<>EPA Chemicals in Progress OFFICE OF POLLUTION PREVENTION AND TOXICS VOLUME 14/NO 2 JUNE 1993 EPA-745-N-93-001 I ulletin highlights 2 OPPT Wants More People to Use Its Environmental Data 13 Public Education Campaign To Prevent Lead Poisoning Begins 37 OPPT Plans to Ask Companies to Give Risk Information to Chemical Users 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 Recycled/Recyclable 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 industries. 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 distribution. 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 participation. • 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 applications. 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 "...Pollution 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 announcement.) 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 Benzene Cadmium and compounds Carbon tetrachloride Chloroform Chromium and compounds Cyanides 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 Tetrachloroethylene Toluene Trichloroethane Trichloroethylene Xylenes 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 Program.) 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., Fairbault Crystal Cabinet Works, Inc., Baldwin Township Dresser/Rand Electric Machinery, Minneapolis 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, Rochester International Business Machines Corp., Rochester 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., Hutchinson 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., Princeton 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., Minneapolis 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. NICE3 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, (202)586-7114 ACE 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 Resources 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, Virginia 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, Vermont 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 wetlands. Priority issues and activities for ACE funding include, but are not limited to, nutrient management, environmentally sound multiple land uses, and animal waste man- agement. 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 (415)744-2189 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 term. 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 environment. 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 methodology. 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- inghouse. • For information about ASTM's Standard Guide for Pollution Pre- vention, contact the organization's technical information center at (215)299-5475. 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 practices. 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 assessment 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, (202)260-0981. 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 Association. 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 noted. 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- forming. • 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 tenants. • 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 below. 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. Training 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 water. 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 activities 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 mitigated. 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 information available to the public. 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. Background 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, (202)260-2219- •B 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 stages. • 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 N-methylpyrrolidone 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 document 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, (202)260-8168. 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 contact. Background 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 EGEE, EGEEA, EGME, and 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 paints. 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. Background 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.) Background 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 information. 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 Cyclohexane Tier II Chemicals Phenol 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 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p- 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 follows. • 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 (800)438-4318. VOL. 14/NO.2 JUNE 1993 ------- Testing 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 ------- Testing 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 allergies. 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 chemicals. 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. m VOL. 14/NO 2 JUNE 1993 ------- Testing 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 Chemical Chemical abstract number 60-29-7 75-65-0 76-22-2 78-92-2 79-20-9 97-77-8 100-25-4 Chemical name Ethyl ether terf-Butyl alcohol Camphor sec-Butyl alcohol Methyl acetate Disulfiram p-Dinitrobenzene abstract number 108-87-2 109-66-0 110-83-8 111-84-2 123-92-2 142-82-5 287-92-3 Chemical name Methylcyclohexane Pentane Cyclohexene Nonane Isoamyl acetate /7-Heptane Cyclopentane Chart continued on page 31 II CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS ------- Testing OSHA chemicals designated for dermal absorption testing cont'd. Chemical abstract number 105-46-4 106-42-3 107-31-3 107-66-4 108-03-2 Chemical name sec-Butyl acetate p-Xylene Methyl formate Dibutyl phosphate 1-Nitropropane Chemical abstract number 532-27-4 540-88-5 628-63-7 7631-90-5 7681-57-4 OSHA chemicals designated for dermal absorption testing Chemical abstract number 61-82-5 74-96-4 75-15-0 75-25-2 75-34-3 77-78-1 79-46-9 80-62-6 84-66-2 88-72-2 89-72-5 90-04-0 95-13-6 95-49-8 99-65-0 100-00-5 100-01-6 Chemical name Amitrole Ethyl bromide Carbon disulfide Bromoform 1,1-Dichloroethane Dimethyl sulfate 2-Nitropropane Methyl methacrylate Diethyl phthalate o-Nitrotoluene o-sec-Butylphenol o-Anisidine Indene o-Chlorotoluene /77-Dinitrobenzene p-Nitrochlorobenzene p-l\litroaniline Chemical abstract number 100-44-7 100-63-0 106-49-0 108-44-1 108-90-7 109-99-9 121-14-2 122-39-4 126-99-8 150-76-5 528-29-0 540-59-0 626-17-5 768-52-5 1300-73-8 6423-43-4 25013-15-4 in the 31 stITC Report, Chemical name a-Chloroacetophenone te/t-Butyl acetate /7-Amyl acetate Sodium bisulfite Sodium metabisulfite in the 32nd ITC Report Chemical name Benzyl chloride Phenylhydrazine p-Toluidine m-Toluidine Chlorobenzene Tetrahydrofuran 2,4-Dinitrotoluene Diphenylamine £e/a-Chloroprene p-Methoxyphenol o-Dinitrobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethylene m-Phthalodinitrile N-lsopropylaniline Xylidine 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 necessary. 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- mediate. 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 consideration. 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 testing. 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- diction. 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 Smartform. 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) 260-1553. 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 genera. 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 Premanufacture 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 available. 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 Category Type of Concern Health Environment Acid Chlorides Acid Dyes Acrylamides Acrylates/Methacrylates Aliphatic Amines Alkoxysilanes Aminobenzothiazole Azo Dyes Amphoteric Dyes Anhydrides, Carboxylic Acid Anilines Anionic Surfactants Benzotriazoles Borates Cationic Dyes Cationic (quaternary ammonium) surfactants Dianilines Diazoniums Dithiocarbamates Epoxides Esters Ethylene Glycol Ethers Hydrazines and Related Compounds Hindered Amines Imides Isocyanates p-Naphthylamines, Monosulfonated Neutral Organics Nickel Compounds IMonionic Surfactants Peroxides Phenols Polyanionic Polymers (& Monomers) Polycationic Polymers Polynitroaromatics Stilbene, derivatives of 4,4-bis(triazin-2-ylamino)- Substituted Triazines Vinyl Esters Vinyl Sulfones Soluble complexes of Zinc Zirconium Compounds x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X X X X X X X X X 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, (202)260-3725. 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. Background 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 municipalities. 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 address. 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 organisms. 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, (202)260-8168. 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 agency. 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 programs 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 Congress. ffl 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), and • the Federal Insecticide, Fungi- cide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 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 recommendations 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 training. The plan recommends three curricula for introductory, advanced technical, and advanced professional 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 TSCA, EPCRA, and FIFRA 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 ------- Enforcement 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 government. 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 cleanups. • 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 page. • 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 received Number entering initial screening Number completing initial screening Hazard concern Low Medium High Number on TSCA Inventory* 7,340 4,304 3,056 702 1,137 1,217 2,129 *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 (TSCA), • 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 center. CHEMICALS IN PROGRESS ------- For More Information Send All Correspondence to Environmental Assistance Division (TS-799) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics U.S. EPA 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Editor: Jane Gurin Would You Like to Receive the Chemicals-in-Progress Bulletin? The 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): Name Title Company or Organization Name Street Address Type of Business City State 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 (202)554-0551. 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 exemption. 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 paid. 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, 1993). 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 submission. 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 vvEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency (TS-799) Washington, D.C. 20460 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Correction Requested 0776J5 LIS Bulk Rate Postage and Fees Paid EPA Permit No. G-35 IL RN ST 6C60* ------- |