United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Pesticides
and Toxic Substances
Washington DC 20460
Odobor 1989
EPA 560/1 89 001
Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA)

Report to Congress
for Fiscal Years
1987 and 1988
                         Printed on Recycled Ptpet

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS



Introduction  	 1

Controlling Entry of New Chemicals	3

Identifying Existing Chemicals Which Pose	11
Unreasonable Risks

Regulation of Hazardous Chemical Substances
and Mixtures	25

Relationship of TSCA to Other Federal Laws	30

Compliance and Enforcement	36

Litigation	58

Other TSCA Activities	76


Tables

1.   Summary of New Chemical Actions—FY '87	7

2.   Summary of New Chemical Actions—FY '88	9

3.   Summary of Section 4 Chemical Testing
     Actions—FY  '87	19

4.   Summary of Section 4 Chemical Testing
     Actions—FY  '88	22

5.   Administrative Civil Actions Taken Under
     Section 16 of TSCA, Complaints Issued,
     Cases Completed,  and Amounts Assessed—FY '87	56

6.   Administrative Civil Actions Taken Under
     Section 16 of TSCA, Complaints Issued,
     Cases Completed,  and Amounts Assessed—FY '88	57


Appendices

A.   Major FY '87 TSCA Actions	77

B.   Major FY '88 TSCA Actions	84

-------
                               -1-
INTRODUCTION
     When Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) in 1976, it gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
the authority to identify and control chemical hazards to human
health and the environment.  This tenth Report to Congress
fulfills the reporting requirements for information about the
administration of the Act found in TSCA sections 30, 9(d) and
28(c) for Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988.  An overview of other major
actions under TSCA is found in Appendices A and B.
     On October 22, 1986, Congress added Title II to TSCA, by
enacting the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA).
Title II directs EPA to issue regulations affecting asbestos in
school buildings and requires the Agency to submit reports to
Congress on asbestos in public and commercial buildings and on
the availability of liability insurance for local education
agencies and asbestos contractors.  The law enacted in 1976
became Title I.
     TSCA Title I gives EPA the authority to gather certain basic
information on chemical risks from chemical manufacturers and
processors, and to require companies to test selected existing
chemical substances and mixtures  (chemicals) for toxic effects.
It also requires EPA to review most new chemicals before they are
manufactured.  The Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) is charged
with implementing TSCA.
     Under TSCA Title I, EPA has implemented programs to:
evaluate chemicals prior to commercialization through

-------
                               -2-



premanufacture notification requirements for new chemical



substances and new uses of existing substances; evaluate existing



chemicals by requiring testing and the reporting of unpublished



health and safety data; and take appropriate control actions



after carefully weighing the risks of these chemicals against the



benefits they provide.



     EPA may regulate a chemical at any point in its life cycle—



manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, use or



disposal.



     To prevent unreasonable risks, EPA may select control



options that range from requiring hazard-warning labels to



outright bans on the manufacture or use of especially hazardous



chemicals.



     This Report to Congress details EPA's progress in



controlling toxic chemical hazards to human health and the



environment under TSCA.

-------
                               -3-



CONTROLLING ENTRY OF NEW CHEMICALS



     When it enacted section 5 of TSCA, the Congress wanted to



ensure that no new chemicals were introduced into the environment



until they had been reviewed for potential effects and subjected



to appropriate controls.



     Consequently, under section 5(a), manufacturers,or importers



must notify EPA 90 days in advance if they intend to manufacture



a new chemical for commercial purposes.  During the 90-day



premanufacture notification (PMN) period, EPA evaluates the



available information about the chemical.



     If EPA's review finds few or insignificant risks, it allows



production of the chemical to begin without any action by EPA.



Ninety percent of the new chemicals reviewed by EPA fall into



this category.  If EPA finds that there is insufficient



information to evaluate the risk, and that the manufacture or use



of the chemical may present an unreasonable risk to people or the



environment; or that the chemical is produced in large volumes



and there may be significant human exposure or release to the



environment, EPA is authorized to intervene.  It may prohibit or



restrict the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce,



use or disposal of the chemical, under section 5(e) of TSCA,



until the necessary data are developed.



     Options used under section 5(e) include:  (1) allowing the



PMN submitter to perform the needed tests before production, or



to control activities associated with the chemical as though it



had been tested and found as toxic as suspected;  (2) requiring

-------
                               -4-



the submitter to perform tests before the chemical is produced;



and  (3) requiring testing once production of the new chemical



reaches a prescribed level.



     Finally, if EPA reviews a PMN containing sufficient data to



evaluate risk and determines that a new chemical presents an



unreasonable risk of injury, EPA can prohibit its manufacture,



processing, distribution, use or disposal.



    EPA also may issue rules under section 5(a)(1) requiring



submission of a chemical for review before significant new uses



of the chemical may be initiated.



     In Fiscal Year 1987, EPA received 2,334 new chemical



notices.  These included 1,761 PMNs, 30 Test Market Exemption



Applications, 253 Polymer Exemption PMNs, and 276 Low Volume



Exemption Notices.



     Sixty-one new chemicals were subjected to controls by the



development of either a section 5(e) order or 5(f) order limiting



or prohibiting their manufacture, processing, distribution in



commerce, or disposal.



     In Fiscal Year 1988, EPA received 3,020 new chemical



notices, including 2,436 PMNs, 18 Test Market Exemption



Applications, 321 Polymer Exemption PMNs, and 237 Low Volume



Exemption Notices.  Thirty-four new chemicals were subject to the



development of either a section 5(e) or 5(f) order.  The total



number of new chemical notices received, since the program's



beginning in mid-1979, is 13,840.  Of these, 392 chemicals have

-------
                               -5-



been subjected to controls by development of a section 5(e) or



5(f) order.  Further, industry has voluntarily tested or taken



control actions on an additional 237 chemicals.



     Tables 1 and 2, which follow, provide detailed summaries of



new chemical actions for both fiscal years.  None of these



chemicals was subject to ruleraaking under section 4.



     EPA has broadened its approach to new chemical regulation to



include action on large-volume chemicals with potential for high



human exposures or environmental releases, even in those cases



where there is no current indication of possible adverse effects.



Since February 1988, more than 50 large-volume new chemicals have



been subject to requirements for data on health or environmental



effects under the exposure-based authority of section
     EPA also is enhancing its process for issuing significant



new use rules (SNURs) , which require reporting on chemicals



before manufacture or processing for significant new uses may



begin.  A procedural rule that will commit the Agency to issuing



SNURs for certain types of chemicals has been proposed, and is in



the final stages of promulgation.  The revised approach will



simplify the process, minimize the time it takes to issue SNURs,



make the SNUR program more consistent by establishing criteria



for issuance of SNURs, and establish standard language for



routine SNUR provisions, making the rule triggers easier to



understand, thus aiding compliance.

-------
                               -6-
     EPA also is using section 5 to obtain information about
genetically altered microorganisms.
     These organisms are considered "new", and are subject to
premanufacture notification rules if they are manufactured for
TSCA purposes •.  Six PMNs were submitted during FY '87 and FY '88
for genetically altered microorganisms used in closed systems,
such as fermenters, that are not intentionally released to the
environment.
     EPA also has received notices from persons releasing new
organisms to the environment during research and development.  In
FY  »87 and  '88, EPA has reviewed 20 notices involving R&D
releases.  All but one of these releases were proposed by one
company investigating enhancement of nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
     EPA is presently developing a proposed rule that will define
a comprehensive approach to regulating microorganisms under TSCA.

-------
                                  -7-

                                  Table  1

                      Summary of  New Chemical Actions
                   October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987
                       Actions
          Aggregate
          Total To
No. of    09/30/87
Actions   (since
in FY'87  mid-1979)
Total New Chemical Substance Submissions Received
(PMNS; Test Market, Polymer, and Low Volume)
Valid PMNs Received (includes Biotechnology)
PMNs Requiring No Further Action
Voluntary Testing in Response to EPA Concerns
Voluntary Control Actions by Submitters
PMNs Withdrawn in Face of 5(e)/5(f)
PMNs Subject to section 5(e) Consent Orders *
PMNs Subject to Unilateral section 5(e) Orders *
PMNs Subject to section 5(f) Rules
Number of Chemicals for which Commencement of
Manufacture Notices Were Received
Submissions of Bona Fide Intent to Manufacture
New Substances Subject to Proposed Significant
2,334
1,761
1,405
22
0
44
61
0
0
538**
399
1***
10,820
9,117a
7,166
151
45
183
348a
16
4
3,830a
3,030
56
 New Use Rules (SNURs)

New Substances Subject to Final Significant
 New Use Rules (SNURs)

Test Data Received as a Result of Section 5(e)
 Consent Orders
       0***
15
                25

-------
                                  -8-


Valid Test Market Exemption Applications Received        30      457

Granted                                                  20      397

Withdrawn                                                 4       40

Denied                                                    1        7

Valid Polymer Exemption PMNs Received                   253      640

No Further Action Required                              212      540

Withdrawn                                                33       88

Converted to Conventional PMN                             4        6

Valid Low Volume Exemption Notices Received             276      594

No Further Action Required                              270      568

Withdrawn                                                 4       15

Ineligible                                                1        1



   a: Includes  106  synfuel PMNs.

   * A  section  5(e)  consent order is issued by EPA with the  agreement
   of the PMN submitter.  A section 5(e) unilateral order is issued by
   EPA  without  the  agreement of the PMN submitter.

   ** This number includes PMNs received in previous  fiscal  years for
   which commencement  of manufacture notices were received in FY '87.

   ***  This number  includes substances which were the subject of PMNs
   received in  previous fiscal years but for which proposed  or final
   rules were not published until FY '87.

-------
                                  -9-

                                  Table 2

                      Summary of New Chemical Actions
                   October 1, 1987 - September 30, 1988
                       Actions
          Aggregate
          Total
          in FY'88
No. of    to 09/30/88
Actions   (since
in FY'88  mid-1979)
Total New Chemical Substance Submissions Received
(PMNS, Test Market, Polymer, and Low Volume)
Valid PMNs Received (includes Biotechnology)
PMNs Requiring No Further Action
^Voluntary Testing in Response to EPA Concerns
Voluntary Control Actions by Submitters
PMNs Withdrawn in Face of 5(e)/5(f)
PMNs Subject to section 5(e) Consent Orders *
PMNs Subject to Unilateral section 5(e) Orders *
PMNs Subject to section 5(f) Rules
3,020
2,436
1,858
41
0
78
34
0
0
13,840
ll,565a
9,024
192
45
261
382a
16
4
Number of Chemicals for which Commencement of
 Manufacture Notices Were Received

Submissions of Bona Fide Intent to Manufacture

New Substances Subject to Proposed Significant
 New Use Rules (SNURs)

New Substances Subject to Final Significant
 New Use Rules (SNURs)

Test Data Received as a Result of Section 5(e)
 Consent Orders
    544**  4,374a


    387    3,417

      2***    58
      0***
15
              31

-------
                                  -10-


Valid Test Market Exemption Applications  Received        18       475

Granted                                                   18       415

Withdrawn                                                  0        40

Denied                                                     0         7

Valid Polymer Exemption  PMNs Received                   321       961

No Further Action Required                               199       739

Withdrawn                                                 46       134

Converted to Conventional PMNs                            10        16

Valid Low Volume Exemption Notices  Received              237       831

No Further Action Required                               233       801

Withdrawn                                                  8        23

Ineligible                                                 0         1
    a:  Includes 106  synfuel  PMNs.

    * A section 5(e)  consent order  is  issued  by  EPA with the agreement  of
    the PMN submitter.   A section 5(e)  unilateral  order is issued by EPA
    without the agreement of the PMN submitter.

    **  This number includes  PMNs received  in  previous  fiscal years for
    which  commencement  of manufacture  notices were received in FY 1988.

    *** This number  includes substances which were the subject of PMNs
    received in previous fiscal years  but  for which proposed or final
    rules  were  not published until  FY  1988.

-------
                               -11-



IDENTIFYING EXISTING CHEMICALS WHICH POSE UNREASONABLE RISKS



     In order to make high-quality,  timely toxic chemical



management decisions, EPA must have the best available data.



Often such information is not available, yet EPA must make



decisions in the public interest despite these data gaps.



Sections 4 and 8 of TSCA provide some of the chemical testing



information needed to close these gaps and guide the



decisionmaking process.



Testing of Chemical Substances and Mixtures



     Section 4 of TSCA authorizes EPA to require manufacturers or



processors of existing chemicals to test their health and



environmental effects.



     To require testing EPA must find that: A chemical may



present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the



environment; insufficient data are available to reasonably



determine or predict the effects of the chemical, and testing is



necessary to generate this data.  Alternatively, EPA may require



testing if the chemical is produced in substantial quantities and



it enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the



environment in substantial quantities, or there is or may be



significant or substantial human exposure to the chemical; data



are insufficient and testing is necessary to generate this data.



     Most chemical testing candidates are suggested by the



Interagency Testing Committee  (ITC), a committee created by TSCA



and composed of members of EPA and other federal agencies.

-------
                               -12-



Chemicals may also be nominated for testing by EPA program



offices.



     If testing is needed, EPA obtains the necessary data by



developing a test rule or negotiating an enforceable consent



order.  Both specify the chemical to be tested, effects being



tested, test standards, schedules for submission Of data, and



persons responsible for testing.  .



     In Fiscal Year 1987, EPA published 5 notices of proposed



rulemaking for the following chemicals: Cyclohexane; 2,6-di-tert-



butylphenol; oleylamine; 2-ethylhexanol, and 73 chemicals



nominated by the Office of Solid Waste  (OSW).  Testing of these



73 chemicals, which are constituents of hazardous waste, was



requested by OSW to support its efforts under the Resource



Conservation and Recovery Act to identify wastes that may be



hazardous to human health and the environment.



     EPA issued 16 notices of final rulemaking for: 2-ethyl-



hexanoic acid; ethyltoluenes and trimethylbenzenes (C9 aromatic



hydrocarbon fraction); diethylenetriamine; mesityl oxide;



cresols; hydroquinone; biphenyl; anthraquinone; fluoroalkenes; ^



chlorinated benzenes; tetrabromobisphenol; oleylamine; propylene



oxide; commercial chemicals potentially.contaminated with



halogenated dibenzo-p-dioxins/dibenzofurans; and 2-ethylhexanol.



     Dioxins and dibenzofurans were initially the subject of a



citizens' petition, filed under section 21 of TSCA by the



Environmental Defense Fund and the National Wildlife Federation.



The petitioners asked EPA to use its authority to analyze the

-------
                               -13-



hazards posed by multimedia releases of these chemicals, to take



action to reduce the risks from their release, and to test the



chemicals to the extent EPA determined information was lacking.



     EPA denied the initial request to issue substantive rules,



but granted that part of the petition that requested testing.



EPA issued a final rule under sections 4 and 8 requiring certain



testing and submission of existing health and safety test data.



     One enforceable consent order for 3,4-dichlorobenzo-



trifluoride was signed.



     In Fiscal Year 1988, EPA published 3 notices of proposed



rulemaking for tributyl phosphate, isopropanol, and methyl ethyl



ketoxime.  The Agency also published 10 notices of final



rulemaking for:  1,2-dichloropropane; benzyl butyl phthalate



(withdrawal of proposed rule); methylcyclopentane; diethylene



glycol butyl ether acetate; cumene; anilines (termination of



rulemaking); 2-mercaptobenzothiazole; commercial hexane;



diethylene glycol butyl ether; and 33 OSW chemicals.



     Enforceable consent orders for methyl-tert butyl ether and



anilines also were signed.



     For test rules promulgated in FY '87, EPA estimates that the



total testing costs over the life of the testing program will



range from $9.3 million to $11.4 million dollars. Costs for FY



•88 are estimated to range from $4.4 million to $6 million



dollars.  These estimates do not include testing costs associated



with consent orders.

-------
                               -14-



     Tables 3 and 4, which follow, provide a summary of these



specific testing actions.



     While the major use of section 4 thus far has been to



respond to ITC recommendations for individual chemicals or



closely related categories of chemicals, OTS is placing new



emphasis on developing rules to obtain test data for other EPA



programs.  In the past two years, test rules were developed for



the Office of Water and the Office of Solid Waste.  Additional



proposals for the Office of Water are planned for 1989.



     Another potential future source of section 4 testing



candidates is the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act



 (SARA).  The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory requirements under



section 313 of the Act may reveal previously unrecognized



potential exposures to toxic chemicals for which little hazard



data are available.



     Section 110 of SARA requires the Administrator of the Agency



for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to coordinate SARA



research programs with the testing program under TSCA.  The first



TSCA proposed test rule using this approach is being developed



with two federal agencies, the Agency for Toxic Substances and



Disease Registry and the National Toxicology Program.  It is



expected to be proposed during 1990.



     Since its creation, the section 4 testing program has



provided EPA with valuable data on the health and environmental



effects of chemicals.  By the end of FY '88, EPA developed over



40 proposals, and completed 25 test rules and 3 testing consent

-------
                               -15-



orders.  These test rules, and similar testing agreements



negotiated with industry, generated nearly 700 studies.



Reporting and Recordkeeping



     Section 8 of TSCA, with its recordkeeping and reporting



requirements, gives EPA powerful tools for gathering information



about potentially toxic chemicals.



     Under section 8(e) of TSCA, manufacturers, processors and



distributors of chemicals must notify EPA immediately if they



obtain information which reasonably supports the conclusion that



a substance presents a substantial risk of injury to human health



or the environment.  In addition to these "substantial risk"



notifications, manufacturers may provide voluntary "for your



information" (FYI) submissions to EPA.



     The section 8(e) program has been the most productive of all



section 8 authorities in identifying potentially hazardous



chemicals.  Substantial risk notices may include preliminary



findings from toxicity testing programs, chemical effects on



humans in the workplace, and ecological effects data.  More than



750 initial section 8(e) submissions, and more than 640 voluntary



"for your information" submissions from industry have been



received since TSCA's enactment.



     In 1987, EPA received 60 initial section 8(e) submissions,



178 supplemental or follow-up section 8(e) submissions, and 159



FYI submissions.  In 1988, there were 60 initial section 8(e)



submissions, 214 supplemental or follow-up section 8(e)



submissions, and 143 FYI submissions.

-------
                               -16-



     Much of this information is shared, through an automatic



referral system, with other EPA program offices as well as the



Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Consumer Product



Safety Commission, Food and Drug Administration, National



Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and National



Toxicology Program.



     In addition to these automatic referrals, EPA may target a



chemical for action by a particular agency.  In one case, EPA



received a section 8(e) submission for 4-chloro-2-methylaniline



(4-CMA), that raised concerns about bladder cancer in 4-CMA



workers.  EPA recognized that these findings were relevant to its



assessment of a pesticide, chlordimeform, because 4-CMA is a



precursor and metabolite of chlordimeform.  EPA and NIOSH are -



considering a risk notification program for current and former 4-



CMA and chlordimeform workers.



     In another instance, EPA received section 8(e) data



indicating that n-butyl acetate, which was previously thought to



have a low order of toxicity, was acutely toxic.  This



information was referred to OSHA, for use in its efforts to



update Permissible Exposure Limits.



     Under TSCA section 8(d), EPA has developed a generic rule



that requires chemical companies to submit unpublished health and



safety studies on chemical substances and mixtures.  Two types of



data are covered: Copies of all study reports in the possession



or control of the company; and lists of all ongoing company



studies,  and ongoing or completed studies that the company is

-------
                               -17-



aware of but does not possess.  Two hundred and forty-two



chemical substances and 15 categories had been added by amendment



to the generic section 8(d) rule by the end of FY '88.



     EPA has been working to make  its TSCA information gathering



rules useful to other EPA program  offices and Federal Agencies.



A section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Rule listed 102 chemicals



of interest to OTS, other EPA offices, and the Consumer Product



Safety Commission.



     Section 8(a) of TSCA allows the collection of production,



use, and exposure data from chemical manufacturers and



processors, and can require the retention of certain records.



     One section 8(a) rule, the Preliminary Assessment



Information Rule  (PAIR), allows EPA to collect readily obtainable



information needed for preliminary risk assessments on specified



substances. By the end of FY '88,  EPA used PAIR to gather data on



approximately 380 chemical substances.



     In an effort to coordinate information collection within EPA



and among other Federal agencies,  EPA promulgated the



Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule (CAIR).  This section



8(a) rule will be used to gather information to support the



assessment and regulation of chemicals.  The first set of 19



chemicals subject to CAIR includes substances nominated by NIOSH



as well as by EPA.  Additional substances, nominated by EPA or



other Federal agencies, will be added to CAIR in the future.

-------
                              -18-



     Section 8(c)  of TSCA requires manufacturers and processors



of chemical substances and mixtures to maintain records involving



allegations of adverse effects to human health or the environment



believed to have been caused by chemical substances or mixtures.



Any person may make such an allegation, which must then be



retained by industry.



     EPA expects that individual companies will use the 8(c)



records to identify problems associated with the chemicals that



they manufacture,  and take steps to resolve them.



     This section also creates an historical record of



significant adverse reactions alleged to have been caused by a



chemical substance.  EPA can inspect these records, and require



industry to report the information contained in them.

-------
                                     -19-

                                   Table 3

                  SUMMARY OF SECTION 4 CHEMICAL TESTING ACTIONS
                                    FY  '87

             Testing in Response to the Interaaencv Testing Committee fITC)
Date

11/06/86
Chemical

2-Ethylhexanoic
acid
01/23/87
Ethyltoluenes
01/23/87
02/03/87
Trimethylbenzenes
(C9 aromatic hydro-
carbon fraction)
Diethylenetriamine
05/20/87
Cyclohexane
05/20/87
05/20/87
Mesityl oxide
Cresols
Action                          ITC List

Notice of Final Rulemaking;         14
requires testing for sub-
chronic toxicity, develop-
mental toxicity, and
pharmacokinetics studies.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;         10
specifies test standards and
reporting requirements^for
testing of the C9 aromatic
hydrocarbon fraction.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;         10
specifies test standards and
reporting requirements for
testing of the C9 aromatic
hydrocarbon fraction.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;         8
specifies use of EPA-modified,
industry-submitted plans
as the test standards and re-
porting requirements for this
testing.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;      18
proposes testing for subchronic
toxicity, developmental toxicity
neurotoxicity, dermal absorption
and dermal sensitization.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;         4
specifies test standards and
reporting requirements for
testing of this substance.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;         1
specifies test standards and
reporting requirements for
testing of ortho, meta and
para cresols.

-------
                                     -20-
05/28/87
06/03/87
Hydroquinone
Biphenyl
06/04/87
Anthraquinone
06/08/87
Fluoroalkenes
06/25/87
07/01/87
2,6-di-tert-butyl-
phenol
Certain chlorinated
benzenes
07/06/87     Tetrabromo-
             bisphenol A
Notice of Final Rulemaking;         5
specifies test standards and
reporting requirements for
testing this substance.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;         10
requires environmental effects
and chemical fate testing,
and announces adoption of
study plans and schedules
submitted by the Biphenyl Work
Group.

Notice of Final Ruleraaking;         15
requires manufacturers and
processors to conduct chemical
fate and environmental effects
testing, and to report annually
the volume manufactured or
imported during the latest
corporate fiscal year.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;         7
requires certain health effects
testing for the following
fluroalkenes: Vinyl fluoride,
vinylidene fluoride, hexaflu-
oropropene and tetrafluoro-
ethene, and also withdraws pro-
posed reproductive effects testing
for vinylidene fluoride.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;      18
proposes chemical fate and
environmental effects testing.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;         1/3
specifies test standards and
reporting requirements for
environmental effects testing
of 1,2,3- and 1,2,4-chloroben-
zene.  The chemical fate testing
requirements, which were met as a
result of the proposed rule, are
withdrawn.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;         16
requires testing for chemical
fate and environmental effects.

-------
                                     -21-
08/24/87
08/24/87
09/23/87
12/19/86
05/29/87
06/05/87
06/23/87
08/03/87
Oleylamine
Oleylamine
Propylene oxide
Notice of Final Rulemaking;
requires certain toxicity
testing of this chemical.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
proposes TSCA test guidelines
be used as standards and pro-
poses deadlines for submission
of test data.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;
specifies test standards and
reporting requirements for
inhalation and developmental
toxicity testing.
13
13
                             Other Testing Actions
2-EthyIhexanol
Solid Waste
Chemicals
(73 Chemicals)
Halogenated
dibenzo-p-dioxins/
dibenzofurans
(HDDs/HDFs)
3,4-Dichlorobenzo-
trifluoride
2-EthyIhexanol
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
proposes 2-year oral oncogenicity
bioassays in rats and mice.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
proposes testing for human health
effects and/or chemical fate in
support of EPA's hazardous waste
regulatory program under RCRA.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;
requires manufacturers and
importers to test 12 organic
chemicals for HDD/HDF contamina-
tion.  Also requires testing
of 20 organic chemicals, not
currently manufactured or imported,
if manufacture or importation
resumes.

Consent Order; Occidental Chemical
Corporation agrees to perform
certain chemical fate and
environmental effects testing.

Notice of final rulemaking;
requires a 2-year oncogenicity
bioassay.

-------
                                      -22-

                                Table 4

         SUMMARY OF SECTION 4 CHEMICAL TESTING ACTIONS
                             FY_1M

     Testing in Response to the Interagencv Testing Committee  (ITC)
Date
Chemical
Action
ITC List
10/05/87    1,2-Dichloropropane
10/29/87    Benzyl butyl
            phthaiate
11/12/87    Tributyl phosphate
02/05/88
02/26/88
03/16/88
Methy1eye1opentane
Diethylene glycol
butyl ether
acetate

Isopropanol
Notice of Final Rulemaking;
specifies test standards
and schedules for pharma-
cokinetic testing.

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule;
withdraws proposal to require
certain environmental fate
and effects testing, because
testing was completed by
industry.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
proposes testing for health
effects, including neurotoxi-
city, mutagenicity, oncogeni-
city, dermal sensitization,
oral/dermal pharmacokinetics,
developmental and reproductive
toxicity.  Also proposes
environmental effects and
chemical fate testing.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;
Terminates rulemaking for
methylcyclopentane because
EPA believes testing is not
necessary at this time.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;
requires testing for dermal
absorption.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
proposes health effects testing
for oncogenicity, mutagenicity,
neurotoxicity, pharmacokinetics,
and subchronic,  reproductive and
developmental toxicity.
                                                              18
     10
     13

-------
                                     -23-
03/31/88     Methyl tert-butyl
            ether
07/27/88    Cumene
08/19/88
Aniline and seven
substituted
anilines
08/19/88
Anilines
Consent Order; requires health
effects testing for mutagenicity,
pharmacokinetics, neurotoxicity,
oncogenicity, developmental
toxicity, reproductive and
fertility effects, and subchronic
effects.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;
requires health effects testing
including oral and inhalation
pharmacokinetics, subchronic
inhalation toxicity, develop-
mental toxicity and neurotoxicity.
Also requires environmental
effects and chemical fate tests
including acute toxicity to fish
and invertebrates, biodegradation
in an aquatic system, and volatili-
zation from an aquatic system.

Consent orders; require health
and environmental effects testing
for aniline and 2-chloroaniline,
health effects testing only for 2-
nitroaniline, 3,4-dichloro-
aniline, 2,4-dinitroaniline,
4-nitroaniline,, and 4-chloro-
aniline, and environmental
effects only for 2,6-dichloro-
4-nitroaniline.

Termination of rulemaking;
terminates proposed health effects
testing for 13 chemicals because
there is no basis for a finding
that any of these chemicals may
present an unreasonable risk of
injury to human health and no
substantial or significant human
exposure.  Also terminates proposed
environmental effects testing for
17 chemicals, because there is no
substantial release to the
environment, or adequate data
are available.
                                                              19
                                                              15

-------
                                     -24-
09/07/88
2-Mercaptobenzo-
thiazole
09/15/88
Methyl ethyl
ketoxime
Notice of Final Rulemaking;
requires health effects testing
for developmental and reproduc-
tive toxicity, neurotoxicity
and mutagenicity. Also requires
environmental effects and
chemical fate tests including
persistence and mobility, and
chronic aquatic toxicity.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
proposes health effects testing
for oncogenicity, mutagenicity,
developmental toxicity, repro-
ductive effects, neurotoxicity
and pharmacokinetics.
15
19
                             Other Testing Actions
02/05/88
Commercial hexane
02/26/88
Diethylene glycol
butyl ether
06/15/88
Office of Solid
Waste chemicals
Notice of Final Rulemaking;
requires testing for oncogeni-
city, mutagenicity, neuro-
toxicity, inhalation and
dermal pharmacokinetics, also
subchronic, reproductive and
developmental toxicity.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;
requires testing for subchronic
toxicity with particular emphasis
on reproductive, hematological
and kidney effects, neurotoxicity,
developmental neurotoxicity
and pharmacokinetics.

Notice of Final Rulemaking;
requires subchronic toxicity
testing for 8 chemicals,
hydrolysis testing for 17, and
soil sorption testing for 7.
Also recommends anaerobic bio-
degradation testing for 32.

-------
                               -25-
REGULATION OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND MIXTURES
     EPA has the authority to prohibit or limit the manufacture,
import, processing, distribution in commerce, use or disposal of
a chemical that poses an unreasonable risk of injury to human
health or the environment.  Under  section 6, a number of possible
control options are available, ranging from total prohibition to
labeling.
     Five section  6 rules were published in Fiscal Year 1987; an
additional 6 were  published in Fiscal Year 1988.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls  (PCBs)
     Since the first PCB rules were published in 1978, EPA has
developed a comprehensive control  program for these toxic
chemicals.  EPA regulates every phase of PCB's existence through
rules that generally ban the manufacture, processing, and
distribution of PCBs in commerce;  strictly limit the use of PCB-
containing electrical equipment, and require proper disposal of
PCBs.  In FY '87 and FY '88, EPA expanded its PCB control program
to meet newly identified needs.
     EPA promulgated its Polychlorinated Biphenyls Spill Cleanup
Policy on April 2, 1987 (52 FR 10688).  The policy establishes
the measures that  EPA considers adequate to clean up most PCB
spills that occur  during activities regulated by TSCA.
     EPA proposed  (July 8, 1987; 52 FR 25838) and finalized
(June 27, 1988; 53 FR 24206) amendments to the PCB Exclusions,
Exemption and Use  Rule.  The final rule amends existing rules by
excluding additional materials containing less than  50 ppm PCBs

-------
from regulation under section 6(e).  EPA has found that



activities allowed under the rule do not present unreasonable



risks of injury to public health or the environment.



     EPA proposed  (August 21, 1987; 52 FR 31738) and finalized



(July 19, 1988; 53 FR 27322) amendments to a rule governing the



use of PCBs in electrical transformers.  The rule: (1) describes



the limited circumstances under which PCB transformers can be



installed in buildings;  (2) prohibits the use of radial PCB (high



secondary voltage) transformers after October 1, 1990; (3)



requires that low secondary voltage network transformers located



in or near commercial buildings be removed from service by



October 1, 1993, if not equipped with enhanced electrical



protection; and (4) requires low secondary voltage transformers



located in sidewalk vaults be removed by October 1, 1993.



     EPA has proposed a rule that would address 12 individual



and class petitions for exemption from the prohibition against



the manufacture, processing and distribution of PCBs in commerce.



The proposed rule  (August 24, 1988; 53 FR 32326) would grant 8 of



the petitions and deny the remaining 4.



     EPA also proposed a rule to amend storage and disposal



regulations covering PCBs (September 26, 1988; 53 FR 374360).



The proposed rule would improve the tracking system for PCB



wastes, and add an approval mechanism for commercial storers who



accept and store PCB wastes prior to their disposal.



     EPA,  in an action related to regulation of PCBs under



section 6,  notified the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries,

-------
                               -27-



Inc., and state and municipal officials of TSCA's prohibitions on



the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use and



disposal of PCBs.  The Agency took this action in spring, 1988,



when it became aware that some non-metallic shredded waste from



metal recycling operations  (called "fluff") was contaminated with



PCBs.  EPA responded to inquiries from industry, state and local



governments, and the Congress about the applicability of PCB



regulations, and to requests for additional Federal guidance.



Asbestos



     EPA is one of several  Federal agencies that regulates



asbestos, a substance which can cause cancer and chronic lung



disease.  Together, they provide a comprehensive program that



protects workers and the public from asbestos exposure.  Major



EPA rules address asbestos-containing materials in schools, and



protection of state and local government workers involved in



asbestos abatement activities.  Rules developed in FY '87 and '88



broaden these protections.



     Under section 6 of Title I of TSCA, EPA promulgated a final



rule that strengthens protection of state and local government



asbestos workers (February  25, 1987; 52 FR 5623).  It establishes



requirements which must be  followed during asbestos abatement



projects by employers of state and local government employees,



who are not otherwise covered by EPA or Occupational Safety and



Health Administration rules.



     EPA also issued a final rule under Title II of TSCA  (AHERA)



regulating asbestos-containing materials in schools

-------
                               -28-



(October 30, 1987; 52 FR 41826).  It requires all local education



agencies to identify asbestos-containing materials and take



appropriate action to control the release of asbestos fibers.



     In 1988 EPA released the draft Regulatory Impact Analysis



for the final rule on asbestos phaseout.



Hexavalent Chromium Chemicals



     EPA proposed a rule (March 29, 1988; 53 FR 10206) that would



prohibit the commercial use of hexavalent chromium-based water



treatment chemicals in new and existing comfort cooling towers



(CCTs).  The proposal also would prohibit their distribution for



use in comfort cooling towers.  EPA is taking this action because



it has determined that the use of these chemicals in CCTs



presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and that



TSCA is the most effective means to control this risk.  EPA has



determined that hexavalent chromium compounds are potent cancer-



causers in humans.



     Risk to public health from hexavalent chromium air emissions



from CCTs typically would be addressed under the Clean Air Act



(CAA)-  Consequently, pursuant to TSCA section 9, EPA-compared



the potential requirements for regulating these emissions-under



TSCA and the CAA to determine which was most appropriate.  After



analysis, the Agency found that Section 6 provided the best



regulatory and enforcement options, that TSCA is the most



appropriate authority for this rulemaking, and that it is in the



public interest to protect against this risk under TSCA.

-------
                               -29-



Procedural Rule



     EPA has proposed a rule to amend its procedural regulations



(June 17, 1987; 52 FR 23054) to clarify that rulemaking under



section 6 of TSCA may begin with publication in the Federal



Register of a notice of proposed rulemaking, an advance notice of



proposed rulemaking, or notice of other appropriate action



designed to lead to issuance of rules within a reasonable time.

-------
                               -30-
RELATIONSHIP OF TSCA TO OTHER FEDERAL LAWS
     TSCA requires EPA to coordinate its activities with those of
other federal agencies involved in control of toxic chemicals.
During Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988, EPA worked with U.S.
government agencies, as well as representatives of other nations,
on complex chemical control issues.
Research
     EPA has funded joint projects with the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to improve its ability
to assess exposure to chemicals regulated under the
Premanufacture Notification program.   These studies contribute
significantly to the Agency's assessments of industrial exposure,
and to the development of new methods to evaluate exposure
control options.
     Projects that were completed or are under way now include:
     * A study of airborne exposure while using glove bags during
removal of asbestos-containing pipe coatings, and of the
potential to reduce exposures by improving design;
     * A study of the effectiveness of technologies for reducing
asbestos exposure during brake maintenance;
     * Development of improved monitoring techniques to measure
aerosol concentrations in biotechnology facilities;
     * Surveys of facilities using acrylate formulations in inks
and coatings, to characterize exposure to a class of chemicals
frequently encountered in new chemical review;
     * Surveys and monitoring of facilities using butadiene;

-------
                               -31-
     * Research on respirators to determine actual workplace
protection factors.
     EPA assisted the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) with the design and implementation of the HUD national
survey of lead-based paint in residences, as well as the HUD
lead-based paint abatement demonstration project, which will
measure the efficacy and cost of methods for reducing health
risks from exposure to lead-based paint.
     The Agency also participated with the General Services
Administration (GSA), in a pilot study of inspection and
maintenance practices for managing asbestos in buildings, and in
a pilot program of inspection and training for managing of
asbestos in public buildings.  In related activity, EPA and GSA
held a series of training sessions across the country to instruct
technical staff in proper inspection and management practices.
     Another asbestos-related project was the development, with
the National Institute for Standards and Technology, of two
asbestos laboratory accreditation programs.  One program covers
laboratories analyzing bulk materials from buildings to determine
their asbestos content; the other, laboratories that analyze the
asbestos content of air samples collected following asbestos
abatement projects.
Data Collection and Review
     Senior managers of EPA meet regularly with senior managers
from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration  (OSHA) and
NIOSH as part of the OSHA-NIOSH-EPA  (ONE) Committee.  Members of

-------
                               -32-



the ONE Committee have met about once a month for the past two



years to ensure coordination among the three Federal agencies



with responsibility for the Federal occupational health program.



The Committee's goal is, through discussion of risk assessment



and regulatory matters, and coordination of activities, to



operate the three programs as "One" national program.  EPA



maintains the Chemical Activity Calendar database for the ONE



Committee, tracking information about some 1,200 chemicals that



are or may be considered for testing or regulatory action.



     During 1987 and 1988, EPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances



and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the National Toxicology Program



(NTP), and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory reviewed data for



chemicals of mutual interest to agencies under TSCA, as well as



the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act for chemicals on



the National Priority List.  In coordination with the other



agencies, EPA assisted ATSDR in preparing toxicological profiles



of these chemicals and submitted them for joint agency review.



     EPA and NTP sponsored a Workshop on the Relationship Between



Short-term Test Information and Carcinogenicity in January, 1987.



The workshop provided the data that are needed to update the



mutagenicity testing scheme used to determine test requirements



under sections 4 and 5 of TSCA.



     EPA has helped other agencies meet its standards for



cleaning up spills of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).  EPA



reviewed PCB plans for the Department of Interior, the General

-------
                               -33-



Services Administration, military  facilities, the  Department of



Energy, and the U.S. Customs Service.



     During 1987 and 1988, EPA participated  in the interagency



Biotechnology Science Coordination Committee.  This group, with



members from the U.S. Department of Agriculture  (USDA), National



Science Foundation  (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH),



and Food and Drug Administration  (FDA), met  concerning EPA's



development of a regulatory program on biotechnology products.



     EPA also coordinated its review of microorganisms subject to



the TSCA Premanufacture  Notification program with  several



agencies to assure  the safety of microbial products, while



minimizing impediments to technological and  economic advances in



biotechnology.  EPA consulted, on  a case-by-case basis, with



USDA, FDA, NIH and  the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).



Before completing its assessment of a microorganism's potential



risk to human health or  the environment, EPA obtained comments



from the appropriate agencies.



     EPA's Office of Toxic Substances leads  an interagency



committee on chlorinated solvents, whose members are drawn from



EPA offices, OSHA,  CPSC, and FDA.  The committee's  goals are to



determine whether chlorinated solvents present an  unreasonable



risk of injury to human  health and the environment, and whether



regulatory controls are  needed to  eliminate  or reduce exposures



to them.  Four major use categories are being studied:  Dry



cleaning, solvent cleaning, paint  stripping, and aerosols.



Analyses of the first two categories have been completed.

-------
                               -34-
     Frequently, chemicals reported to EPA under the new
chemicals program raise workplace exposure concerns.  EPA
coordinates its efforts to provide adequate hazard communication
and worker training with OSHA.  The Agency's goal is to ensure
that EPA's requirements parallel OSHA's Hazard Communication
Standard.
     EPA participated in OSHA's efforts to update Permissible
Exposure Levels for workplace exposure to certain chemicals.  EPA
reviewed the proposed standards, focusing on obtaining broad-
based scientific feedback on chemicals for which there are
potentially serious scientific or policy issues, and reported its
findings to OSHA.
International Activities
     EPA played a lead role in the design, planning and
implementation of the EXICHEM data base, introduced by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in
November, 1987.  This data base contains information from member
countries of OECD on ongoing and planned activities on existing
chemicals. •      .      -                                 ,
     EPA also participates in OECD chemical-specific information
clearinghouses which facilitate the exchange of information among
member countries.  EPA manages two of these clearinghouses, and
actively contributes to the others.
     EPA also regularly contributes data to the WHO/International
Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) data base called Computerized
Listing of Chemicals Being Testing for Toxic Effects (CCTTE).

-------
                               -35-



This data base carries information of ongoing or recently



performed toxicological research, such as chronic and subchronic



health effects studies.  IPCS distributes it world-wide to help



prevent duplication of testing.



     The Agency is now engaged in discussions on a cooperative



testing program regarding dinitrotoluenes with the Federal



Republic of Germany, and multilateral discussions are underway to



identify overlapping data needs on paradichlorobenzene.



     EPA has worked with the government of Mexico on building a



hazardous waste/PCB incinerator in Tijuana, and has provided



engineering support for the project.  The Agency will assist



Mexico in 1989 when tests of the new facility begin.

-------
                               -36-



COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT



     EPA has developed specific strategies to enforce regulations



under TSCA.  These strategies identify and rank possible



violations, identify the available tools for compliance



monitoring, specify how these tools are to be used, and provide a



formula to determine the application of inspection resources.



Where inspections uncover violations of TSCA requirements, EPA



levies civil penalties, as authorized by section 16 of TSCA.



Program Action



     During FY 1987, EPA developed and issued compliance



monitoring strategies for the TSCA section 8(a) Inventory Update



Rule and the proposed CAIR Rule.  EPA also developed and issued a



TSCA section 8, 12, and 13 Enforcement Response Policy (ERP), as



well as a clarification of the TSCA section 5 ERP (Notices of



Commencement).



     In addition, EPA continued cooperative enforcement programs



to monitor compliance with the PCB regulations in the following



States:  California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas,



Maryland, .Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio,



Puerto Rico, Texas, and Washington.   EPA also continued



cooperative enforcement agreements to monitor compliance with



Asbestos-In-Schools regulations in the States of Arizona,



Colorado, Iowa, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas, West



Virginia, and Wisconsin.  In FY 1987, the states conducted 1,143



PCB compliance inspections and 877 Asbestos-In-Schools compliance



inspections.

-------
                               -37-
     The Oklahoma Asbestos-In-Schools and the Florida PCB
cooperative enforcement agreement programs were completed in FY
1987.
     In FY 1988, a compliance monitoring strategy was developed
and issued for TSCA Title II  (AHERA).  EPA amended the compliance
monitoring strategy for the Asbestos Abatement Projects Worker
Protection Rule and the PCB Strategy, and proposed revisions to
the TSCA Good Laboratory Practice  (GLP) regulations.
     EPA developed and issued a revised Policy ERP for TSCA
section 5; an ERP for the Immediately Enforceable Provisions of
AHERA; a policy on the transition from the Asbestos-In-Schools
Rule  (AIS) to AHERA, and a clarification of the TSCA section 6
PCB ERP.
     EPA continued cooperative enforcement programs to monitor
compliance with the PCB regulations  in the States of California,
Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Puerto Rico, Texas,
and Washington; as well as cooperative enforcement agreements to
monitor compliance with Asbestos regulations in the states of
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, New Hampshire,
Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.  In FY
1988, the States conducted 1,253 PCB compliance inspections and
468 asbestos compliance inspections.

-------
                               -38-



Compliance Actions



     In FY 1987 and FY 1988 EPA conducted a broad range of



inspections for TSCA requirements.



     In FY 1987, EPA, along with 14 state agencies cooperating



under the terms of enforcement grants-in-aid, conducted 2,616 PCB



compliance monitoring inspections.  In addition, the Agency,



operating under a cooperative agreement with the American



Association of Retired Persons, and the States of Arizona,



Colorado, Iowa, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas, West



Virginia, and Wisconsin conducted 2,694 Asbestos-In-Schools



inspections.



     EPA also monitored compliance with TSCA sections 4, 5, 8,



and 13.  EPA inspected 13 laboratories conducting testing under



TSCA to determine if the laboratories were in compliance with GLP



requirements.  During these inspections EPA conducted 21 audits



of health and environmental tests to determine if testing had



been conducted according to test protocols, and if reports



accurately reflected study findings.  EPA also conducted over 814



inspections to determine compliance with sections 5 and 8



requirements.  The Agency conducted a total of 864 inspections to



determine compliance with section 13, chemical import require-



ments .



     In FY 1988, EPA, along with 14 state agencies cooperating



under the terms of enforcement grants-in-aid, conducted 2,554 PCB



compliance monitoring inspections.  In addition, the Agency,



operating under a cooperative agreement with the American

-------
                               -39-
Association of Retired Persons, and the  states  of Arizona,
Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas,
Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, conducted 1,233 Asbestos
inspections.
     The Agency also monitored compliance with  TSCA sections 4,
5, 8, and 13 requirements.  EPA inspected 17 laboratories to
determine if they were in compliance with GLP requirements.
During these inspections EPA  conducted 29 audits of health and
environmental tests to determine if testing had been conducted
according to test protocols,  and if reports accurately reflected
study findings.  EPA also conducted over 816 inspections to
determine compliance with section  5 and  8 requirements.  The
Agency conducted a total of 673 inspections to  determine
compliance with section 13, chemical import requirements.
International
     During FY  '88, EPA entered into "Memoranda of Understanding"
with the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Japan  regarding Good
Laboratory Practices.  Each agreement calls for the reciprocal
recognition of each country's good laboratory practice compliance
program, acceptance of test data generated in each country for
evaluation of safety, and implementation of procedures for
continuing mutual cooperation between the countries.  The
Memoranda of Understanding were signed with Japan in September
1987, with the United Kingdom in March 1988, and with Switzerland
in June 1988.

-------
                               -40-



Civil Enforcement Actions



     In FY 1987, a total of 1,051 administrative complaints were



issued.  For failure to comply with the import certification



requirements (section 13) the Agency issued 25 civil



administrative complaints.  The Agency issued 563 civil



administrative complaints for alleged violations of the section 6



asbestos-in-schools requirements and 445 administrative



complaints as a result of PCS inspections.  In addition, EPA



issued 5 civil complaints for alleged violations of section 8 and



13 civil complaints for violations of section 5.



     In FY 1988, the Regions and Headquarters issued a total of



607 administrative complaints.  For failure to comply with the



import certification requirements (section 13) the Agency issued



20 civil administrative complaints.   The Agency issued 81 civil



administrative complaints for alleged violations of the section 6



asbestos requirements and 475 administrative complaints as a



result of PCB inspections.  In addition, EPA issued 11 civil



complaints for alleged violations of section 8 and 15' civil



complaints for violations of section 5.  Moreover, 5 civil



complaints were issued for violations of Section 4.



   '  Figures for each EPA Regional Office and Headquarters appear



in Tables 5 and 6.



     The following are case summaries of significant TSCA civil



administrative and judicial cases concluded during FY 87 and



FY 88.

-------
                               -41-

United States v. Alveska Pipeline  Service Company   (No. 86-4427;
D.C. No. CV86-583-F, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals)

     EPA filed a Motion To Show Cause in the District Court of

Alaska to require the Alyeska  Pipeline Service Company to comply

with an investigative subpoena issued to Alyeska, in response to

allegations that they were mishandling chemical substances or

waste materials.  In December, 1987, Chief Judge Fitzgerald, of

the District Court of Alaska,  issued a written opinion upholding

the Agency's authority to use  TSCA section 11 subpoenas to

conduct investigations.  The decision is the first written

decision of any court concerning EPA's TSCA subpoena authority.

The decision was upheld in January, 1988 by the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals.

U.S. v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation  (Civil Action 88-
1917, lodged with the U.S. District Court, Houston, TX)

     This action requires Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation,

which owns and operates a natural  gas pipeline system that

stretches from the Gulf Coast  to the northeast United States, to

pay a civil penalty of $15 million, the largest amount ever

obtained for violation of an environmental statute.

     In late 1987, EPA initiated enforcement action against Texas

Eastern to obtain remediation  of contamination caused by

discharge of liquids contaminated  with PCBs and other pollutants

to earthen pits and other sites along the pipeline system.  On

June 10, 1988, ,a Consent Decree was lodged with the District

Court settling the Agency's enforcement action.  The provisions

of the Consent Decree establish several important precedents for

-------
                               -42-



EPA enforcement activities.  In addition to payment of the civil



penalty, Texas Eastern is required to complete an investigation



and cleanup of all compressor station sites and other



contaminated areas.  The estimated $400 million cost for



characterization and remediation is the largest commitment for



environmental cleanup ever obtained from a single company.  Texas



Eastern also is required to implement extensive modifications to



pipeline equipment and operating procedures, and to pay up to $18



million to fund the oversight of characterization and remediation



activities.



American Telephone and Telegraph Company  (Docket No. 87-H-09)



     This action was brought seeking civil penalties for the



illegal production and use of two chemical substances that the



American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) had manufactured,



without first listing the chemicals with the TSCA Chemical



Substances Inventory, as required by section 5 of TSCA.  A civil



penalty of $2.65 million dollars was sought in the complaint.



Although AT&T voluntarily disclosed the violations to EPA, EPA



viewed these violations as serious because the Agency was



precluded from conducting required premanufacture safety review



of the chemicals before the substances were manufactured and



distributed in commerce.  In the settlement, AT&T agreed to pay a



civil penalty of $1.0 million dollars and to implement a number



of specific types of compliance activities, including: Corporate-



wide employee education concerning TSCA requirements, payment of



all costs for a number of public service announcements about TSCA

-------
                               -43-



requirements applicable to the electronics and  semiconductor



industry, and the initiation and completion of  a comprehensive



TSCA compliance survey audit at all AT&T domestic  facilities.



The compliance survey, which began in July, 1987,  will assess



compliance with sections 5, 8(a), 8(c), 8(d), 12,  and 13 of TSCA.



EPA retained the authority to initiate criminal enforcement



actions or actions to abate situations involving imminent hazards



during the term of the compliance survey.  For violations



discovered by AT&T as the result of the audit, AT&T agreed to pay



as a stipulated penalty the sum of $10,000 for each chemical



found to be in violation of any or all of TSCA section 5, 8(a),



8(c), 8(d), 12, or 13, unless EPA determines that  the chemical or



chemical substances presents an unreasonable risk  of injury to



health or the environment.  For chemicals identified in the



survey and found by EPA to represent an unreasonable risk, EPA



reserved the right to seek penalties of up to $1.0 million per



chemical.



Canon U.S.A. Incorporated  (Docket No. 86-H-03)



     Canon U.S.A. of Lake Success, New York, the American



subsidiary of the Japanese Canon Corporation, was  charged in this



administrative complaint with violations of TSCA section 5



premanufacture notice requirements and the section 13 import



certification requirements.  These violations arose in connection



with the manufacture and import into the United States of two



photocopier toners containing chemical substances  not listed on



the TSCA inventory.  The complaint sought a civil  penalty of $1.6

-------
                               -44-



million dollars.  Canon voluntarily disclosed the violations to



EPA upon their discovery.



     The consent agreement negotiated in the Canon case requires



the payment of a civil penalty of $400,000 and the initiation and



satisfactory completion of a number of items of specific



performance, including: Development and implementation of a



training program on U.S. requirements; translation of EPA TSCA



requirements, regulations and guidance documents into the



Japanese language; and presentation of a comprehensive seminar on



American TSCA requirements for Japanese businesses involved in



the export of chemicals to the United States.  This seminar was



held in Tokyo, Japan in the spring of 1987 and included the



participation of several representatives of EPA's Office of



Pesticides and Toxic Substances.



DeLonghi America. Inc.   (Docket No.  87-H-04)



     This action concerns the illegal import, sale, distribution



in commerce and export of oil-filled portable electric space



heaters from Italy by. DeLonghi.  The violations were initially



discovered by Environment Canada.  EPA tests confirmed that



several shipments of heaters contained oil contaminated with high



levels of PCBs.  The import of PCBs and PCB items was banned in



1980.  Since these heaters were sold in commerce for home use,



EPA considered the violations to be serious.  EPA issued a civil



administrative complaint for the assessment of a $1,507,000



penalty for these violations.  DeLonghi entered into a consent



agreement with the Agency on June 8, 1988.  The agreement

-------
                               -45-



requires DeLonghi to pay a penalty of  $500,000 for the illegal



import and export.  In addition, DeLonghi will send out notices



to 70,000 warranty card holders, informing them that the heaters



with serial numbers 86-20 or  lower may contain PCBs.  A toll-free



phone number to assist consumers and retailers with questions



about the handling and disposal of these appliances will be set



up.  A quality assurance program to ensure that future imports



are PCB-free will also be established.



Exxon Chemical Americas   (Docket No. 86-H-02)



     This action charged Exxon with three violations of TSCA for



failure to submit a notice of its intention to manufacture a new



chemical substance as required by TSCA section 5.  Exxon provided



the Agency with batch production records revealing that it had



manufactured and used for a commercial purpose a chemical



substance not listed on the TSCA inventory.  The complaint sought



a civil penalty of $34,350.   In settlement, Exxon agreed to pay a



civil penalty of $22,000 and to destroy all remaining quantities



of the illegally produced chemical substance.



Mitsubishi International Corporation   (Docket No. 86-H-04)



     This complaint charged Mitsubishi International with the



illegal import of a chemical substance on nine separate occasions



prior to the submission of a Premanufacture Notice (PMN), as



required by TSCA section 5, and of violation of the U.S. Custom



Service regulations promulgated pursuant to TSCA section 13.  An



adjusted gravity based penalty of $280,000 was proposed.  In



settlement of this action, Mitsubishi  agreed to pay a civil

-------
                               -46-
penalty of $98,000 and to return 31,000 pounds of the
unregistered chemical to Japan.
BASF Corporation and BASF Inmont Division  (Docket No. TSCA
87-H-05)
     The Agency issued an administrative civil complaint against
BASF Corporation and one of its divisions, Inmont, seeking a
civil penalty of $4.3 million dollars for violation of the TSCA
section 5 and 13 requirements when it imported seven chemical
substances into the United States without completing the
premanufacture notice requirements of TSCA and for false
certification of U.S. Customs Service import certifications.
Manufacturers or importers are required to notify the Agency of
their intent to manufacture or import new chemicals so the Agency
can evaluate any hazards posed by the chemicals before they are
manufactured or brought into the United States.  This was the
sixth civil complaint filed against BASF or its subsidiaries for
violations of TSCA, and the proposed penalty included an
increased civil penalty for prior TSCA violations, in eonformance
with the Agency's TSCA Civil Penalty Policy.  This penalty was
the largest ever sought under TSCA for violations other than
PCBs.  EPA has not disclosed which chemicals are involved, the
amounts produced or actual uses, because such information has
been claimed as confidential business information under TSCA
section 14.
     In lieu of a trial, BASF agreed to settle this action by
paying a civil penalty of $1,281,950 and to conduct a corporate-
wide environmental audit of more than 150 domestic facilities.

-------
                               -47-
In addition, BASF agreed to pay for the publication of TSCA-
compliance public service announcements in approved trade
publications and to sponsor two training seminars on U.S. TSCA
requirements for European manufacturers who ship chemicals to the
United States.  The seminars were  presented at no cost to members
of the Verbund Chemischen Industries  (VCI) in Frankfurt, West
Germany in 1988.  The environmental compliance audit is due to be
completed in March, 1989.  BASF has agreed to disclose all
violations of TSCA discovered during  the course of the audit and
to pay stipulated penalties for violations.
U.S. v. Hollowav Oil Company   (Case No. 88-59-CIV-J-14)
     The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida handed down a Summary Judgment Order which will
substantially bolster administrative  enforcement.  EPA filed an
administrative enforcement action  against Holloway in May 1985,
charging the company with numerous PCB violations.  When the
company failed to submit a pre-hearing exchange, a Default Order
was  entered in December 1985 imposing a $26,000 penalty.  In
January, 1988, EPA filed an action in federal district court for
collection  of the unpaid penalty and  for a permanent injunction
to compel compliance with the PCB  regulations.
     The Court ruled that TSCA prohibits reconsideration of an
administrative law judge's penalty assessment in the context of a
penalty collection action filed in federal district court.  The
Court noted that under TSCA, Holloway could have filed a petition

-------
                               -48-

for judicial review of the administrative penalty assessment

within 30 days of the final assessment.  Having failed to act

within that period of time, Holloway forfeited its right to

challenge that assessment.

Boliden Metech. Inc. v United States   (Case No. 88-0081L, D.C. of
Rhode Island)

     On September 20, 1988, the District Court of Rhode Island

issued a decision that supports the Agency's authority to obtain

administrative search warrants under TSCA, potentially under

other environmental statutes which give the agency inspection

authority.

     In July, 1987, EPA issued an administrative complaint

against Boliden Metech, a precious metal salvage company.  The

company, located on the Providence River in Rhode Island is

storing shredded computer waste containing PCBs in large

uncovered piles in violation of TSCA storage and disposal

regulations.  EPA is concerned about the amounts of PCBs which

tests show to be present in the shredded metal.  An

administrative hearing seeking a civil penalty was held in March,

1988 and a decision is pending.

     To develop additional data on the extent of the PCBs at the

site and to document PCB releases, EPA attempted to inspect the

site in January, 1988.  Boliden refused to allow the inspection,

and EPA obtained a search warrant.  The company then sought an

injunction in the District Court of Rhode Island asking that the

search warrant be declared illegal,  and to have the Court direct

-------
                               -49-



the EPA to return all of the  samples  obtained during the



inspections.  The company also asked  the  District Court to



declare that EPA lacks the authority  to obtain  search warrants



under TSCA because the statute does not explicitly state such



authority.  EPA and the Department of Justice vigorously



contested Boliden's position.  The Court  denied the company's  j



argument, and clearly supported EPA's use of search warrants.



U.S. v. N.O.C. Inc./Noble Oil   (Case  No.  87-3539 (CSF)



     The District Court of Mew Jersey has ordered Noble Oil to



pay a penalty of $40,000, plus interest for PCB violations



discovered in 1980.



     This action went to an EPA administrative  hearing in 1982.



Upon being found liable by the Administrative Law Judge Noble



appealed first to the EPA Judicial Officer, then to the Court of



Appeals for the Third Circuit and then to the U.S.  Supreme Court.



The Supreme Court denied certiorari in June of  1986 in the first



TSCA enforcement case ever appealed to the Supreme Court.



     In this important decision, the  District Court recognizes



the clear authority of the government to  seek to collect civil



penalties that have been administratively assessed.  The Court,



however, while acknowledging that it  cannot review the amount or



appropriateness of the penalty, did recognize that it has the



jurisdiction to review issues associated  with the appeal.



Villanova University  (Docket No. TSCA-III-159)



     In this action, EPA sought penalties of $28,000 against



Villanova University for a variety of violations of the PCB

-------
                               -50-

regulations including: Failure to maintain annual documents

($13,000); improper disposal (leak)  ($5,000); and failure to

properly store PCBs ($10,000).  The PCB storage area consisted of

neoprene rubber sheeting placed over steel beams.

     In evaluating the appropriate civil penalty for the

violations an Administrative Law Judge determined that the

appropriate penalty for failing to conduct PCB transformer

inspection (pre-1983)  was $1,500 and failure to maintain records

of the inspections was $2,000.  A penalty of $2,000 was imposed

for the improper storage area, for a total penalty of $5,000.

The Judge also noted that Villanova was quick to remedy the

violations and that it had spent about $250,000 to remove PCBs

and PCB equipment from the University.

Eastman Chemicals Division. Eastman Kodak Company  (Docket
No. 88-H-07)

     Eastman Chemicals, Kingsport, Tennessee, was charged in an

administrative civil complaint on September 16, 1988, with

manufacturing  four chemical substances that were not listed on

the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory.  TSCA section 5 requires

companies to notify the Agency 90 days prior to manufacturing a

substance that is not listed on the inventory.  This allows the

Agency to conduct a health and safety review on the substance

before it is manufactured.  The civil complaint proposed a

penalty of $1,260,000.  Eastman discovered and voluntarily

disclosed the violations to the Agency.  This matter is pending.

-------
                               -51-
Estron Chemicalf Incorporated   (Docket  No.  TSCA  88-H-08)
     Estron Chemical, Inc.,  Calvert  City, Kentucky, was cited in
an administrative civil  complaint  on September 26,  1988, for
failing to notify the Agency prior to manufacturing a chemical
substance that was not listed  on the TSCA Chemical  Substance
Inventory.  The complaint proposes a penalty  of  $135,000.  The
Agency's National Enforcement  Investigations  Center discovered
the violations during an inspection  of  the  company's facilities.
3M Company  (Docket No.  88-H-06)
     On September 2, 1988, EPA issued an administrative civil
complaint against the Minnesota Mining  and  Manufacturing (3M)
Company of St. Paul, Minnesota, assessing a $1,394,500 proposed
penalty for violations of sections 5 and 13 of TSCA.  The
violations were voluntarily  disclosed by 3M.  EPA cited 3M with
failing to notify EPA prior  to the importation of two chemical
substances that were not on  the TSCA Inventory.  The complaint
also cites the company for falsification of certified statements
/that were provided to the Customs  Service district  director at
the port of entry representing the true compliance  of the
chemical substances.
Enforcement Actions Involving  Criminal  Violations of TSCA
     In both Fiscal Year 1987  and  Fiscal Year 1988, there were
seven ongoing investigations of criminal violations of TSCA or
regulations promulgated  thereunder.   There were  other criminal
cases relating to TSCA offenses but  because TSCA only provides
misdemeanor penalties, charges were  brought under other

-------
                               -52-

environmental statutes, which provide more severe felony

penalties, principally the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA). In 1987 and 1988, the following individuals or

corporations were convicted or pled guilty to violations of TSCA:

United States v Robert E. Derecktor (District of Rhode Island.
Case No. 86-022)

     On December 29, 1986, Mr. Robert E. Derecktor, the president

of Robert E. Derecktor of Rhode Island Inc., was sentenced upon

his guilty pleas to various counts of a 46-count indictment that

had been filed on May 20, 1986, charging criminal violations of

six environmental statutes, including TSCA.  The company is the

operator of a shipyard for the building and repairing of vessels

located on Coddington Cove in Middletown.  The company had been

charged in the indictment with violations of TSCA regarding PCBs

and transformers from the shipyard which were found buried at a

farm in Portsmouth occupied by Robert E. Derecktor.  Mr.

Derecktor, on his plea of guilty to four counts of violating

TSCA, was sentenced to a fine of $25,000 on each of three counts

for a total of $75,000.  On the fourth count, imposition of a

term of imprisonment was suspended and he was placed on probation

for five years, with a special condition that he certify monthly

in writing to his probation office that the corporation is not in

violation of any environmental laws.  The company's environmental

compliance is being monitored by the Agency.

-------
                               -53-

United States v. Mervln Pollock  (Western  District of Missouri,
Case No. 87-00148-01-CR-W-8)

     On September 3,  1987, Mr. Merlyn  Pollock pled nolo

contendere to two TSCA misdemeanor counts of disposing of

electrical equipment  that contained PCBs, a violation of TSCA

sections 15 and  16  (b) . Mr.  Pollock had been indicted on June 23

for burying a high  voltage switch and  a capacitor, along with a

variety of RCRA  hazardous wastes,  on his  property.  On November

9, 1987, Mr. Pollock  was fined $35,000 and placed on two years

probation.

United States v. Patrick W.  Paciesas (Southern  District of
Ohio, Case No. 87-0059)

     On August 3, 1987, Mr.  Patrick W. Paciesas pled guilty in

front of U.S. Magistrate Robert  A.  Steinberg to a one-count

information charging  him with the knowing and willful disposal of

PCB-contaminated oil  in a manner not authorized by law, in

violation of TSCA section  15, 16 (b)  and 40 CFR  Part 761.60, a

misdemeanor.  Mr. Paciesas was president  of Sea Bright

Environmental Company, Inc.,  which is  involved  in the removal,

transportation and  disposal  of hazardous  waste  and the

decommissioning  of  electrical transformers and  capacitors.  As

president, he was involved in the dumping of the PCB-contaminated

oil onto the ground.   On September 28, 1987, Mr. Paciesas was

sentenced to two years probation,  100  hours of  community service

and mandatory enrollment in  an alcohol treatment program.

-------
                               -54-

United States v. Freeman Krum.  (Middle District of
Pennsylvania, Case No. 87-0071)

     Mr. Freeman Krum pled guilty on May 12, 1987, to a criminal

information filed under TSCA in the District Court for the Middle

District of Pennsylvania.  Mr. Krum agreed to plead on three

misdemeanor charges for the illegal storage and disposal of PCBs

and failure to maintain PCB inventory records as required by

TSCA.  Due to Mr. Krum's advanced age and ill health, the Court

sentenced Mr. Krum to eighteen months probation for these

offenses and directed that he no longer engage in any business

activity relating to the handling or disposal of PCBs or other

hazardous wastes.

United States v. Patrick Perrin (Western District of Missouri,
Case No. 87-00187-01-CR-W-9)

     On July 20, 1988, Patrick Perrin was sentenced to two years

in prison, as a consequence of his February 4, 1988, guilty plea

to one count of conspiracy to violate the federal laws and

regulations relating to the use, treatment, transportation,

storage, and disposal of PCBs.  Perrin was the plant manager for

the Martha C. Rose Chemical Company in Holden, Missouri which

transported and disposed of, among other things, electrical

transformers, capacitors and oil containing PCBs.

     On August 20, 1987, Perrin was indicted on two conspiracy

counts, one count of making false statements to the government,

and three counts of violating TSCA's rule concerning disposal of

PCBs (40 C.F.R.  Part 761.60).  The evidence showed that Perrin

from 1983 through 1986 altered and falsified labels on barrels

-------
                               -55-

containing PCBs to attempt to deceive  EPA  inspectors as to

whether PCBs were properly disposed  of within the one year time

period required by EPA regulations.  Company documents were also

altered to falsely indicate that  PCB items delivered to the

facility had been properly disposed  of.  The company would then

seek payment for such purported lawful disposal.

united States v. John Plantan  (Southern  District of Ohio,
Case No. CR-1-88-002)

     On July 25, 1988, John Plantan  was  sentenced, subsequent to

his May 20, 1988, guilty plea to  one misdemeanor count for the

illegal disposal of PCB-contaminated material, to one year in

jail (suspended), and two years probation. Mr. Plantan was also

required to place a notice in the Cincinnati newspaper outlining

his guilt in violating environmental laws  (TSCA sections 15 and

16 (b), and to notify those he has done  business with of his

guilt.  Plantan was an associate  of  Patrick Paciesas, president

of Sea Bright Environmental Services,  Inc., an Ohio corporation

which was involved in the removal, transportation and disposal of

hazardous waste and the decommissioning  of electrical

transformers and capacitors.

     During ,1983, in Cincinnati,  Ohio, Plantan supervised the

company practice of discharging PCB-contaminated oil on the

ground from electrical units and  from  fifty-five gallon drums

obtained by Sea Bright Environmental Services.

-------
                                              -56-
                                            Table  5
                                            FY  '87

                      Administrative Civil Actions Taken Under  Section  16
                        of TSCA, Complaints Issued, Cases Completed, and
                                 Amounts Assessed (by Regions)*
        Total
        No.         No.         Total No.
        Complaints  Complaints  Cases
        Issued      Issued      Completed
Region  FY'79-87    FY'87       FY'79-87
                                                             Total
                                                Total Civil  Penalties
                          No. Cases  Total No.  Penalties    (In $)
                          Completed  of Cases   Collected     collected
                          In FY'87** Pending    ($) in FY'87  FY'79-87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
HQ
160
478
271
297
801
307
405
326
210
253
41
50
128
78
113
186
86
144
111
61
82
12
98
334
192
174
601
256
177
190
163
85
29
24
93
58
31
171
96
34
54
64
15
9
62
144
79
123
200
51
228
136
47
168
12
289,215
418,297
456,892
40,385
442,640
223,424
305,070
275,270
366,335
136,976
1,782,500
772,950
2,824,112
1,260,697
469,912
5,679,519
1,759,669
816,105
736,785
1,058,790
575,071
3,737,250
TOTAL  3,549
1,051
2,299
649
1,250
4,737,004
 * All actions taken involved alleged violations of sections  4,5,6,8,  and 13.
** Includes cases carried over from FY 1980 - FY 1986.
                                19,690,860

-------
                                             -57-
                                            Table 6
                                            FY  '88

                     Administrative Civil Actions Taken Under Section 16
                       of TSCA, Complaints  Issued, Cases Completed, and
                                Amounts Assessed  (by Regions)*
       Total
       No.         No.         Total No.
       Complaints  Complaints  Cases
       Issued      Issued      Completed
Region  FY'79-88    FY'88       FY'79-88
TOTAL   4,156
607
                                                           Total
                                              Total Civil  Penalties
                        No. Cases  Total No.  Penalties    (In $)
                        Completed  of Cases   Collected     collected
                        In FY'88** Pending    ($) in FY'88  FY'79-88
1
2
3
4
5

7
8
9
10
HQ
187
564
338
349
921
366
461
387
239
295
49
27
86
67
52
120
59
56
61
29
42
8
122
445
224
204
721
299
229
302
202
118
37
24
111
32
30
120
43
52
112
39
33
8
65
119
114
145
200
67
232
85
37
177
12
467,439
730,205
311,416
201,585
448,027
109,100
81,075
196,880
254,130
248,435
2,077,765
1,240,389
3,554,317
1,572,113
671,497
6,127,546
1,868,769
897,180
933,665
1,312,920
823,506
5,815,015
2,903
                          604
1,253
5,126,057    24,816,917
 * All actions taken involved  alleged violations  of  sections  4,5,6,8,  and  13.
** Includes cases carried over from  FY 1980 - FY  1987.

-------
                               -58-
LITIGATION
     Lawsuits are filed against EPA under TSCA either to compel
EPA to undertake certain actions or to invalidate actions the
Agency has already taken.
     In the past, the greatest amount of defensive litigation
under TSCA involved PCBs.  There was extensive litigation on PCB
rulemaking resulting from the 1980 decision invalidating EPA's
original PCB rules.  All PCB litigation after 1980, however, has
resulted in EPA's agreeing to conduct additional rulemaking.
Fiscal year 1988 has seen the end for all practical purposes of
the PCB litigation resulting from the 1980 decision.  Currently,
there is only one significant active PCB lawsuit, a challenge to
EPA's approval of a PCB disposal facility in Henderson, Kentucky.
Occasionally, defendants in PCB administrative enforcement cases
appeal judgments to the Court of Appeals.
     Lately, the most significant cases are those challenging EPA
actions under section 4(a) of TSCA to require testing of
chemicals.  Nine cases have been filed altogether.  Two were
filed in the early stages of the Agency testing program by a
public interest group, The Natural Resources Defense Council.
The earliest case, in 1980, compelled EPA to increase the speed
of its testing program.  The next case, in 1984, invalidated
aspects of EPA's negotiated testing agreements.  Seven cases have
been filed over the past few years by the industry groups
challenging test rules.  Three, fluoroalkenes, ethylhexanoic
acid,  and mesityl oxide,  have resulted in opinions by the Court

-------
                               -59-
of Appeals.  One, cumene, was being  actively briefed as of the
end of fiscal year 1988.  The other  cases are  in various stages
of settlement.
     EPA has been sued under the  section 21 citizens' petition
provision to compel the Agency to regulate dioxins, to require
testing of certain chemical substances present in the environment
of the southeast area of  Chicago,  to regulate  asbestos in
buildings, and to amend its PCB regulations.   The dioxin case has
been settled.  The asbestos case  was effectively mooted by the
passage of Title II of TSCA, the  Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act  (AHERA), which dealt with the issues raised in the
suit.  The Chicago testing case is still pending, after having .,.,.
originally been filed in  1985.  Procedural motions are pending in
the PCB case.  EPA successfully defended-its asbestos in schools
regulation mandated under the Asbestos Hazard  Emergency Response-
Act (AHERA).
    . A petition for review was filed several years ago with
respect to the first significant  new use rule  under section
5(a)(2).  That case has been settled.             :
Polvchlorinated Biphenvl  rPCB) Rulemaking
     In 1979, the Environmental Defense Fund (EOF) petitioned for
review of EPA's regulations governing the manufacture,
processing, distribution, and use of PCBs.  A  decision largely in
EDF's favor was issued on October 30, 1980, EOF v. EPA, 636 F.2d
1267 (D.C. Cir.).

-------
                               -60-



     As a result of the Court's orders in this case, EPA issued



three additional PCB rules.  In August 1982, EPA issued a



regulation affecting the use of PCBs in electrical equipment; in



October 1982, the Agency issued a rule providing an exclusion



from the statutory ban for PCBs produced in closed manufacturing



processes or discharged into wastes that are disposed of in an



acceptable manner; finally, in July 1984 EPA issued a regulation



affecting other PCBs inadvertently generated in chemical



manufacturing processes.  These rules, in turn, have generated



other litigation and other regulation.



     Fiscal years 1987 and 1988 litigation developments are



described below.



     August 1982 Electrical Equipment Rule.  Previous TSCA Annual



Reports described the litigation and subsequent additional rules



resulting from the August 1982 rule.  PCB rulemaking activities



in fiscal years 1987 and 1988 are the result of a rule issued in



July 1985, which placed additional restrictions and conditions on



the use of PCB transformers in order to prevent risks from fires.



      MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY V. EPA (No. 85-4498, 5th Cir.)



Under the settlement EPA proposed a rule in August 1987 amending



the July 1985 rule to allow approximately one additional year to



phase out or institute measures to protect one class of PCB



transformers.  The final rule was promulgated July 19, 1988.  On



September 16, 1988,  Mississippi Power withdrew its petition for



review,  thus ending this phase of the litigation.

-------
                               -61-
     Julv 1984. Inadvertent Generation Rule,  in late September
1984, petitions for review of the July 1984 rule were filed by
the American Die Casting Institute and Outboard Marine
Corporation in the Seventh Circuit, and by the American Paper
Institute and Fort Howard Paper Company in the D. C. Circuit.
The Seventh Circuit petition was transferred to the D. C. Circuit
where the Court consolidated all cases — AMERICAN PAPER
INSTITUTE V. EPA  (No. 84-1481, D.C. Cir.) and CONSOLIDATED CASES.
The Chemical Manufacturers Association was granted permission to
intervene.  A settlement agreement was filed with the Court in
August 1986 by most of the parties.  EPA agreed to propose and
obtain public comment on amendments to allow certain activities
involving existing stocks of very low level PCB products and
materials.
     EPA also agreed to make a final decision on the proposal
within specified time frames.  The settling parties agreed to
dismiss the case if EPA would issue a final rule substantially
similar to the proposed amendments.  The Court was asked to hold
the proceeding in abeyance until the rulemaking could be
completed.
     Pursuant to the settlement agreement, EPA issued a proposed
rule in July 1987.  A final rule was issued in June 1988, which
satisfied the concerns of all petitioning parties.  The court is
expected to formally conclude this case during fiscal year 1989.

-------
                               -62-

Citizens' Petitions

Service Employees International Union (SEIU1 v. Ruckelshaus.  (No.
84-2790, D.D.C.)

     In November 1983, SEIU filed a citizens' petition under TSCA

section 21 requesting EPA to issue rules affecting asbestos in

schools and in public and commercial buildings and rules to

protect employees performing abatement activities.  In response

to this petition EPA eventually issued rules to protect certain

state and local government employees engaged in asbestos

abatement.  With respect to the other rules requested by SEIU,

EPA stated that it granted the petition, initiated a proceeding

by holding hearings to decide on its next course of action, and

ultimately decided not to proceed toward proposed rules.

     SEIU filed suit, in September 1984, in U.S. District Court

to compel issuance of the other rules it requested for schools

and other public and commercial buildings.

     After several years of litigation,  the court ordered EPA to

propose the rules requested by SEIU for both schools and other

buildings.  The court reasoned, in an October 24, 1986 opinion,

that EPA was obligated to propose rules because the Agency had

represented that it granted SEIU's petition.  The court

interpreted TSCA and EPA's procedural regulations to require the

Agency to propose a rule when it grants a section 21 petition to

issue rules under TSCA section 6(a).

     At approximately the same time as the court issued its

opinion, AHERA was enacted.  AHERA required EPA to issue

-------
                               -63-
regulations affecting asbestos  in  schools and to submit a study
to Congress which would assess  the risks of asbestos in other
public and commercial buildings and recommend whether rules were
appropriate for those buildings also.
     AHERA created some inconsistencies with the court order.
While EPA was able to comply with  the order affecting schools by
meeting the AHERA mandate, AHERA created a conflict with the
court's order as it applied to  non-school public and commercial
buildings.  The order required  proposed rules; AHERA only
mandated a study.  In June 1987, at EPA's request and in
deference to Congress, the court vacated its order regarding
non-school buildings.
     EPA complied with both AHERA  and the district court order by
promulgating rules affecting asbestos in schools.  EPA
successfully defended these rules  against a challenge in the
United States Court of Appeals  for the District of Columbia
Circuit.  See Safe Buildings Alliance v. EPA. 846 F.2d 79 (1988).
This case is explained below.
     In February 1988, EPA submitted to Congress its study on
public and commercial buildings, concluding that rules were not
yet appropriate for those buildings.  SEIU, thereupon, petitioned
the district court to clarify or reconsider its June 1987 order
vacating the requirement for EPA to propose rules for public and
commercial buildings.
     Before the court could hear the parties on this motion, EPA
and SEIU settled the district court litigation.  The U.S.

-------
                               -64-

Government paid SEIU approximately $220,000 in attorneys fees and

SEIU agreed that EPA no longer had any obligations with regard to

the SEIU petition.  EPA agreed to consider, in accordance with

TSCA section 21, any further SEIU petitions on asbestos in public

and commercial buildings.

Environmental Defense Fund  (EOF) and National Wildlife Federation
(NWF1 V. Thomas.  (No. 85-0973, D.D.C.)

     Plaintiffs brought this action after EPA had denied, in

part, their TSCA section 21 citizens' petition to issue

comprehensive regulations under TSCA on certain isomers of the

chemicals known as dioxins.  These are substances chemically

similar in structure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

(TCDD) and which, according to plaintiffs, may present risks

similar to TCDD.

     In early 1986 plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the Court

to order EPA to initiate rulemaking because the Agency's

explanation published in the Federal Register was improper as a

matter of law-  EPA opposed plaintiffs' request arguing that its

denial was in accordance with statutory requirements.  In March

1987, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion, stating that under

TSCA the form of the denial does not affect the type of judicial

action permitted under TSCA section 21.  The court reasoned that,

when EPA denies a section 21 petition, plaintiffs are only

entitled to a de novo proceeding before the Court, regardless of

the reasons stated by the Agency.

-------
                               -65-
     In July 1988, EDF and NWF  reached  a  settlement with EPA
under which the Agency agreed,  within specified time frames over
a number of years, to undertake certain actions relating to
dioxins.  Some actions would be under TSCA authority, but many
would be taken under authority  of  other Agency-administered
statutes.  Specifically,  EPA agreed  to  consider the appropriate
Agency actions to take with respect  to  (l) commercial chemicals
that testing shows are contaminated  with  dioxins,  (2) activities
at pulp and paper mills that could cause  dioxin contamination,
(3) wastes from the wood  preservative industry, and (4) air
emissions from municipal  waste  combustors.  In addition, EPA
agreed to issue studies on hospital  waste incinerators.
     In September 1988, EDF and NWF  filed an appeal from the
district court's opinion  that they were only entitled to a de
novo proceeding when EPA  denied their petition.
     At the end of fiscal year  1988, the  parties were engaged in
discussions related to settlement  of attorneys fees in the
district court litigation.
Citizens for a Better Environment, et al. v. Lee M. Thomas.
(No.85 C 08000, N. 111.)
     In September 1985, two public interest groups challenged
EPA's decision denying their petition filed pursuant to section
21 of TSCA in April 1985.  The  petition had requested EPA to
identify business entities in the  southeast area of Chicago which
were releasing 11 named chemical substances into the environment
and to initiate rulemaking under TSCA section 4(a) to require

-------
                               -66-



testing on the chemical substances — including testing for



cumulative and antagonistic effects.



     EPA denied the petition, in part, on the basis that there



are no available test standards for studying cumulative effects



of chemical substances.  In addition the denial notice indicated



that health effects data were adequate for regulatory assessment.



Finally, the notice stated that EPA had already identified 44



businesses in southeast Chicago which emit pollutants into the



air, and that EPA was conducting a variety of environmental



investigations in southeast Chicago.



     The discovery process, wherein each side may request



documents and depositions from the other side, is reaching its



final stages.



     Two steel companies, which had intervened as defendants,



filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in July 1988.  They



argued that TSCA section 21 violates the separation of powers



doctrine of the U.S. Constitution because it authorizes a federal



district court to order EPA to initiate ruleraaking after a de



novo trial.  Plaintiffs argued that section 21 was no different



from any other statute allowing a court to review agency decision



making.  This motion was pending before the court at the end of



fiscal year 1988.



Dr. David G. Walker v. EPAf (No. H-87-3552; S.D.Tex., Houston)



     In March 1987, Dr. Walker filed a citizens' petition under



TSCA section 21 asking EPA to exclude from its current



regulations polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), containing three

-------
                               -67-

chlorine atoms or less.  EPA  denied the petition on  the grounds

that in previous proceedings  involving PCBs  the  Agency had

already considered, and rejected,  the  arguments  raised by Dr.

Walker.  The court is currently  considering  various  procedural

motions raised by EPA and plaintiff.

PCB Activities

Michael D. Vanderveer and Citv of  Evansville. Indiana v. EPA and
Unison Transformer Services.  Inc.,  
-------
                               -68-

     EPA argues that its approval was in accordance with its TSCA

regulations and that TSCA is the appropriate authority to approve

the Unison facility.  The parties are awaiting the court's

decision.

Jack Pierce, d/b/a Jack Pierce Waste Oil. Inc. v. EPA.
(No. 86- 1486, 7th Cir.)

     Jack Pierce sought review of a $29,000 penalty assessed by

EPA for violation of the Agency's PCB disposal regulations.

Pierce challenged EPA's determination that he owned the tanks

from which PCBs spilled and the legal conclusion that he could be

held personally liable for a violation alleged to be caused by

his business.  The case was settled under an agreement whereby

EPA received a civil penalty payment of $14,000 and agreed to

vacate its decision on personal liability.

New Orleans Public Service. Inc. fNOPSI) v. EPA. (No. 86-4577,
5th Cir.)

     NOPSI sought review of a penalty assessed by EPA for

improper disposal of PCB-contaminated transformers.  NOPSI

claimed it was not the owner of the transformers, which were

being removed by the building owner when the spill occurred.  The

Court reversed the Agency's penalty order and remanded the case

for further proceedings.  The Agency will not seek further

review.

U.S. v. Cannelton Industriesf Inc., (No. 83-2406, S.D.W.Va) and
Consolidated Cases.

     This group of three cases resulted from a spill of PCBs from

a transformer in an underground mine operated by Cannelton. EPA

-------
                               -69-
filed a complaint alleging Cannelton violated the Agency's
regulations regarding disposal of  PCBs.  Cannelton filed two
suits against EPA.  One suit requested that the court declare
Cannelton's rights and responsibilities with respect to storage
and disposal of PCBs in its mine.   In the second suit Cannelton
requested the Court to order EPA to initiate a proceeding to
amend its PCB disposal rules.  EPA and Cannelton reached an
agreement on cleanup of the PCBs,  which was approved by the Court
in February 1986.  The court has retained supervisory jurisdic-
tion over the agreement.
Challenges to Agency Rulemaking;
Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA. (No. 84-1569, D.C.
Cir.)
     On November 19, 1984, the Chemical Manufacturers Association
(CMA) filed a petition for review  of the first significant new
use rule EPA promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of TSCA.   The
rule, promulgated on September 5,  1984 (49 PR 35011), related to
two chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture
notices under section 5 of TSCA.   The rule also included general
procedural provisions that will be applicable to all significant
new use rules.  In the course of informal discussions, CMA
indicated that it was concerned about some of these procedural
provisions.  EPA indicated that it was willing to undertake
further rulemaking on these provisions which was likely to meet
these concerns.  Accordingly, CMA  agreed to defer briefing until

-------
                               -70-



EPA proposed revisions to these procedural provisions.  The



revisions were proposed on April 22, 1986.



     CMA and EPA entered into a settlement agreement under which



CMA agreed to voluntarily dismiss its action if EPA promulgated



revisions substantially similar to those proposed.  EPA issued



the revisions in question on July 27, 1988, and CMA moved to



dismiss its petition for review on September 2, 1988.  The Court



of Appeals entered an order dismissing CMA's petition on October



3, 1988.



Shell Chemical Co. v. EPA. 826 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1987)



     On January 7, 1986, four manufacturers of mesityl oxide (MO)



and the Chemical Manufacturers Association filed in the Court of



Appeals a petition for judicial review of EPA's section 4 rule



requiring health effects testing of MO.  The proceeding was held



in abeyance pending EPA's consideration of the manufacturers'



petition under section 21 of TSCA to withdraw the test rule.  EPA



denied the petition on August 21, 1986 (51 F.R. 30216).



     The manufacturers reinstituted the lawsuit and also filed an



action in District Court, on September 26, 1986, challenging the



denial of their section 21 petition.  The District Court stayed



the case pending the outcome of the reinstituted lawsuit in the



Court of Appeals.



     In August 1987, the Court of Appeals remanded the case "for



EPA to make supplemental findings in the administrative record



concerning the changes in MO use that have occurred since the



testing rule was promulgated and, if determinable, that will

-------
                               -71-

occur in the foreseeable  future."  (826  F.2d  298) The court stayed

implementation of the rule pending EPA's  updated factfinding.

     Since the rule  is being  reconsidered, the  District Court

litigation was dismissed  without prejudice to refiling another

citizens' petition should a subsequent  rule  be  issued.

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers  Association (SOCMA) &
Texaco Chemical Co.  v. EPAf  (No. 87-3265, 3d Cir.)

     SOCMA and Texaco filed a petition  for review of EPA's

February 1987 rule requiring  a test known as the mouse visible

specific locus assay for  the  chemical,  diethylenetriamine (DETA).

This assay is used to evaluate the potential for chemicals to

cause heritable gene mutations.  Under  the rule this assay would

have been required if certain initial tests  showed a potential

for adverse effects.  In  the  fall  of 1988, EPA  reviewed the

initial tests conducted on DETA and concluded that the mouse

visible specific locus assay  was not necessary.  The parties,

consequently, filed  a joint motion to dismiss the case, which was

granted by the court in October 1988.

Ausimont U.S.A.. Inc-- et al.  v. EPA. 838 F.2d  93 (3d Cir. 1988)

     On February 1,  1988, the U.S.  Court  of  Appeals for the Third

Circuit upheld EPA's test rule for four fluoroalkenes.  The court

found that Congress  granted EPA broad discretion in determining

when data must be produced.   According  to the court section 4

"prevents a testing  rule  based on  little  more than scientific

curiosity, yet allows the Agency to act when an existing

-------
                               -72-

possibility of harm raises reasonable and legitimate cause for

concern."

     The court found EPA's evidence sufficient to justify testing

based on Agency concerns about the lack of scientific

uncertainty.  This evidence included published data showing one

chemical to be a carcinogen, petitioners' inability according to

the court to present a strong enough basis to fully discredit the

data, EPA's assessment of the harm of one substance based on

another of similar molecular structure ("structure-activity

relationship" — SAR), and worker exposure data that the court

was not prepared to say would reduce the element of risk to

insignificance.  The court acknowledged that this level of

evidence supported testing but would not necessarily support

regulation.

Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA. 859 F.2d 977 (D.C.Cir.
1988)

     On October 21, 1988, the United States Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a section 4 rule which

required manufacturers to conduct health effects testing of the

chemical substance, 2-ethylhexanoic acid (EHA).  The court held

that EPA could promulgate a test rule if it found "more than a .

theoretical" basis for suspecting that some amount of exposure

takes place and that the chemical is sufficiently toxic at that

level of exposure to present an "unreasonable risk of injury to

health."  Evidence needed to support a test rule was contrasted

to the greater certainty needed for regulation.  The court

-------
                               -73-

further held that the existence  of human  exposure can be based on

inferences drawn from the circumstances of chemical manufacture

and use, and that EPA need  rebut industry evidence only if that

evidence succeeds in rendering the Agency«s view of exposure

theoretical or speculative.  According to the court, an isolated

or one time event could still warrant a test rule.  Finally, the

court held that EPA correctly applied these standards and that

its findings were supported by the evidence, which the court

examined in considerable detail.

Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA. (No. 88-1352, D.C.
Cir.)

     On February 26; 1988,  EPA issued a testing rule for

diethylene glycol ether and its  acetate (DGBE/DGBA).  The rule

requires three tests to be  conducted initially ("first tier"),

and would require a "second tier" developmental neurotoxicity

study if the results of the first tier tests are positive.   CMA

wishes to challenge the requirement for the second tier study.

Since the first tier tests  are not due until July 1989 and may

not trigger the second tier test, the parties requested and

received a stay of the litigation until September 1, 1989.

Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA. (No. 88-1637, D.C.
Cir.)

     CMA filed a petition for review of a rule issued June 15,

1988, to require testing of approximately 30 chemicals identified

as hazardous waste constituents  by the EPA Office of Solid Waste.

     Prior to filing the suit CMA had petitioned EPA for an

administrative stay of the  rule, arguing  that the rule poses an

-------
                               -74-

unnecessary administrative burden on manufacturers who make small

quantities of the chemicals for research and development

purposes.  EPA agrees with this critique.  However, because this

criticism applies to all section 4 testing rules, EPA chose to

address CMA's concerns through a revised procedural rule and

decided that a stay of this particular rule would not be

appropriate.  CMA and EPA, accordingly, have agreed to stay the

litigation on this rule pending the promulgation of the

procedural rule.

Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA. (No. 88-4710, 5th
Cir.)

     On September 26, 1988, CMA and five manufacturers and

processors filed a petition for review of a section 4 rule

requiring testing of the chemical cumene.  EPA issued this rule

under the authority of section 4(a)(l)(B), which authorizes the

Agency to require testing if it finds that a chemical is produced

in substantial quantities and that it is released into the

environment in substantial quantities or that there is or may be

substantial exposure to the chemical.

     Along with its petition for review, CMA filed a motion for

stay of the rule arguing that, pending the decision on the

merits, the manufacturers would be irreparably harmed by being

forced into non-recoverable start-up costs for testing.  CMA

argued that these costs would be unfair because CMA was likely to

succeed on the merits of the case.

-------
                               -75-

     CMA supported  its  argument  of likely  success on the merits

by challenging EPA's  interpretation of the section  4(a)(l)(B)

standard.  EPA had  justified testing based on a  finding that

exposure to large numbers  of persons constitutes substantial

exposure.  CMA argues that the rule must also be supported by

evidence on the  levels  of  exposure to those persons and that, in

any event, EPA's evidence  does not show that large numbers of

persons will be  exposed to the chemical.

Safe Buildings Alliance (SBA)  v.  EPAf  846  F.2d 79 (D.C. Cir.
1988)

     The D.C. Court of  Appeals upheld EPA's asbestos-in-schools

rules issued under  the  Asbestos  Hazard Emergency Response Act

(AHERA) .  The rules had been challenged by SBA — an association

of companies that formerly manufactured asbestos products.  The

court extended substantial deference to EPA, holding that the

Agency's rules were reasonable in light of the somewhat

contradictory demands of AHERA,  the uncertainties regarding the

health effects of low level asbestos exposure, and the tight

timetable AHERA  imposed on EPA to issue regulations.

     In August 1988,  National  Gypsum Company, one of the

petitioners before  the  Court of  Appeals, filed a petition for

certiorari before the Supreme  Court.   The  briefs on this petition

by both National Gypsum and EPA  essentially repeated the

arguments made before the  Court  of Appeals.

-------
                               -76-



OTHER TSCA ACTIVITIES



State Programs



     Section 28(c) of TSCA authorizes EPA to award grants to



states for programs to prevent or eliminate problems created



by toxic substances that EPA is unable or unlikely to act



upon under TSCA.



     There were no grants administered under TSCA in Fiscal



Years 1987 and 1988.  Grants associated with asbestos were



administered under the authority of the Asbestos School Hazard



Abatement Act.



Major Problems



     No major problems in administering TSCA were encountered



in Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988.



Recommended Legislation



     During 1987 and 1988 EPA did not determine that legislative



changes to TSCA were required.

-------
                                  -77-
APPENDIX A
Major FY 1987 TSCA Actions


          	Description
Section
of Law
                                                            Date
4 (a)

4(b)
5*
5(a)(2)
          For listing of testing decisions see Table 1.

          Revision of TSCA Test Guidelines (Final Rule)

          Test Guidelines Published
            - Site-specific aquatic microcosm test
            - Hydrolysis rate
            - Generic freshwater microcosm test
            - Soil core microcosm test
            - Soil microbial community toxicity test
            - Rhizobium/legume chronic toxicity test

          Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances;
          General Provisions for New Chemical Follow-up
          (Proposed Rule)

          Trichlorobutylene Oxide, Epibromohydrin, and
          Hexafluoropropylene Oxide, Proposed Significant
          New Use Rule  (3 chemicals)

          PBBs and Tris; Final Significant New Use Rule
          (9 chemicals)

          Ethanol, 2-amino-, compound with N-hydroxy-
          N-nitrosobenzenamine (1:1) (P86-542)
          Proposed Significant New Use Rule (1 chemical)

          Methyl-n-butyl ketone; Final Significant New
          Use Rule (1 chemical)

          11-Aminoundecanoic Acid; Final Significant
          New Use Rule  (1 chemical)

          l-Chloro-2-bromoethane; Proposed Significant New
          Use Rule (1 chemical)
05/20/87

09/28/87
04/29/87




01/02/87




01/26/87



03/25/87




04/13/87



05/28/87



09/04/87
    * Also under authority of TSCA sections 8 and 26(c)

-------
                                -78-

5(e)    Consent Order; Acrylate modified alicyclic          10/06/86
       urethane (P86-549)

       Consent Order; Halogenated pyridine                 10/06/86
       derivative (P85-1184)

       Consent Order; Amines, tri (Cll-14 ISO-C13          10/09/86
       rich) (P85-265)

       Consent Order with Testing Trigger;                 10/10/86
       Nonyltoluene   (P86-78)

       Consent Order; Substituted pyridine disazo          11/07/86
       dye  (P85-735)

       Consent Order; t-Amyl peroxy mono carbonate         11/07/86
       (P86-473)

       Consent Order with Testing Trigger;                 11/13/86
       Perfluoroalkyl epoxide (P86-562)

       Consent Order; Unsaturated dimer acids,             11/13/86
       polyester, epoxidized (P86-628)

       Consent Order with Testing Trigger;                 11/13/86
       Perfluoroalkyl epoxide (P86-872)

       Consent Order with Testing Trigger;                 11/13/86
       Perfluoroalkyl epoxide (P86-873)

       Consent Order With Testing Trigger; Vinyl           11/20/86
       chloride-vinyl acetate hydroxyl modified
       copolymer (P85-1388)

       Consent Order with Testing Trigger; Dialkyl         12/03/86
       substituted propionamide (P86-266)

       Consent Order with Testing Trigger; Sodium,         12/09/86
       pyridine, water (P86-1263)

       Consent Order; Aromatic araino compound (P86-334)    12/10/86

       Consent Order; Aromatic nitro compound (P86-335)    12/10/86

       Consent Order; Substituted pyridine (P86-838)       01/03/87

       Consent Order; Monosubstitutedalkoxyamino-          01/09/87
       triazine (P86-1043)
       Consent Order; Monosubstitutedalkoxyamino-
       triazine (P86-1044)
01/09/87

-------
                          -79-
Consent Order; Acrylate  ester (P86-924)             01/14/87

Consent Order; Substituted alkyl  peroxy-2-ethyl     01/21/87
hexanoate  (P86-1492)                                  /  /°

Consent Order; Substituted alkyl  peroxyhexane       01/21/87
carboxylates  (mixed  isomers)  (P86-1493)

Consent Order; 3-Hydroxy-l,i-dimethyl butyl         01/21/87
derivation  (P86-1491)

Consent Order; Urethane  acrylate  with pendant       01/28/87
hydroxy and carboxyl  groups (P86-1088)

Consent Order; Substituted nitrobenzoic acid,       01/28/87
derivative  (P86-1098)

Consent Order with Testing-Trigger; Anionic         02/09/87
polymer (P86-1293)

Consent Order; Alkoxylated diol diacrylate          02/11/87
(P86-649)

Consent Order; Transition  metal trichalcogenide     02/28/87
(P86-1021)

Consent Order; Aromatic  methyl oxirane (P86-940)     03/23/87

Consent Order with Testing Trigger; Substituted     03/30/87
acetic acid, mixed sodium  and potassium salts
(P86-530)

Consent Order with Testing Trigger; Substituted     03/30/87
acetic acid, potassium salt (P86-531)

Consent Order with Testing Trigger; Substituted     03/30/87
acetic acid, sodium salt (P86-532)

Consent Order; Alkyl  substituted  pyridine           04/03/87
(P86-831)

Consent Order; Benzotriazole  derivative             04/03/87
(P86-1771)

Consent Order; Napthalene,  1,2,3,4-                 04/15/87
tetrahydro(l-phenylethyl)  (P85-1331)

Consent Order; Maleic acid half-ester               04/15/87
functionalized with alkenyl ether groups
(P86-1122)

-------
                          -80-

Consent Order; Capped aliphatic  isocyanate           04/15/87
(P86-1146)

Consent Order; Aryloxy substituted alkyl             04/15/87
aryloxate  (P86-1692)

Consent Order; Acrylylalkyl  substituted              04/15/87
benzenepolyolcarboxylic acid derivative
(P86-1739)

Consent Order; Sulfite ester of  2,2'-methylene-      04/15/87
bis-(4-methyl-6-T-butylphenol),  2,2'-methylene-
bis-(4-methylphenol), toluene, tripropylamine,
methacrylic acid, dimethacrylic  acid  (P87-147)

Consent Order; 1,4-benzenedisulfonic  acid, 2, 21-    05/11/87
[1,  2-ethenediylbis[3-sulfo-4, 1-phenylene)
imino[6-[(disubstituted)amino]-!,3,5-triazin-
4, 2-diyl]imino]Jbis-, hexasodium salt  (P86-477)

Consent Order; 1,4-benzenedisulfonic  acid, 2, 2'-    05/11/87
[1,  2-ethenediylbis[3-sulfo-4, 1-phenylene)
imino[6-[(disubstituted)amino]-1,3,5-triazin-
4, 2-diyl]imino]]bis-, hexasodium salt  (P86-478)

Consent Order with Testing Trigger; Polyamine        05/15/87
adduct  (P85-1239)

Consent Order with Testing Trigger; Polyamine        05/15/87
adduct  (P85-1240)

Consent Order with Testing Trigger; Propoxylated     05/15/87
quaternary amine  (P86-331)

Consent Order; Boron ester (P86-1252)                05/15/87

Consent Order; 2-Butenedioic acid (Z-), mono         05/22/87
2-(l-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy ethyl-ester (P85-543)

Consent Order; 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-,          05/22/87
7,7,9-triraethyl-4,13-dioxo-3,14-dioxa-5,
12-diaza hexadecane-l,16-diylester (P85-544)

Consent Order; 2-propenoic acid-3-(dimethylamino)-   05/22/87
2,2-dimethyl-propyl ester (P85-545)

Consent Order; 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-3,3,5-     05/22/87
trimethyl-cyclohexylester (P85-546)

Consent Order; 2-propenoic acid, 3,3,5-              05/22/87
trimethylcyclohexylester  (P85-547)

-------
                                 -81-
6(a)


6(e)
8 (a)
Consent Order with Testing  Trigger; Aromatic        05/22/87
diamine, thio-methylated  (P86-1322)

Consent Order with Testing  Trigger; Halogenated     06/19/87
phosphate ester  (P86-1662)

Consent Order; Fluoroalkyl  epoxide  (P86-1250)       06/23/87

Consent Order; Aryl  azo thiophene  (P87-304)         07/01/87

Consent Order; Propylene  oxide, hydroxethyl         07/01/87
acrylate, monoethyl  ether of  hydroquinone, water
(P86-832)

Consent Order; Functional acrylate methacrylate     07/18/87
polymer  (P86-1325)

Consent Order with Testing  Trigger; alkanaminium,   08/14/87
polyalkyl-salt,  polymer with  acrylamide and
substituted alkyl methacrylate  (P87-252)

Consent Order; Azlactone  (P86-1634)                 08/26/87

Consent Order; Phthalic acid  polymer of             09/15/87
new substance  (P86-1629)

Consent Order with Testing  Trigger; Aliphatic       09/22/87
polyester  (P87-10)

Consent Order; Styrenated hydroxyfunctional         09/23/87
methacrylic acrylic  polymer (P87-739)

Procedures for Rulemaking Under Section 6 of        06/17/87
TSCA  (Proposed Rule)

Asbestos Abatement Projects;  Worker                 02/25/87
Protection (Final Rule)

Polychlorinated  Biphenyls Spill Cleanup             04/02/87
Policy  (Final Rule)

Polychlorinated  Biphenyls;  Exclusions, Exemp-       07/08/87
tions and Use Authorization (Proposed Rule)

Polychlorinated  Biphenyls in  Electrical             08/21/87
Transformers  (Proposed Rule)

Comprehensive Assessment  Information Rule           10/07/86
(Proposed Rule)  (47  chemicals)

-------
                                 -82-
8(c)


8(d)
Preliminary Assessment Information Reporting;        11/14/86
Addition of 19th ITC List Chemicals  (4 Chemicals)
(Final Rule)

Hexafluoropropylene Oxide; Submission of Notice      01/02/87
of Manufacture, Import or Processing (Proposed
Rule)

Addition of Chemicals to Information Rules;          05/14/87
Certain Pesticide Inert Ingredients  (31
Chemicals)  (Proposed Rule)

Chemical Information Rules; Addition of              05/14/87
Chemicals  (24 chemicals) (Proposed Rule)

Preliminary Assessment Information and Health        05/20/87
and Safety Data Reporting; Addition of 20th ITC
List chemicals  (4 chemicals)  (Final Rule)

11-Aminoundecanoic Acid; Submission of Notice of     05/28/87
Manufacture, Import or Processing (Final Rule)

Anthraquinone; Final Reporting and Recordkeeping     06/04/87
Requirements (Final Rule)

Polyhalogenated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins/Dibenzofurans;     06/05/87
Reporting Requirements (Final Rule)

Polyhalogenated Diobenzo-p-Dioxins/Dibenzofurans;    06/05/87
Reporting Requirements (Final Rule)

Health and Safety Data Reporting; Addition of        11/14/86
19th ITC List Chemicals (4 Chemicals)
(Final Rule)

Health and Safety Data Reporting; Submission of   •   05/01/87
Lists and Copies of Health and Safety Studies on
Certain Substances (102 chemicals) (Final Rule)

Addition of Chemicals to Information Rules;          05/14/87
Certain Pesticide Inert Ingredients  (36
chemicals) (Proposed Rule)

Preliminary Assessment Information and Health        05/20/87
and Safety Data Reporting; Addition of 20th
ITC List Chemicals (4 chemicals)  (Final Rule)
        Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins/Dibenzofurans;    06/05/87
        Reporting Requirements (Final Rule)              -

-------
                                 -83-

26(b)    Proposed Fees for Processing Premanufacture         04/20/87
        Notices, Exemption Applications and Notices, and
        Significant New Use Notices (Proposed Rule)

        CHEMICAL ADVISORY

        2-Nitropropane                                      12/03/86
        Toluenediamines  (TDAs)

-------
                                 _84-
APPENDIX B
Major FY 1988 TSCA Actions


            Description
Section
of Law
Date
4(a)
         For list of testing decisions see Table 2.
5(a)(2)  Trichlorobutylene Oxide; Epibromohydrin; and       10/27/87
         Hexafluoropropylene Oxide; Final Significant
         New Use Rule  (3 chemicals)

         l-Chloro-2-bromoethane; Final Significant New      02/02/88
         Use Rule  (1 chemical)

         Benzenamine,  4-chloro-2-methyl; Benzenamine,       09/16/88
         4-chloro-2-methyl, hydrochloride; Benzenamine,
         2-chloro-6-methyl; Proposed Significant New
         Use Rule  (3 chemicals)

         1-Decanamine, N-decyl-N-methyl-N-oxide             12/08/87
         (P86-566); Proposed Significant New Use Rule
         (1 chemical)

         Diphenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl phosphine          02/02/88
         oxide  (P86-586); Proposed Significant New
         Use Rule  (1 chemical)

         Significant New Use Rules; Amendments to           07/27/88
         General Provisions; Final Rule

5(e)    Consent Order; Saturated polyester (P86-1686).      10/09/87

        Consent Order; Pseudomonas fluorescens              10/19/87
        (P87-1292).

        Consent Order with Testing Trigger; Substituted     10/30/87
        1,6-dihydroxy napthalene (P87-1036).

        Consent Order; Acrylated polyurethane (P87-760).    11/04/87

        Consent Order with Testing Trigger; Acrylated       11/17/87
        alkoxylated aliphatic polyol (P84-713)
        Consent Order; Phthalic polyester  (P87-262)
                                                            01/19/88

-------
                          -85-

Consent Order;  Aliphatic  polyester with
neopentyl  glycol  (P87-293)

Consent Order;  Dialkenylamide  (P87-502)

       ofder;  19  C9  (OCH2  CH2)YOCH20CH2-OH
    —J.489)

Consent Order;  2-Naphthalene carboxamide-N-
aryl-3-hydroxy-4-aryl  azo (P87-1265)

Consent Order;  Alkyloamide  (P86-1315)

Consent Order;  Alkylated  aromatic diamine
(P85-929)

Consent Order;  l-Oxa-4-azastiro[4.5]decane,
4-(dichloroacetyl)- (P86-1648)

Consent Order with Testing  Trigger;
Tetraglycidylamine (P86-500)

Consent Order with Testing  Trigger;
Tetraglycidylamine (P86-502)

Consent Order with Testing  Trigger; Aromatic
diamine  (P86-503)

Consent Order with Testing  Trigger; Aromatic
diamine  (P86-501)

Consent order;  Genetically  engineered  strain
of Rhizobium  Meliloti  containing a  recombinant
plasmid  (P87-568)

Consent order;  Genetically  engineered  strain  of
Rhizobium  Meliloti containing  R. Meliloti  NIF
genetic material carried  on a  plasid  (P87-569)

Consent Order;  Genetically  engineered  strain  of
Rhizobium  Meliloti containing  R. Meliloti  NIF
genetic material carried  on a  plasid  (P87-570)

Consent Order with Testing  Trigger; Methylene-
bis-trisubstituted aniline  derivative  (P87-90)

Consent Order;  Poly(amino/hydroxyalkylaminomethyl)
urea (P87-1123)

Consent Order;  Polyamine  urea-formaldehyde
condensate  (P87-1456)
01/19/88



01/19/88

02/01/88


02/01/88



02/02/88

02/19/88


02/24/88


03/02/88


03/02/88


03/02/88


03/02/88



03/09/88




03/09/88




03/09/88




04/25/88



05/04/88



05/04/88

-------
                                 -86-
6(e)
8 (a)
Consent Order with Testing Trigger; Methylene-       05/06/88
bis(substituted) aniline derivative^(P87-790)

Consent Order with Testing Trigger; Cyclic       -    05/12/88
halophosphite (P87-1657)

Consent Order; Nitroaromatic thiazoic and            05/12/88
derivative  (P88-270)

Consent Order with Testing Trigger;                  05/12/88
Substituted thioazino salt (P88-63)

Consent Order with Testing Trigger;                  05/26/88
Tetrachloroethylene  (solvent)  (P88-217)

Consent Order; 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate,          07/03/88
raaleic acid, maleic  acid anhydride  (P87-1159)

Consent Order; 4,4'methylene bis  (oxethylene         07/14/88
diphenol, referred to as MOD (P87-1760)

Consent Order with Testing Trigger; metalated        08/01/88
alkylphenol copolymer (P87-723)

Consent Order; Aryloxalkyl halide  (P87-1471)         09/13/88

Consent Order; Aminopolyamide - epichlorohydrin      09/20/88
resin  (P84-1182)

Consent Order; Aminopolyamide - epichlorohydrin      09/20/88
polymer (P84-1183)

Prohibition of Hexavalent Chromium Chemicals         03/29/88
in  Comfort Cooling Towers; Proposed Rule

Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Exclusions,               06/27/88
Exemptions and Use Authorizations; Final Rule

Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Electrical              07/19/88
Transformers; Final  Rule

Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Manufacturing,            08/24/88
Processing, and Distribution in Commerce
Exemptions; Proposed Rule

Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Notification and          09/26/88
Manifesting for PCB  Waste Activities; Proposed
Rule

Hexafluoropropylene  Oxide; Submission of Notice      10/27/87
of Manufacture,  Import or Processing; Final
Rule

-------
                                 -87-
        Preliminary Assessment Information Rule; 21st
        ITC List; Final Rule  (6 chemicals)

        Preliminary Assessment Information Rule;
        Addition of Chemicals; Final Rule (18 chemicals)

        EDTMPA and its Salts; Submission of Notice of
        Manufacture or Import; Proposed Rule
        (14 chemicals)

        Preliminary Assessment Information Rule; 22nd
        ITC List; Final Rule  (10 chemicals)

8(c)     Chlorendic Acid/Anhydride; Request for Records
        and Reports Regarding Significant Adverse
        Reactions; Notice  (2 chemicals)

        Specified Members of the Categories Tri(Alkyl/
        Alkoxy) Phosphates and Diisocyanates; Request for
        Records and Reports Regarding Significant Adverse
        Reactions; Notice  (51 chemicals)

8(d)     Health and Safety Data Reporting; 21st ITC
        List; Final Rule (6 chemicals)

        Health and Safety Data Reporting; 22nd ITC
        List; Final Rule (8 chemicals)

        Health and Safety Data Reporting; Period
        Terminations; Final Rule (37 chemicals and
        5 chemical categories)

21      PCBs: Denial of Citizen's Petitions;  Final
        Rule

26 (b)   Fees for Processing Premanufacture Notices;
        Exemption Applications and Notices,  and
        Significant New Use Notices; Final Rule

203     Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools,
        Final Rule
 11/20/87



 03/31/88


 04/29/88




 05/20/88


 12/21/87




 01/19/88





11/20/87


05/20/88


09/30/88




07/02/87


08/17/88




10/30/87

-------