SIDS
program has identified approxi-
mately 600 such substances and
has organized testing for these
substances in phases. Phase 1  con-
tained the 38 chemicals for which
testing is almost completed.
In February 1993, SIDS member
countries met in Paris to review
Phase 1 findings and to discuss
further testing  needs and other
issues,  including pollution preven-
tion. Findings were presented by
sponsor nations in Initial Assess-
ment Reports and SIDS profiles.

In March 1993, SIDS member
nations met again in Paris to
determine testing needs for
Phase 2 chemicals. About 60
chemicals will be tested in Phase 2.
A meeting to decide testing needs
for 61 Phase 3 chemicals is sched-
uled for the summer of 1993.

Master Testing List
EPA considers the SIDS program
an important component of the
agency's overall activity to gather
test data. EPA has included all
Phase 1,2, and 3 SIDS chemicals
in its Master Testing List. (For
information on the Master Testing
List, see 57 PR 61240, Decem-
ber 23, 1992.)

For more information
SIDS materials are available for
public inspection in the
OECD/SIDS administrative
record, located in the TSCA Non-
Confidential Information Center.
For information about using the
center, see page 42.
                                       CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                      International Activities
Nations Begin  Groundwork for Toxics Emissions Inventory
The United States is working with
other countries and the United
Nations (U.N.) to develop an
international toxics emissions
inventory. The need for such a pro-
gram was a major topic at the
U.N. Conference on Environment
and Development, held in Rio de
Janeiro in June 1992.

In February 1993, a follow-up
meeting was held in Alexandria,
Virginia. Attending the meeting
were environmental officials from
the U.N. International Program on
Chemical Safety, the U.N. Insti-
tute for Training and Research, the
World Health Organization, the
Organization for Economic Coop-
eration and Development (OECD),
the United States, Australia, the
Netherlands, the Slovak Republic,
and Canada.

At the meeting, participants
agreed that one of the most impor-
tant steps in establishing an inter-
national emissions inventory was
persuading other nations—partic-
ularly less-developed nations—to
take part. To begin to address this,
participants decided to develop
discussion papers for circulation
and to promote the program
within their own countries and
constituency groups.

In a separate development, the
OECD's newly formed  Pollution
Prevention and Control Group
agreed to lead international efforts
to develop a guidance document  for
    The international
      community is
     moving toward
      establishing a
    program to  make
     available to the
governments to use in implement-
ing environmentally sound man-
agement of toxic chemicals. The
group will base its activities on the
Rio Earth Summit's Agenda 21,
which called for (1) the chemical
industry to voluntarily adopt right-
to-know programs based on inter-
national guidelines; (2) govern-
ments to consider adoption of
right-to-know programs or other
programs for providing information
to the public; and (3) international
organizations to develop a guidance
document for establishing right-to-
know programs.
In the United States, the Emer-
gency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
established the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) in 1986. Over the
past several years, the international
community has moved toward
establishing an international pro-
gram for making information
about chemical risks available to
the public.
EPA's Office of Pollution Preven-
tion and Toxics (OPPT), which
collects data for the TRI and
makes it available to the public, is
representing the United States in
the efforts to organize an interna-
tional emissions inventory.

For more information
To obtain additional information
about international right-to-know
activities, contact Diane Beal,
Special Assistant for International
Activities, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (TS-792),
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460; tele-
phone, (202) 260-1822. Or,
Eileen Fesco, Environmental
Assistance Division (TS-799),
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460; tele-
phone, (202) 260-7232; FAX,
     VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                   Existing Chemicals Program
Update of Existing Chemicals Program RM1 and  RM2 Activity
EPA's Existing Chemicals Program
screens those chemicals currently
in production or use to determine
their potential health and environ-
mental risks. If potential risks are
identified, a further assessment is
performed and risk reduction
strategies are developed. These
activities occur in two distinct

• In the first stage, Risk Manage-
  ment One (RM1), chemicals are
  screened to identify those that
(1) require additional testing,
(2) present potentially signifi-
cant risk-management concerns,
or (3) do not currently require
further review.

In the second stage, Risk Man-
agement Two (RM2), chemicals
that present significant risk-
management concern are further
assessed. Strategies to reduce or
eliminate the potential risks
posed by exposure to these
chemicals are developed.
For more information
The Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT), which admin-
isters the Existing Chemicals Pro-
gram, encourages public participa-
tion throughout the RM process.
RM materials are available from
the RM administrative record,
located in the TSCA Non-Confi-
dential Information Center. For
information about visiting or con-
tacting the center, see page 42.
Risk Management (RM) Activity from October 1,1992 through
December 31,1992*
Chemical Name
Benzidine and benzidine
congener-based dyes
Disperse blue 79:1
Glycol ethers
Phosphoric acid waste
RM1 Activity RM2 Activity
Developing voluntary agreements to
eliminate benzidine and benzidine
congener-based dyes from commerce
Dropped from RM1 review based on
data submitted under TSCA section 4
Added to risk reduction list based on Entered into RM2 queue for assessment
new TSCA 8(e) data
Completed preliminary assessment
Identifying and evaluating possible
process changes
* This is the second update of the RM chart. The first update appeared in Chemicals-in-Progress Bulletin, Volume
  14, No. 1. A chart showing all RM1 and RM2 activity is in Chemicals-in-Progress Bulletin, Volume 13, No. 2.
                                    CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                       Existing Chemicals Program
OPPT Issues  Status Report  on N-methylpyrrolidone
A preliminary analysis of N-
methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in
paint-stripping products indicates
that NMP may present a signifi-
cant risk of serious or widespread
harm to human beings from repro-
ductive toxicity. EPA's Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) completed the preliminary
assessment in March 1993.

OPPT's assessment indicated that
risks from the chemical might be
greatly reduced by the use of
appropriate chemical-resistant
gloves. In April  1993, OPPT initi-
ated a stakeholders' dialogue with
industry to identify appropriate
glove materials and address prod-
uct labeling and other means of
limiting any residual risk.

OPPT evaluating paint cluster
In a January 1993 letter to the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manu-
facturers Association (SOCMA),
OPPT Director Mark A. Green-
wood stated that the assessment of
NMP is a first step in a broader
review of many chemicals used in
paint, lacquer, and wax-stripping
products. The "paint-stripping"
cluster is now in risk management
two (RM2), the second stage of
OPPT's  review. RM2 focuses on
improving understanding about
the potential risks from exposure to
particular chemicals and on devel-
oping strategies to reduce or elimi-
nate the potential risks. The review
of the paint-stripping cluster is
expected to be completed  in mid-
1994 and to result in publication
of a comprehensive analysis and
explanation of the relative risks of
all the chemicals in the cluster.

CPSC raised concerns
about chemical
The Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) referred NMP
to the EPA in the mid-1980s as a
testing candidate under section 4
of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA). CPSC was concerned
about NMP's use as a substitute
for methylene chloride in some
paint strippers.

EPA published a proposed test rule
in 1990. In 1991, NMP manufac-
turers filed a study indicating that
rats exposed to the chemical exhib-
ited adverse reproductive effects
including reduced fertility. Con-
cerned that users of NMP-based
paint strippers might be at risk,
OPPT expedited its risk assess-
ment and risk management pro-
ject. OPPT expressed its concerns
about NMP in a letter to the
chemical's manufacturers in March
1992. In response to  the letters,
OPPT received derailed informa-
tion from industry.

For more information
• A draft preliminary assessment
  document (file number AR-075)
  is available  from the RM
  administrative record, located in
  the TSCA Non-Confidential
  Information Center. For infor-
  mation on contacting the center,
  see page 42.

• For additional information, con-
  tact Mary Dominiak, Chemical
  Control Division (TS-794), U.S.
  EPA,  401 M Street, S.W.,
  Washington, D.C. 20460;  tele-
  phone, (202) 260-7768; FAX,
EPA Considers Action on Benzidine and
Benzidine Congener-Based Dyes
EPA is considering action to con-
trol potential risks of cancer from
exposure to benzidine and benzi-
dine congener-based dyes. The
agency's inital focus will be to
develop voluntary agreements with
industry to eliminate benzidine
and benzidine congener-based dyes
from commerce. The first step in
this effort will be holding stake-
holders' dialogues with industry,
unions, and environmental groups.

EPA is also considering issuing one
or more significant new use rules
(SNURs) after voluntary agree-
ments are in place. The SNURs
would allow EPA to monitor any
future use of the dyes and to con-
trol potential risks, if necessary.
                                      VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                       Existing Chemicals Program
EPA Reviews Ethylene-based Glycol Ethers
EPA is reviewing a University of
California (U.C.) at Davis study
that indicates elevated rates of
miscarriages in women in the
semiconductor industry might be
linked to exposures to ethylene-
based glycol ethers. Glycol ethers
are used as solvents in semicon-
ductor fabrication and in many
other industries, including print-
ing and the manufacture of paints
and coatings.

EPA's Office of Pollution Preven-
tion and Toxics (OPPT) received
the U.C. Davis study on Decem-
ber 11, 1992. The study was sub-
mitted by the Semiconductor
Industry Association (SIA), its
sponsor, under section 8(e) of the
Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). OPPT received a second
study, sponsored by IBM and per-
formed by Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity, in June 1993. Both studies
were prompted by animal testing
results and by a smaller epidemio-
logical study, conducted in the
1980s by Digital Equipment Cor-
poration, that indicated glycol
ethers caused adverse effects in
semiconductor workers.
OPPT will perform an in-depth
assessment of the potential risks
from exposure to glycol ethers.
The assessment and development
of options to reduce potential
risks from glycol ethers will occur
during OPPT's Existing Chemi-
cals Program's Risk Management
Two (RM2) process. The RM2
assessment will include analysis of
data that OPPT requested from
glycol ether producers and review
of the two epidemiological stud-
ies. The Existing Chemicals Pro-
gram is coordinating the assess-
ment with other federal
organizations, including the
Occupational Health and Safety
Administration (OSHA), the
National Institute of Occupation-
al Safety and Health (NIOSH),
and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC).
Some caution must be used when
assessing recent data:  Other
chemicals are present  in the work
environment, and a direct and
specific link between glycol ethers
and cited adverse effects may  not
be shown.  In addition, EPA's  con-
cern is primarily due to the
apparent adverse effects at very
low levels of inhalation exposure.
However, overall exposures in the
study populations may have been
higher because of combined
inhalation exposure and dermal

OSHA had set preliminary per-
missible exposure limits for some
of the glycol ethers in 1971,
including ethylene glycol
ethoxyethanol (EGEE), ethylene
glycol ethoxyethanol acetate
(EGEEA), ethylene glycol
methoxyethanol (EGME), and its
acetate (EGMEA).
EPA first addressed glycol ethers
in the mid-1980s, when animal
testing demonstrated reproduc-
tive and developmental effects
from EGEE, EGEEA, EGME, and
EGMEA. In 1986, EPA formally
referred these chemicals to OSHA
under section 9(a) of TSCA.
OSHA responded by initiating a
comprehensive rulemaking.

On March 23, 1993, OSHA pub-
lished the proposed rule in the
Federal Register to revise the initial
permissible exposure limits for
EGMEA. These revisions would
make the permissible exposure
limits equivalent to NIOSH's rec-
ommended exposure limits.

RM1 letters
OPPT screened glycol ethers in
its Risk Management One (RM1)
process. During that process,
OPPT mailed RM1 "letters of
concern"  to the 14 major known
producers of glycol ethers. The
letters alerted the producers to
the new findings and requested
updated information on the uses
of and exposures  to the chemicals.
Linda Fisher, who was assistant
administrator of the Office of
Pollution, Prevention, and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS), sent a sepa-
rate letter to the Chemical Manu-
facturers  Association. The letter
informed the association of the
new study findings and requested
that the association and its mem-
bers develop and implement
interim strategies to reduce
exposures and manage risks
from glycol ethers.
                                       CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                         Existing Chemicals Program
Aerosol  Spray Paint  Cluster Sent to  RM2
A screening-level review of aerosol
spray paints has indicated that
indoor use of single-use pressurized
aerosol spray paint may affect human
health. As a result, EPA has placed
aerosol spray paints on the list of
cases for which risk reduction
options will be developed.

Evaluation of aerosol spray paints
began as part of OPPT's indoor air
cluster project, which focused on
obtaining and organizing data on
the chemicals contained in consumer
and commercial products. Cluster-
ing of products used in similar
applications allows comparative risk
assessments of both existing prod-
ucts and possible substitutes.

The indoor air cluster project identi-
fied more than 80 chemicals and
chemical classes as constituents  of
aerosol spray paints. Based on this
information and the inherent expo-
sure potential of the product, aerosol
spray paints were placed in Risk
Management One (RM1).

RM1 is the first phase of EPA's
Existing Chemicals Program review.
When potential health and environ-
mental risks are identified during
RM1, the chemical or cluster is
placed on a risk reduction list. The
second phase of the program begins
when a chemical is selected from the
risk reduction list for Risk Manage-
ment Two (RM2) review.  During
RM2, OPPT will identify risk
reduction options. Among the
options that will be considered are
use of safer formulations, chemicals,
and alternate technologies. The
Existing Chemicals Program is in
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT).
A market study developed during
RM1 screening indicated that 119
million pounds of aerosol spray
paints and 350 million aerosol spray
can units were produced in the
United States in 1987. EPA expo-
sure assessments estimate that,
annually, nearly 1 million workers
may be exposed to aerosol spray
paints in various industries and that
about 68.2 million consumers in the
United States may use aerosol spray

Health concerns about aerosol spray
paints include (1) exposure to toxic
volatile chemicals such as methylene
chloride, toluene, and propylene
oxide and (2) exposure to toxic par-
ticulates in overspray such as pig-
ments containing lead, chromium,
and other heavy metals.
EPA  Considers Amending the TSCA Inventory  Update Rule
EPA is considering amending the
reporting requirements of the Inven-
tory Update Rule, which requires
industry to update information for
selected chemicals on the TSCA
Chemical Substance Inventory. The
changes would become effective in
the 1994 reporting year.

The new reporting requirements
would allow EPA to establish a
Chemical Use Inventory for chemi-
cals distributed in commerce.
EPA's Office of Pollution Preven-
tion and Toxics (OPPT) would use
the Chemical Use Inventory in its
assessment of new and existing
chemicals. The inventory would
also be available to the public.
The reporting options OPPT is
exploring are
•  reporting chemical use data for a
   limited set of use categories;

•  expanding the number of chemi-
   cal substances for which reporting
   is required;

•  requiring more frequent reporting
   than the current four-year cycle or
   requiring more complete report-
   ing each four-year cycle, i.e.,
   reporting on all intervening years
   of the four-year cycle;
•  facilitating reporting by allowing
   data transfer on computer tape
   and other media in addition to
   hard copy and floppy diskette.

In 1986, EPA promulgated the
Inventory Update Rule. The rule
requires manufacturers and importers
of selected chemical substances that
are on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory to report current year data
on the production volume, plant  site,
and site-limited status of these sub-
stances. The rule, promulgated under
the authority of section 8(a) of the
Toxic Substances Control Act,
requires reporting at four year inter-
vals that began in 1986.
                                        VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                      Existing Chemicals Program
Coalition Agrees to Monitor and Report Worker Exposure to
Refractory Ceramic  Fibers
TSCA Section 4  Consent Order Signed
Over the next five years, the three
largest producers of refractory
ceramic fibers (RCF) will monitor
and report exposure levels of RCF
for workers at every stage of the
fibers' life cycle. As the Refractory
Ceramic Fibers Coalition, these
companies signed a consent order
with EPA on May 3, 1993, to per-
form the monitoring.

Data from the monitoring program
will enable EPA to (1) more accu-
rately  assess the potential human
health risks from RCF and (2) eval-
uate the efficacy of the coalition's
RCF stewardship program.

The three companies that signed the
consent order—the Carborundum
Company, Premier Refractories and
Chemicals, Inc., and Thermal Ceram-
ics, Inc.—have established a RCF
stewardship program. The program
was developed to help the companies'
customers evaluate, control, and
reduce workplace exposures to RCF.
(See the article on this page.)

RCF is a manmade vitreous fiber
mostly used for high-temperature
industrial insulation materials in
steel, petrochemical, ceramic, and
primary metal production. RCF is
produced in various forms such as
bulk,  blankets, and felt.

In 1991, after reviewing animal
inhalation data from RCF manu-
facturers, EPA's Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
determined that RCF may present
an unreasonable risk of cancer to
humans. Based on this finding,
OPPT conducted an accelerated
review of RCF under section 4(f) of
TSCA. OPPT concluded that the
data were insufficient for deter-
mining whether RCF poses an
unreasonable risk. To fill the infor-
mation gaps, former EPA Admin-
istrator William K. Reilly directed
OPPT to begin a regulatory inves-
tigation of RCF.

Section 4 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) allows EPA to

RCF continued on page 25
EPA Commends Development of RCF Product
Stewardship Program
The Refractory Ceramic Fibers Coalition is addressing the cradle-to-grave
life cycle of refractory ceramic fibers (RCF) through a product steward-
ship program. The objective of the program is to evaluate, control, and
reduce workplace exposure to RCF.
The coalition is a trade group composed of the three largest producers of
RCF: the Carborundum Company, Niagara Falls, New York; Premier
Refractories and Chemicals, Inc., King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; and
Thermal Ceramics, Inc., Augusta, Georgia. These three companies and a
number of their customers have agreed to perform
•  health effects research (including animal inhalation studies and a
   human epidemiological study),
•  workplace monitoring,
•  studies of workplace controls,
•  exposure assessments,
•  product research, and
•  special studies (e.g., waste generation rates, potential for waste reduc-
   tion, exposure potential for consumer applications of RCF).
EPA believes that development and implementation of an effective prod-
uct stewardship program is a significant step toward risk reduction. EPA
is particularly encouraged by the Refractory Ceramic Fibers Coalition's
continuing commitment to monitor workplace exposures to RCF, and to
share information with its members' customers and with EPA.
                                      CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                         Existing Chemicals Program
EPA  Plans to  Negotiate TSCA Section 4 Consent Orders
Twenty-two testing proposals have
been submitted to EPA for 12 chem-
icals and four chemical categories.
EPA plans to negotiate consent
orders for the testing of a number of
these chemicals and chemical cate-
gories under section 4 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA).

In 1992, EPA asked chemical
manufacturers to submit testing
proposals for substances that were
the subject of proposed test rules
(57 FR 31714, July 17, 1992). In
doing so, the agency was seeking a
way to make greater use of enforce-
able consent agreements.

EPA will establish a period for
negotiation with each manufacturer.
If negotiations are unsuccessful, the
agency will require testing under a rule.

Establishing tiers of chemicals
EPA has evaluated the testing pro-
posals and prioritized them in tiers.
EPA has published its decisions on
the proposals and its proposed tar-
get schedules for initiating negotia-
tions on the first tier of chemical
substances (59 FR 16660, March
30, 1993). In the Federal Register
notice, EPA also asked other inter-
ested parties who wish to monitor
or participate in negotiations on
first-tier chemical substances to
identify themselves to EPA. The
notice also provided the opportun-
ity for submission of supplemental
EPA will initiate negotiations on
the second tier of cases once the
first-tier actions are concluded.
Solicitation for the second- and
lower-tier cases will be published
in a later Federal Register notice.
Tier I Chemicals

N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP)
Diglycidyl Ether of Bisphenol A
Aryl Phosphates
Tier II Chemicals

Glycidyl Methacrylate
Silicone-based Glycidyl Ethers
RCF continued from page 24

enter into consent orders for devel-
opment of data when existing data
are insufficient for determining the
health or environmental effects of a
substance. In September 1992,
EPA began section 4 consent order
negotiations with the Refractory
Ceramic Fibers Coalition, the
North American Insulation Manu-
facturers Association, the RCF Vac-
uum Formers Association, the
Laborers Health and Safety Fund,
and other interested parties.  Dur-
ing the  10 weeks of negotiations,
participants developed workplace
and worker sampling schemes, pro-
tocols for collecting and analyzing
fibers, and provisions for evaluating
the resulting data.

Consent order provisions
The main provisions of the final
consent order require that

•  the companies collect 320 sam-
   ples each year from their prima-
   ry production facilities and 400
   samples each year from their
   customers' facilities;

•  these samples are randomly
   selected and are taken for each
   activity in the product's life cycle;

•  the companies use established
   protocols to collect and  analyze
   the fiber samples; and

•  EPA and the Refractory Ceramic
   Fibers Coalition meet every six
   months for the  next five years of
   mandatory testing to present
   and  evaluate data, and if neces-
   sary, revise protocols.

EPA supports coalition efforts
EPA will continue to support the
Refractory Ceramic Fibers Coali-
tion's efforts to control and reduce
exposure to RCF. The partnership
between EPA, RCF producers, and
manufacturers using RCF is an
excellent example of how industry
and EPA can work cooperatively to
address risks to human health and
the environment.

For more information
For more information, contact
Michael Mattheisen, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(TS-798), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C.  20460;
telephone, (202) 260-7363; or,
William P. Kelly, president,
Refractory Ceramic Fibers
Coalition, 1133 Connecticut
Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20036.
                                        VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                      Existing Chemicals Program
EPA Publishes Proposed Rule for Chloranil
EPA will publish in the Federal
Register a proposed significant new
use rule (SNUR) under Section 5
of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) for 2,3,5,6-tetra-
chloro-2,5 -cyclohexadiene-1,4-
dione (chloranil).

The SNUR would require industry
to notify EPA at least 90 days pri-
or to the manufacture, import, or
processing, for any use, of chloranil
containing certain chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and
chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs)
in total combined amounts greater
than 20 parts per billion (ppb).
The advance notice required by the
SNUR would allow EPA to evalu-
ate the risks from use of chloranil
containing higher CDD and CDF
levels. Certain recordkeeeping and
certification requirements would
also apply to manufacturers,
importers,  and processors of all
chloranil without regard to com-
bined CDD and CDF levels.
The group of chemicals that
includes CDDs and CDFs are
referred to as halogenated diben-
zo-p-dioxins (HDDs) and halo-
genated dibenzofurans (HDFs).
EPA has recognized that HDDs
and HDFs have potential public
health and environmental signifi-
cance; the agency has developed a
toxicity equivalence procedure
which relates these substances to
dioxin (TCDD). TCDD has caused
cancer in animal  test systems and
may present a risk of cancer to
humans. In some species, animal
tests show noncancer effects for
TCDD at lower doses than for
almost all other chemicals.

In 1992, EPA negotiated agree-
ments with importers and proces-
sors to abandon use of chloranil
containing higher CDD and CDF
levels. All  importers except one
agreed to abandon import of this
type of chloranil. The one excep-
tion was a chloranil importer that
later signed a consent agreement
with EPA agreeing to discontinue
import of chloranil containing the
higher levels of CDDs and CDFs.

All chloranil processors known to
EPA agreed to abandon use of
chloranil containing CDDs and
CDFs  in combined amounts
greater than 20 ppb by
September 1, 1992, as long as
chloranil with lower levels of
CDD and CDF contamination
remains available. Since that date,
chloranil with lower levels of
CDD and CDF has been available.

EPA will issue the final SNUR on
chloranil when U.S. stocks of
chloranil with higher levels of
CDDs and CDFs are depleted and
the agency is satisfied the sub-
stance is no longer in use in the
United States.
Chemical  Manufacturers Association and EPA to Discuss
Developing Screening  Profiles for 10 TRI Chemicals
The Chemical Manufacturers Asso-
ciation (CMA) has notified EPA
that its members are willing to
consider completing screening
profiles on 10 chemicals from the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
The CMA will choose the 10
chemicals from a list of 15 provid-
ed by EPA. EPA's Office of Pollu-
tion Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) will select the 15 chemi-
cals from a list of 67 high-produc-
tion, high-release TRI chemicals.

The CMA has asked that an indus-
try-EPA dialogue be established to
identify data gaps and address oth-
er testing issues. Once the screen-
ing program gets under way, CMA
members will develop screening
profiles similar to those used by
the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development's
Screening Information Data Set
(SIDS) program.
                                   H  CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                        Existing Chemicals Program
EPA Is Replicating  Carpet Study
In a preliminary study made pub-
lic in 1992, a private laboratory
found that mice exposed to emis-
sions from some carpets showed
severe health problems and died.
The study's findings were of seri-
ous concern at EPA. The agency is
replicating the study, conducted
by Anderson Labs, of Dedham,
Massachusetts. EPA expects to
complete the replication stage of
its study by early summer.

Replication of Anderson Labs'
study is just one part of the evalua-
tion being conducted by EPA's
Office of Research and Develop-
ment (ORD). ORD will also (1)
evaluate the effect of different
environmental conditions, such as
temperature and humidity, on the
study results and (2) conduct tests
to identify the contaminants that
mice were exposed to during the
study. Using this information,
EPA will evaluate the extent to
which other factors may  have con-
tributed to the severe health effects
in the exposed mice. Once these
factors  are better understood, EPA
will be able to examine the poten-
tial risk from exposure to carpet
emissions under normal living and
working conditions.

Summary of other activities
In 1988, EPA began receiving
complaints that carpet emissions
were causing health problems for
some people. The agency respond-
ed to the public's concern by
implementing a policy dialogue
involving EPA, industry, unions,
public interest groups, and other
federal agencies. Through the dia-
logue, the carpet industry agreed
to test new carpet floor covering
materials for total volatile organic
chemical emissions and to explore
how to lower these emissions. Car-
pet dialogue participants also
wrote a brochure for consumers,
Indoor Air Quality and New Carpet:
What You Should Know. Informa-
tion about obtaining the brochure,
which was published by EPA, is
provided at the end of this article.
Information about some of EPA's
other activities concerning carpets
• In October 1992, Victor J.
  Kimm, EPA Deputy  Assistant
  Administration for the Office of
  Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
  Substances testified on EPA's
  carpet activities before the Sen-
  ate's Governmental Affairs Com-
  mittee. In his testimony, Mr.
  Kimm described the steps EPA
  is taking to improve indoor air
  quality. Mr. Kimm also testified
  before the House of Representa-
  tives' Government Operations
  Committee in April 1993.
• EPA, the Consumer Product Safe-
  ty Commission (CPSC), and the
  Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
  are coordinating their efforts to
  evaluate how consumers are inter-
  preting the message being con-
  veyed to them by the Carpet and
  Rug Institute's voluntary Green
  Tag Program. Carpets qualify  to
  bear the institute's green tag if
  manufacturers' testing has found
  that emissions do not exceed spec-
  ified levels. Additionally, a point-
  of-sale brochure provides con-
  sumers with information on
  carpet emissions, the Carpet and
  Rug Institute's carpet testing
  program, and guidelines for
  installing and maintaining carpets.
• EPA and CPSC are working
  together on  various carpet issues
  through two groups: a federal
  interagency  task force on indoor
  air and a toxics and consumer
  products committee.

For more information
Indoor Air Quality and New Carpet:
What You Should Know is available
by writing to the U.S. Consumer
Information Center, Department
620Y, Pueblo,  Colorado 81009.
A fact sheet about carpet and
indoor air quality, prepared by
EPA and CPSC, is available by
writing to the  U.S. Consumer
Information Center or by calling
the Indoor Air Quality Informa-
tion Clearinghouse (IAQ INFO) at
                                        VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

Comments Considered on Proposed  Testing  Program
For Formaldehyde
EPA's Office of Pollution Preven-
tion and Toxics (OPPT) held an
informal public meeting on January
28, 1993, to discuss plans for a pro-
gram to test air quality in newly
built conventional and manufac-
tured homes. The proposed testing
program would focus on character-
izing formaldehyde concentrations
in new homes and determining how
rapidly these levels decrease over
time. EPA proposed the testing
with the publication of the 1992
Master Testing List, the agency's
chemical testing agenda (57 FR
61240, December 23, 1992).

At the January meeting, OPPT
asked industry representatives to
indicate within 60 days whether
they were willing to conduct a
pilot study to resolve technical
issues before they implemented a
larger and longer-term  field study.

More than 60 people attended the
meeting, including representatives
from industry, government, uni-
versities, and public interest
groups. EPA is reviewing the oral
comments made by attendees
before making a final decision on
the testing program.

Key issues
EPA is concerned about the health
effects from exposure to elevated
levels of formaldehyde. Formalde-
hyde is emitted by particleboard,
hardwood plywood and medium-
density fiberboard containing urea-
formaldehyde (UF) adhesive resins.
Testing is needed to develop data for
EPA to assess the need for further
federal controls on formaldehyde
emissions from UF-pressed wood
products. Federal emissions stan-
dards were set in 1984 for particle-
board  and hardwood plywood used
in manufactured home construction.

Specifically, EPA wants to use test
data to

• characterize likely exposures to
   formaldehyde in new housing
   that is constructed with
   formaldehyde-emitting pressed
   wood products and
• investigate how rapidly initial
  formaldehyde levels dissipate in
  these residential settings.

EPA would also use the data to
assess the reasonableness of com-
puter models for estimating resi-
dential formaldehyde exposure
from pressed wood emisions.

EPA would like industry to con-
duct the testing voluntarily or
under a negotiated consent agree-
ment. However, the agency is will-
ing to require testing under sec-
tion 4 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA).

For more information
Comments  from the January 1993
public  meeting are contained in an
administrative  record that has been
established  for  this proceeding.
The administrative record can be
viewed in OPPT's Non-Confiden-
tial Information Center. For infor-
mation about using the center, see
page 42.
Reduced Protocols for Cancer Studies Are Acceptable, Panel Says
At a recent cancer bioassay work-
shop, expert scientists agreed that
reduced protocols for carcinogenici-
ty testing of chemicals were accept-
able. Their conclusion gives EPA a
basis for requiring a less expensive
bioassay, when appropriate. Reduc-
ing the expense of testing makes it
more likely that industry will agree
to carry out cancer studies.

In September 1992, the cancer
bioassay workshop convened a
group of expert scientists to evalu-
ate the technical adequacy of the
inter-species and inter-sex correla-
tion analyses of chemicals in rodent
carcinogen databases conducted by
EPA's Office of Pollution Preven-
tion and Toxics (OPPT) and other
investigators. Of particular impor-
tance was the examination of the
possible redundancy of the full-
scale protocol and the possible use
of reduced protocols for testing

Cancer continued on page 29
                                       CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

Cancer continued from page 28

chemical carcinogenicity. The full-
scale protocol requires testing of
two sexes of two species of rodents,
or four groups altogether.

The advantages and disadvantages
of reduced protocols were discussed
by the expert panel  and about 60
other participants from other gov-
ernment agencies, industry, and
academia. The expert panel con-
cluded that

• given the criteria for identifying a
  carcinogen, a reduced protocol
  (e.g., using male  rats and female
  mice) is acceptable, especially if it
  facilitates the screening of greater
  numbers of untested chemicals;
• the small number of rodent car-
  cinogens missed by the reduced
  protocol (but identified by the
  full-scale protocol) are probably
  of less concern to humans than
  those identified by the reduced
  protocol since they are mostly
  single species, single site, and
  nongenotoxic carcinogens; and

• quantitative estimates of cancer
  risk should not change apprecia-
  bly using the reduced protocol
  since the cancer potency of car-
  cinogens based on the reduced
  protocol is close to that based on
  the full-scale protocol.
The workshop was sponsored by
OPPT and the National Toxicology
Program, which is part of the
National Institute of Environmen-
tal Health Sciences.

For more information
A final report on the workshop will
be published in the journal Environ-
mental Health Perspectives later this
year. The report will include a sum-
mary report of the workshop, the
papers presented by invited speak-
ers, and a synopsis of comments and
recommendations made by the
expert panel of the workshop.
For information on the workshop,
contact David Lai, Health and
Environmental Review Division
(TS-796), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460;
telephone, (202) 260-6222.
Workshop Held for Assessing Potential of Chemicals to Induce
Respiratory Allergenic Reactions
Scientists from academia, industry,
and several EPA offices met in
October 1992 to evaluate the effi-
cacy of experimental test methods
in detecting potential pulmonary
The scientists, who were experts in
pulmonary hypersensitivity,
immunotoxicology, and allergy,
pulmonary physiology, and regula-
tory toxicology, concluded that the
mouse local lymph node assay
(LLNA) is the most promising test
for screening chemicals. The
LLNA shows good sensitivity and
selectivity and is relatively low-
cost. The test, however, requires
further validation to assess its abil-
ity to distinguish between contact
and respiratory sensitizers and to
determine the relative potency of
Four other tests were also evaluat-
ed and eliminated: structure-
activity relationships (SAR), skin
testing, repeated intratracheal
challenge of guinea pigs, and
inhalation challenge of guinea
pigs. Workshop participants found
two of these tests useful but elimi-
nated them for various reasons: the
inhalation challenge of guinea pigs
was found to be too expensive for
use in screening and the repeated
intratracheal challenge of guinea
pigs was found to cause pulmonary
toxicity. The SAR and skin tests
were eliminated due to poor pre-
dictability and lack of data.
Workshop participants also dis-
cussed the tests that are available
now for hypersensitivity, when to
use these tests, and what validation
efforts are needed to make hyper-
sensitivity tests for chemicals more
accurate and cost effective.

For more information
To obtain more information,
contact Mary Henry, Health and
Environmental Review Division
(TS-796), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460;
telephone, (202)260-1301.
     VOL. 14/NO 2 JUNE 1993

ITC Designates Chemicals for  Skin Absorption Testing
In its 31st and 32nd reports, the
Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Interagency Testing Com-
mittee (ITC) designated 58 chemi-
cals for skin absorption testing.
The Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA),
which referred the chemicals to the
ITC for testing, believes the skin
may be an important route of expo-
sure to the chemicals. OSHA will
use the test data to determine
whether workers who handle the
substances require more protection.

In September 1991, OSHA asked
the ITC to evaluate the need for
dermal absorption testing for 658
chemicals. The ITC has completed
review of 99 of the chemicals. Des-
ignation of 58 of these chemicals
starts a 12-month period in which
TSCA requires EPA to act to begin
rulemaking to test the chemicals
or publish its reasons for not doing
so in the Federal Register.

Development of dermal
absorption data
Scientists from OSHA, EPA, the
Food and Drug Administration,
the National Institute for Occupa-
tional Safety and Health, and the
Consumer Product Safety Com-
mission have developed a new
guideline to test skin absorption.

The test protocol provides perme-
ability constants and short-term
absorption rates. It minimizes the
use of animals by using skin samples
from animals or people, a procedure
pioneered by FDA. During the pro-
cedure, the chemical is applied to a
piece of skin held in a flow-through
cell. Tests are run to determine how
much of the chemical passed
through the skin and at what rate.
When using skin samples, the
chemical being tested can usually
be distinguished from other com-
pounds that are present without
using radioactive compounds. In
the past, radioactive chemicals
were necessary to detect the com-
pounds being tested from other
compounds already in animals.
Not using radioactive compounds
will avoid laboratory staff exposure
to radioactive materials and obvi-
ate the need for disposal of radioac-
tive materials.

For information about the
draft protocol
The draft protocol for skin absorp-
tion testing is available from John
D. Walker, ITC executive director,
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (TS-792), U.S. EPA,  401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460; telephone, (202) 260-1820.
OSHA chemicals designated for dermal absorption testing in the 31st ITC Report
abstract number
Chemical name
Ethyl ether
terf-Butyl alcohol
sec-Butyl alcohol
Methyl acetate
abstract number
Chemical name
Isoamyl acetate
                                                                  Chart continued on page 31
                                   II  CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

OSHA chemicals designated for dermal absorption testing
abstract number
Chemical name
sec-Butyl acetate
Methyl formate
Dibutyl phosphate
abstract number
OSHA chemicals designated for dermal absorption testing
abstract number
Chemical name
Ethyl bromide
Carbon disulfide
Dimethyl sulfate
Methyl methacrylate
Diethyl phthalate
abstract number
in the 31 stITC Report,
Chemical name
te/t-Butyl acetate
/7-Amyl acetate
Sodium bisulfite
Sodium metabisulfite
in the 32nd ITC Report
Chemical name
Benzyl chloride
Propylene glycol dinitrate
Vinyl toluene
VOL 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                       New Chemicals Program
Pollution Prevention in New Chemicals Decision  Making
The case studies discussed below
illustrate how EPA's New Chemi-
cals Program has incorporated the
pollution prevention ethic into
regulatory decision making. EPA's
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT), which administers
the program, hopes these examples
will encourage companies that pro-
duce new chemicals to consider
source reduction and recycling
measures in the early stages of syn-
thesis and  process development.

Case 1: Source Reduction Improves Yield.
The chemical that was substituted
for premanufacture notice (PMN)
review was a waste byproduct of an
existing process. The submitter
added a processing step to isolate
this byproduct and react it to
improve the yield of the existing
process by 6 percent. While a large
fraction of the original byproduct
still required disposal, the agency
recognized that significant source
reduction was attainable. The sub-
mitter provided quantitative esti-
mates of all relevant stream flows.
This example is particularly dra-
matic in that the PMN chemical
generated  moderate concerns for
human health, serious concerns for
ecotoxicity, and had a large pro-
duction volume. Generally, OPPT
will consider negotiating a consent
order under section 5(e) of the
Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) when these concerns are
present. Through consent orders,
OPPT limits the conditions under
which a new chemical can be man-
ufactured. However, in this case,
source reduction mitigated human
exposures and environmental
releases, so a consent order was not
   Case studies show
       how pollution
      prevention has
   been  incorporated
    into PMN  review.
Case 2: A Nonisolated Intermediate.
Nonisolated intermediates are
exempt from PMN review. How-
ever, this submitter found that iso-
lating an intermediate chemical
reduced the purification and waste
disposal necessary for production
of the final product. In this situa-
tion, source reduction was
achieved downstream of the final
product and thus, was only indi-
rectly linked to isolating the inter-

After each manufacturing cam-
paign,  the company proposed stor-
ing excess quantities of the PMN
substance for recycling in subse-
quent manufacturing campaigns.
OPPT determined this might pre-
sent an unreasonable risk to the
environment. OPPT proposed a
TSCA  section 5(e) consent order to
legally obligate the company to
(1) perform the recycling and
(2) limit the quantity of the PMN
substance that could be released.
The section 5(e) consent order also
identified the testing that would
be necessary to eliminate the
release control requirement. In
acknowledgement of the source
reduction benefits achieved by the
company, however, the section 5(e)
consent order did not require toxi-
city testing at a  specified produc-
tion volume.

Case 3: Toxic Use Reduction. The
PMN chemical was a monomer
and a clear substitute for three oth-
er chemicals that the agency felt
were substantially more toxic to
human health. Since the exposures
were comparable, OPPT concluded
that use of the PMN chemical
resulted in risk reduction and
dropped the case from  regulatory
Case 4: Moving up the Pollution Pre-
vention Hierarchy. The engineering
assessment for this new chemical
included a large  filter cake laden
with the PMN chemical. The sub-
mitter intended  to dispose of the
filter cake in a landfill governed by
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). To address
OPPT concerns, the submitter was
willing to test wash the filter cake.
However, during section 5(e) con-
sent order negotiations with OPPT,
the submitter developed a plan for
(1) incorporating the filter cake in
the marketed  product and (2) test-
ing customer acceptance of the
product. In case  the customer
acceptance tests  failed,  the section
                                        CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                        New Chemicals Program
5(e) consent order included a
requirement for filter cake solvent
washing. However, washing would
merely substitute the PMN chemi-
cal with a slightly less toxic sol-
vent; it would not reduce the
amount of waste generated. In view
of this, the section 5(e) consent
order also required landfill fate

If the solvent wash step and data
from fate testing do not mitigate
OPPT's concerns, certain toxicity
testing would be required. Pending
development of these data, the sec-
tion 5(e) consent order would limit
releases of the PMN substance to
water and would limit the compa-
ny to disposal of the substance by
incineration or in a RCRA landfill.

Case 5: Pollution Prevention Plan.
OPPT recently received a PMN
with a large production volume
and serious concerns for ecotoxicity.
It is possible that the submitter can
demonstrate that on-site carbon
bed treatment would mitigate
OPPT's concerns. However, the
carbon bed effluent is to be directly
discharged to surface waters; no
publicly-owned treatment works
(POTW) is  available for backup
treatment. As an alternative to
wastewater treatment, OPPT is
requesting a pollution prevention
plan from the submitter. This will
encourage the submitter to explore
whether any potential process mod-
ifications would adequately reduce
the quantity of the PMN substance
released to the environment.
Some Consent  Orders to Require
Notification  of State Water Authorities
EPA is proposing to include a new
provision in some consent orders
issued under section 5(e) of the
Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). The new provision would
require the company entering into
the consent order to notify state
water authorities prior to releasing
the regulated chemical substance
into waters within the state's juris-

EPA's New Chemicals Program
plans to include the provision in sec-
tion 5(e) consent orders when EPA
determines that unregulated dis-
charge of a new chemical substance
may present unreasonable risk of
injury to aquatic environments.
Environmental experts at the state
level worked with EPA regional
and headquarters staff to shape the
new provision. The groups were
brought together by FOSTTA—
the Forum on State and Tribal
Toxics Action—to work  on many
environmental issues, including
new chemical policy. FOSTTA was
organized  to provide a way for offi-
cials at all levels of government to
address toxics-related issues.

Requirements of new provision
The section 5(e) consent  order will
require the company signing it to
provide written notification to (1)
state authorities regulating point
source discharges in the states in
which the new chemical  substance
or its wastes will be released or
discharged and to (2) the EPA
regional office that has jurisdiction
over the waters in which the new
chemical substance or its wastes
will be released.
The section 5(e) consent order will
also require the company to provide
certain information to the appropri-
ate  state and federal authorities
before selling or transferring the
new chemical substance.

Background on section 5(e)
consent orders
Any person who plans to manufac-
ture or import a new chemical sub-
stance is required to provide EPA
with a premanufacture notice (PMN)
prior to beginning the activity. If the
New Chemicals Program determines
that the new substance may pose an
unreasonable risk to human health or
to the environment, EPA is autho-
rized by TSCA section 5(e) to enter
into a consent order permitting the
submitter to manufacture or import
the  new substance under specified
conditions. The Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics administers
the  New Chemicals Program.

For more information
For further information about the
new section 5(e) consent order provi-
sion, contact Heidi Siegelbaum,
Chemical Control Division (TS-794),
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20460; telephone, (202)
260-8262; FAX, (202) 260-0118.
                                        VOL 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                       New Chemicals Program
PMN  Forms Can Now Be Prepared on Computers
EPA has approved the use of
several software packages for
duplicating premanufacture notice
(PMN) forms that are submitted
to the agency for new chemical
review. Working on computers to
prepare PMNs, rather than filling
out paper forms, is expected to
save submitters' time.

EPA has approved software pack-
ages for use on personal computers
and Macintosh computers. Among
these packages are Wordperfect
Windows, Microsoft Word,  and

Prior to being put into use, com-
puterized PMN forms must be sub-
mitted for approval to EPA's  Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
To obtain approval of a computer-
ized PMN form, submit the form
to the Document Processing Center
(TS-790), EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, B.C. 20460, ATTEN-
TION: Computerized PMN Form.
The Chemical Manufacturers Asso-
ciation has submitted a computer-
ized PMN form to OPPT and has
received approval for its use. To
obtain a copy of the form, contact
Charles Walton, Chemical Manu-
facturers Association, 2501 M
Street,  N.W., Washington, D.C.
20037; telephone, (202) 887-1365.

For more information
• For information about preparing
  or submitting a computerized
  PMN form, contact Tony
  Cheatham, Information Man-
  agement Division (TS-798), 401
  M Street, S.W., Washington,
  D.C. 20460; telephone, (202)
  See the amendments to the
  PMN rule, section 720.40 of 58
  FR 7675, February 8, 1993,
  which discusses the process for
  seeking EPAs approval to use a
  computerized PMN form.
  To view comments submitted to
  EPA on the use of computerized
  PMN forms, contact the TSCA
  Non-Confidential Information
  Center. For information on con-
  tacting the center, see page 42.
Biotechnology Conference  Held
A biotechnology conference was
held on June 8 and 9, 1993, in
Washington, D.C. The Keystone
Center, a nonprofit science, educa-
tional, and public policy organiza-
tion, sponsored the conference
with a grant from EPA.
The conference provided a forum
for exchanging information about
development of new products and
for discussing scientific and public
policy issues that these new prod-
ucts may present. Participants
were from all sectors of the
biotechnology community:
biotechnology companies, federal
and state regulatory agencies, uni-
versities, the environmental com-
munity, EPA headquarters, and
EPA regional offices.
In the next five to 10 years, EPA
expects industry to develop many
new biotechnology products that
will be subject to the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act (TSCA). New
biotechnology products are
expected to fall into three broad
categories: (1) bioremediation
products for cleaning up toxic
chemicals in the environment; (2)
specialty chemicals, such as
enzymes; and (3) diagnostic kits
for testing contaminants in soil
and, ground water.

EPA's biotechnology program is
part of the New Chemicals Pro-
gram, in the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT).
The OPPT biotechnology program
focuses on intergeneric microorgan-
isms, which are those microorgan-
isms that are modified to contain
genetic material from different

For more information
• To obtain a summary report
  from the conference, contact
  David Giamporcaro, Chemical
  Control Division (TS-794), U.S.
  EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.,
  Washington, D.C. 20460;
  telephone, (202) 260-6362.
• To obtain the brochure EPA's
  Biotechnology Oversight Program
  under the Toxic Substances Control
  Act, contact the TSCA Assistance
  Information Service (TSCA hot-
  line). See page 43 for informa-
  tion on contacting the hotline.
                                       CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                       New Chemicals Program
Categories Provide
Guidelines for
Notice Submitters
Because EPA receives few
premanufacture notice (PMN)
submissions that contain data on
health or environmental effects of
the substance, the agency relies on
structural analogues for informa-
tion about the potential toxicity of
the PMN substance. In 1988,
EPA's Office of Pollution Preven-
tion and Toxics (OPPT) began to
group PMN chemicals with shared
properties into categories. OPPT's
New Chemicals Program then
identified potential health and
environmental concerns for the
substances in each category and
made this information publicly

Establishing these categories has
streamlined the process for review-
ing new chemical substances: As
soon as a new substance is identi-
fied as being a member of a catego-
ry, the New Chemicals Program
begins addressing the potential
health or environmental concerns
identified for that category.

If the New Chemicals Program
concludes that the new substance
may pose an unreasonable risk to
human health or the environment,
testing and restrictions may be
required. However,  the list of cate-
gories is not comprehensive. Sub-
mitters should be aware that the

Categories continued on page 36
Chemical Categories
    Type of Concern
Health        Environment
Acid Chlorides
Acid Dyes
Aliphatic Amines
Aminobenzothiazole Azo Dyes
Amphoteric Dyes
Anhydrides, Carboxylic Acid
Anionic Surfactants
Cationic Dyes
Cationic (quaternary ammonium)
Ethylene Glycol Ethers
Hydrazines and Related Compounds
Hindered Amines
p-Naphthylamines, Monosulfonated
Neutral Organics
Nickel Compounds
IMonionic Surfactants
Polyanionic Polymers (& Monomers)
Polycationic Polymers
Stilbene, derivatives of
Substituted Triazines
Vinyl Esters
Vinyl Sulfones
Soluble complexes of Zinc
Zirconium Compounds





                                       VOL. 14 / NO. 2 JUNE 1993

                                        New Chemicals Program
Categories continued from page 35

New Chemicals Program may
require additional testing or
restrictions on substances that fall
outside of recognized categories.

A guide for submitters
EPA encourages companies that are
submitting PMNs for new chemi-
cal substances to consult the list of
categories. The information provid-
ed about each category may help
the submitter to identify EPA's con-
cerns about a new substance. For
each category, the New Chemicals
Program provides (1) a description
of the category, (2) the basic chemi-
cal group that has raised concern,
(3) typical testing requirements,
and (4) boundaries of health and
environmental concerns—e.g., car-
bon chain length, molecular
weight, or octanol/water coefficient.

The boundaries for these category
concerns tend to be broad, espe-
cially for environmental effects,
which are often described as being
from low to high toxicity. The
New Chemicals Program uses test
data that are available to EPA or in
public literature to establish these
boundaries. As the program
acquires more data on PMN sub-
stances or structurally related com-
pounds, it is able to further define
category boundaries and gain more
insight into the categories.

Working toward development of
safer chemicals
The New Chemicals Program has
established 40 categories thus far.
This is a dynamic process. As part
of the program's efforts to encour-
age development of safer chemi-
cals, OPPT is continuing to (1)
develop new categories, (2) refine
the definitions and properties of
existing categories, and (3) engage
in dialogue with PMN submitters.
Periodically, OPPT also sends
detailed summaries of chemical
category definitions, hazard con-
cerns, boundaries, and testing rec-
ommendations to the Chemical
Manufacturers Association and the
Synthetic Organic Chemicals Man-
ufacturers Association.

For more information
• Detailed summaries of the
  chemical categories are available
  from the TSCA Assistance
  Information Service (TSCA hot-
  line). See page 43 for informa-
  tion on contacting the hotline.

• For information about the
  chemical categories, contact
  Ken Moss, Chemical Control
  Division (TS-794), U.S. EPA,
  401 M Street, S.W., Washing-
  ton, D.C. 20460; telephone,
TSCA PMN  Rule Amendments Are  Published
EPA has published for public com-
ment four proposed amendments to
new chemical rules (58 FR 7646-
7701, February 8, 1993). The rules
that would be affected are the pre-
manufacture notice (PMN) rule, the
polymer and low-volume exemp-
tion rules, and the generic signifi-
cant new use rule (SNUR).

The proposed amendments would
reduce the number of lower-risk sub-
stances requiring full PMN review.
For EPA, the shorter period would
allow the New Chemicals Program
to concentrate limited  resources on
identifying and controlling those
chemical  substances most likely to
present an unreasonable risk of injury
to health and the environment.

For industry, a shorter PMN review
would (1) reduce the costs and time
required for development of sub-
stances and (2) increase industry flex-
ibility in responding to the market.

To view comments
EPA held a public hearing on the
proposed rules on April 26 and 27,
1993. It also solicited written
comments. The public can view
the comments in the TSCA Non-
Confidential Information Center.
For information on the center, see
page 42.
For more information
A copy of the Federal Register notice
is available three ways.
• By calling the TSCA Assistance
  Information Service (TSCA hot-
  line). See page 43.

• By accessing the Federal Bulletin
  Board electronic file in Post-
  script, Wordperfect, and ASCII.
  The number to  dial on a modem
  is (202) 512-1387.

• By calling the U.S. Government
  Printing Office Electronic Infor-
  mation Dissemination Services
  at (202) 512-1530 to obtain a
  diskette containing the notice.
                                     il  CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                       General Information
OPPT to  Ask Industry to Voluntarily Provide Information
About Environmental Hazards to  Customers
EPA is beginning a program to
encourage chemical manufacturers
to provide information about their
products' environmental hazards to
the companies and people who will
use them. The program's objective
is to prevent pollution and reduce
environmental risks by fully
informing chemical users who
want to be environmentally
responsible when selecting, han-
dling, using, storing, and dispos-
ing of chemicals.

EPA is also participating in interna-
tional efforts to develop standard
criteria for assessing chemical haz-
ards and communicating them to
chemical  users. This would assure
participating nations that imported
products meet agreed-on criteria
and would ease  the number of regu-
lations that companies in the inter-
national marketplace must meet.

Voluntary three-part program
EPA's Office of Pollution Pre-
vention and Toxics (OPPT) is
structuring the program around
three activities.
1.  OPPT plans to publish a dis-
    cussion guide to identify the
    underlying principles of com-
    municating environmental
    hazard information.

2.  OPPT will hold a series of
    public meetings to discuss
    concepts and methods of com-
    municating the information
    and to lay the groundwork for
    voluntary implementation of
    the program.
3.  OPPT will standardize the
    environmental toxicity and
    fate criteria used to categorize
    chemicals according to their
    ecological hazards.

Chemical companies make infor-
mation about the human health
hazards posed by their products
broadly available through labeling
and material safety data sheets.
Environmental hazards are not as
well communicated. The reason for
this is that environmental toxicity
testing is very new and environ-
mental toxicity and fate data have
not been assembled for many
chemicals. However, companies
have not consistently disseminated
information on potential environ-
mental hazards in cases where
potential  environmental hazards
have been identified.
EPA believes that environmental
hazard  information should be pro-
vided to chemical users as it is
developed and that a clear distinc-
tion should be drawn between
chemicals that do not pose a haz-
ard and chemicals for which hazard
data are unavailable.

Communicating environmental
hazard information
Several issues  must be considered
in providing effective environmen-
tal hazard information to chemical
users. One issue is the complexity
of environmental hazard informa-
tion, which often consists of highly
technical toxicological data.
Another issue is how information
should be presented. Possible for-
mats include labels that instruct
consumers on proper chemical use
and disposal, material safety data
sheets, brochures, and advisories.
There is also the issue of defining
who will use the information. For
instance, technical data may suit
large companies and sophisticated
industries, but other companies
and most consumers might prefer
simple cautionary language or
color- or number-coded symbols.
Furthermore, different use and
disposal warnings may be required
for different states, counties, or

The discussion guide raises these
issues. OPPT intends to follow
publication of the guide with a
public meeting in the late summer
or early fall of 1993.

How the  program will fit into
other OPPT activities
OPPT's Existing Chemicals Pro-
gram  screens chemicals currently
in use to  identify potential haz-
ards. OPPT employs objective
screening criteria to determine the
degree of hazard posed by various
chemicals. Using these criteria,
OPPT identifies chemicals that
may present risks that EPA should

Existing chemicals that are identi-
fied as potential risks enter OPPT's

Hazards continued on page 38
                                       VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                        General Information
Hazards continued from page 37

risk management (RM) process.
During the RM process, the chem-
icals are assessed, and strategies for
reducing risk are investigated and
implemented. The risk manage-
ment strategy could include envi-
ronmental hazard communications.

Many of the criteria OPPT uses to
screen chemicals are  based on
human health concerns. Adding
criteria for environmental toxicity
and environmental fate would
allow OPPT to screen chemicals
simultaneously for both human
health and ecological hazards. This
is important because some chemi-
cals may be more toxic to fish,
birds, or wildlife than they are to
human beings. The hazard  may be
particularly great for toxic chemi-
cals that persist in the environ-
ment or accumulate  in living

For more information
• OPPT anticipates publishing
  the discussion paper in the sum-
  mer of 1993, with the first pub-
  lic discussion meetings to be
  scheduled in late summer or ear-
  ly fall. Notice of the availability
  of the discussion paper will
  appear in the Federal Register.

• To obtain more information
  about the environmental hazard
  communications program, con-
  tact Mary Dominiak, Chemical
  Control Division (TS-794), U.S.
  EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.,
  Washington, D.C. 20460; tele-
  phone, (202) 260-7768; FAX,
OPPT Programs Affected by FY '93 Budget
Congress directed EPA to spend
$110 million of its fiscal 1993 base
extramural funds on congressional
priorities. To accomplish this, EPA
is reducing programs in the Office
of Pollution  Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) and  other parts of the
OPPT received $39-1 million—
$11.6 million less than request-
ed—in base extramural funds,
which cover spending for contracts
and grants. The reduction affects
only contract funds; Congress rec-
ommended that state and local
grants be exempted from cuts.
To operate within its budget,
OPPT is postponing implementa-
tion of new policy initiatives,
reducing some base programs, and
delaying development  of new sci-
entific tools. It is impractical to
provide  a full accounting of OPPT
program cuts; however, a few
examples of how OPPT's program
will be affected are listed here.
• OPPT is delaying the  start of a
  program to stimulate develop-
  ment of chemicals that are safer
  alternatives to chemicals cur-
  rently in commerce.

• OPPT is deleting two years of
  Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
  data from the National Library
  of Medicine's TOXNET (the
  reporting years for which data
  will be deleted have not been
  decided). OPPT will have fewer
  resources available to enter TRI
  data corrections.
• OPPT has fewer resources avail-
  able to screen and assess chemicals
  in its Existing Chemicals Pro-
  gram's risk management program.
• OPPT is delaying use of an
  optical scanning system for
  screening incoming premanu-
  facture notices (PMNs).

Increased funding for priority
Some OPPT programs received
increases in funds. Congressional
add-ons were provided for lead
abatement activities, asbestos
worker training, pollution preven-
tion initiatives, and the asbestos
loan and grant program. In addi-
tion, the EPA administrator pro-
vided additional funds for two of
the agency's priority programs
administered by OPPT: (1) lead
activities related to implementa-
tion of Title X of the Residential
Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduc-
tion Act of 1992 and (2) imple-
mentation of the Design for the
Environment program.
Fiscal 1993 will end on Septem-
ber 30. EPAs fiscal 1994 budget
is currently being considered by
                                        CHEMICALS IM PROGRESS

                                     General Information
OPPTS Issues Final Recommendations for Inspector Training
TSCA, EPCRA, FIFRA Inspectors Would Be Affected
The Office of Prevention, Pesti-
cides, and Toxic Substances
(OPPTS) has proposed a new
training plan for inspectors who
investigate compliance with
• the Toxic Substances Control
  Act (TSCA),
• section 313 of the Emergency
  Planning and Community
  Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),
• the Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
  cide, and Rodenticide Act
The training plan is contained in
the Final Report on the Recommenda-
tions of the OPPTS Inspector Training
Strategy Group, which was issued
by OPPTS's Office of Compliance
Monitoring on March 29, 1993.
The inspectors who will be  affect-
ed by the new training plan are
employed by EPA and work in  the
agency's regional offices or for
states or Indian tribes that have
received cooperative enforcement
agreement funds from EPA. In
developing the training plan, the
Office of Compliance Monitoring
received input from nine  EPA
regional offices and 43 states.

Summary of training
Inspector training is provided by
EPA headquarters and regional
offices. In making the training
recommendations, the Office of
Compliance Monitoring is seeking
to standardize the training
received by inspectors. The plan
recommends three curricula for
introductory, advanced technical,
and advanced professional inspec-
tor training. In addition, the plan
also emphasizes program-specific
         The plan
   recommends three
       curricula for
      technical, and
   inspector training.
Currently, new inspectors com-
plete a basic inspector training
course, basic health and safety
training, and program-specific
self-study modules. The training
plan recommends that new inspec-
tors also participate in (1) on-the-
job and developmental training
and (2) courses developed specifi-
cally for TSCA, FIFRA, and sec-
tion 313 of EPCRA.

The program-specific training rec-
ommended by the report for all
inspectors is intended to (1) better
prepare new inspectors for their
work and (2) provide additional
technical and professional training
for experienced inspectors. The
report does not recommend certi-
fying or accrediting inspectors.

After inspectors complete basic
training, the report recommends
they receive advanced technical
training for complex, difficult, or
new components of inspections,
and then, advanced professional
training focusing on such areas as
risk communications, negotia-
tions, and administrative hearings.

The report recommends that train-
ing be developed and put into
place over three years. New courses
and training materials are expected
to be in use by the end of 1995.

For more information
Copies of the Final Report on the
Recommendations of the OPPTS
Inspector Training Strategy Group are
available from Philip Milton,
Compliance Division (EN-342),
Office of Compliance Monitoring,
U.S. EPA, 410 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460; tele-
phone, (202) 260-8598.
                                     VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

Four Jailed for Illegal  Disposal of PCBs
Weaver Electric Pleads Guilty to Violations
Four people were incarcerated for
illegally disposing of polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs) at a Col-
orado horse ranch and in some
trailers in Texas. The PCBs came
from Weaver Electric Company,
which was fined $200,000 for its
role in the case.

Weaver Electric buys, refurbishes,
and sells used electric equipment.
In this business, Weaver Electric
accumulated transformers and
capacitors, which contain PCBs,
and PCB-containing liquids. In
1988, Larry Pizer, president of
Weaver Electric, directed plant
manager Clayton Regier to ask the
owners of a nearby horse ranch to
remove PCBs from the company's
Denver plant. Ranch owners
Michael and Martha Slusser agreed
to do so and hired a salvage opera-
tor to transport about 576 capaci-
tors and 176 5 5-gallon drums of
PCB liquids to their ranch. Mr.
Pizer directed Mr. Regier to
remove the drums' PCB markings
prior to their transport.
The salvage operator and Mr. Slusser
buried the capacitors on the ranch.
The drums, which contained liq-
uids with PCB concentrations of
500 parts per million or more, were
stored for a time in a barn with a
dirt floor. Some of the liquids
spilled and leaked onto the ground.
Later, Mrs. Slusser arranged for the
drums to be transported to El Paso,
Texas, where they were left in trail-
ers at two sites.
Wrongdoing uncovered
These activities were uncovered by
an EPA investigation begun after
an employee of Weaver Electric
revealed the company had submit-
ted false reports to the agency
about disposal  of PCBs.
In July 1990, EPA's regional office
in Denver began removing the
PCBs and remedying the ranch
site. In October 1990, EPA's
regional office  in Dallas, Texas,
started cleaning up one of the
trailer sites. EPA has spent almost
$1 million on the cleanups.
As a result of EPA's investigation
into Weaver Electric's illegal han-
dling of PCBs, the federal govern-
ment in 1989 suspended Mr. Pizer
and Weaver Electric from submit-
ting bids for federal government
surplus equipment. The company
had purchased  about 20 percent of
its electrical equipment for refur-
bishing and resale from the federal
government. In 1990,  however,
Weaver Electric, under Mr. Pizer's
direction, bid for equipment using
the name of a fictitious company.
Weaver Electric was successful in
purchasing surplus equipment in
this way on two occasions.

Guilty pleas entered
This case involved violations of
PCB regulations under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA)
and reporting violations under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Lia-
bility Act (CERCLA). TSCA
requires that PCBs be disposed of
properly. CERCLA requires that
the release of PCBs into the
environment be reported to the

On November 6, 1992, in the U.S.
District Court in Colorado, all the
defendants pleaded guilty to
charges of illegally disposing of
PCBs. Michael Slusser also pleaded
guilty to failure to report the
release of a hazardous substance.
Clayton Regier and Weaver Elec-
tric pleaded guilty to failure to
mark PCB containers and capaci-
tors. Weaver Electric also pleaded
guilty to making false statements
and creating a false document for
the purpose of defrauding the
United States. Weaver Electric
president Larry Pizer died before
the case went to court. The other
defendants' sentences follow.
•  Plant manager Clayton Regier
   and salvage operator Bud Rupe
   were each sentenced to five
   months in a federal institution
   and one year of supervised
   release, of which they will each
   spend five months in electroni-
   cally monitored home deten-
   tion. The defendants were also
   ordered to each pay $5,000 to
   EPA's  Superfund Fund for the
   costs incurred in the  PCB
•  Ranch owner Martha Slusser
   received two sentences of 90

PCBs continued on page 43
                                   rj!ll  CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                        TSCA Section 8(e) / FYI Submissions
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 to the environment must report
that information to EPA within 15
working days of obtaining it.

From October 1991 to April 1993,
about 7,300 TSCA section 8(e)
notices were submitted to EPA's
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT). Six hundred of these
notices were regular section 8(e)
notices; 6,700 were submitted by
companies participating in EPA's
Compliance Audit Program (CAP).

EPA screens CAP submissions
CAP was a one-time, voluntary pro-
gram that encouraged companies  to
audit their files for information
required by TSCA section 8(e). CAP
provided greatly reduced monetary
penalties for companies that sub-
mitted studies they should have
provided earlier to EPA under
TSCA section 8(e).
OPPT screens CAP submissions and
assigns a level of hazard concern to
                 each study. The results of this initial
                 screening are shown in the accom-
                 panying table. This ranking will be
                 used with other factors, such as
                 exposure potential and regulatory
                 status, to set priorities for further
                 assessment and outreach activities.

                 FYI submissions
                 EPA received one For Your Informa-
                 tion (FYI) submission from Octo-
                 ber 1, 1992, to March 31, 1993.
                 FYIs are voluntary submissions and
                 may include data on chemical toxic-
                 ity and exposure, epidemiology,
                 monitoring, and environmental fate.
                 FYIs are submitted by chemical
                 manufacturers, chemical processors,
                 federal, state, and local agencies, for-
                 eign governments, academic institu-
                 tions, public interest and environ-
                 mental groups, and the general
                 public. EPA established the FYI
                 classification to distinguish volun-
                 tary submissions from notices sub-
                 mitted formally under section 8(e)
                 of TSCA. Processing of CAP sub-
                 missions has caused delays in FYI
                 submission processing.  A small
                 number of FYI submissions await
                 processing at present.
                               How to obtain 8(e) notices and
                               FYI submissions
                               • Section 8(e) and FYI submissions
                                 can be reviewed and photocopied
                                 at EPA headquarters, in the
                                 TSCA Non-Confidential Infor-
                                 mation Center. For information
                                 on using the center, see page 42.

                               • A copy of a full section 8(e) or
                                 FYI submission can be obtained
                                 by writing to Freedom of Infor-
                                 mation Office (A101), U.S. EPA,
                                 401 M Street, S.W., Washing-
                                 ton, D.C. 20460. Duplication of
                                 the first 166 pages of any docu-
                                 ment is free. At the 167th page,
                                 there is a $25 fee and an addi-
                                 tional $0.15 charge for each

                               • Chronological indices of section
                                 8(e) and FYI notices are available
                                 from the TSCA Assistance Infor-
                                 mation 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 43 for
                                 information about contacting
                                 the hotline.
Overview of TSCA Section 8(e) Notices
October 1,1991 to April 9,1993
Total number
Number entering
initial screening
Number completing
  initial screening
   Hazard concern
Low   Medium   High
                   Number on
                 TSCA Inventory*
1,137    1,217
*Once a CAP submission enters initial screening, OPPT determines whether the chemical substance is listed on the
 TSCA Inventory. Thus, the numbers in this column do not include submissions that have not entered screening.
                                        VOL 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                      For More Information

Publications Available from the  TSCA Hotline

Single copies of these publications can be obtained by calling or sending a FAX to the TSCA hotline or by fill-
ing out and mailing the form on page 43.
• The TSCA Report to Congress for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991
• EPA's 33/50 Program: Third Progress Report
• Copies of the Residential Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction Act. The act is Title X of the Housing and
  Community Development Act of 1992 and Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
• The Chemicals on Reporting Rules Database Supplement, updated as of December 31, 1992. The previous
  supplement was updated as of October 31, 1991- The data base was issued on June 30, 1990.

From the American Chemical Society
Pollution Prevention in Industrial Processes: The Role of Process Analytical Chemistry discusses successful applications
of modern process analytical chemistry to problems of waste minimization, source reduction, and pollution pre-
vention. The book was developed from a symposium sponsored by the Division of Environmental Chemistry at
the 1991 national meeting of the American Chemical Society. Joseph J. Breen and Michael J. Dellarco, both of
EPA, edited the book, which is available by calling the American Chemical Society at (800) 227-5558.
TSCA Non-Confidential  Information Center
The Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT) makes data
available to the public through the
TSCA Non-Confidential Informa-
tion Center. The center houses
• data submitted to EPA under
  sections 5, 8(d), and 8(e) of the
  Toxic Substances Control Act

• the administrative record for all
  TSCA rulemaking, and

• dockets for TSCA, the Toxics
  Release Inventory, the Emer-
  gency Planning and Communi-
  ty Right-to-Know Act, the
  Design for the Environment
  program, and the Environmen-
  tal Leadership Program.
The public can obtain information
from the Non-Confidential Infor-
mation Center in person, by tele-
phone, or by requesting informa-
tion in writing under the Freedom
of Information Act.
A reading room and photocopiers
are available for the public to use
when visiting the center.

New location and hours
The TSCA Non-Confidential
Information Center has moved to
Room G-102, in the East Tower
tunnel, at EPA headquarters. The
center is open to the public from 8
a.m. to noon and from 1 p.m. to 4
p.m. every weekday except Thurs-
day. Thursday hours are 8 a.m. to
11:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
To request documents, call (202)
260-7099 or (202) 260-0660. Or,
write to U.S. EPA, TSCA Non-
Confidential Information Center
(TS-793), 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C.  20460. In the
future, it will  also be possible to
FAX requests  for documents to the
                                      CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS

                                    For More Information
Send All Correspondence to
Environmental Assistance Division (TS-799)
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Editor: Jane Gurin
Would  You Like to Receive the
Chemicals-in-Progress Bulletin?

The Chemicals-in-Progress Bulletin is published by EPA's Office of Pol-
lution Prevention and Toxics. If you are not currently receiving the
Bulletin and would like to become a subscriber, or if you would like
to stop receiving the Bulletin, please fill out this form or tape a mail-
ing label onto it, and mail it to the address on this page.

D Please add my name to the mailing list for the Cbemicals-in-
   Progress Bulletin.

D I no longer want to receive the Cbemicals-in-Progress Bulletin.

D I'd like a copy of the following publication(s):
Company or Organization Name
Street Address
   Type of Business
Zip Code
                                   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 information 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 calling
                                   To request assistance by mail,
                                   write to the Environmental Assis-
                                   tance Division at the address pro-
                                   vided at the left.
                PCBs continued from page 40

                  days, to be served concurrently,
                  and one-year of supervised
                  release. She was also ordered to
                  pay $5,000 to EPA's Superfund
                  Fund. Her husband, Michael
                  Slusser, received two sentences
                  of one year and one day, to be
                  served concurrently.

                • Weaver Electric Company was
                  ordered to pay a $200,000 fine
                  and was placed on five years'
                  probation. Weaver Electric was
                  also ordered to spend an addi-
                  tional $300,000 for environ-
                  mental remediation for its Den-
                  ver facilities and to pay $1,025
                  in special assessment fees.
                                    VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993

                                      For More Information
TSCA Hotline: Question & Answer
What Fees Are Required for PMN Review?
Q: I am preparing to submit a pre-
manufacture notice (PMN) to EPA
for review of a new chemical sub-
stance. I understand that I need to
pay a user fee before EPA will
review my notice, but I don't see
any instructions for this in the Code
of Federal Regulations. How much do
I pay, and where do I send it?

A." Information about paying a
PMN user fee is found in 40 CFR
700. Discussion of the PMN appli-
cation is found in 40 CFR 720 and
40 CFR 723.
The standard fee of $2,500 is
required for each submission of a

• PMN,

• consolidated PMN,
• polymer exemption application,

• significant new use notice, and
• photographic film article
Lesser fees
Small businesses are required to
pay a lesser fee of $ 100 for each
PMN submitted. Annual sales of
the company and its parent com-
pany (including overseas compa-
nies) must be less than $40 million
for the submitter to qualify as a
small business. The $100 fee is
allowed for joint submissions when
each company that is part of the
submission meets the definition of
small business.

A $1,000 fee is required for a
PMN that is submitted for a
chemical intermediate when a
PMN is also submitted for the
final product and the $2,500 fee is

Applications for low-volume
exemptions and test-marketing
exemptions do not currently
require a fee, although EPA is
proposing to charge a fee in the
                 future (58 FR 7646, February 8,

                 How to pay the fee
                 EPA requires that fees be submit-
                 ted by money order, bank draft, or
                 certified check. Whatever form the
                 submitter uses, it should be made
                 out to the U.S. Environmental
                 Protection Agency and include the
                 submitters' PMN identification
                 number (TS number), so EPA can
                 apply the payment to the proper

                 Fees  and PMNs are processed in
                 different locations and should be
                 mailed separately. Fees should be
                 mailed to:
                 HQ Accounting Operations
                    Branch (PM-226)
                 P.O.  360399M
                 Pittsburg, PA 15251-6399
                 Attn: TSCA User Fee
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
                                                     Bulk Rate
                                                   Postage and Fees
                                                   Permit No. G-35
                                                                 RN  ST