United States EPA 745-R-94-003 Environmental Protection August 1994 Agency Prevention, Pesticides, And Toxic Substances (7408) vvEPA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Report To Congress For Fiscal Years 1992-93 Recycled/Recyclable Printed with Soy/Canola In* contains at least 50% recycled fiber r\ X\ Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that ------- Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Report to Congress for Fiscal Years 1992-93 ------- CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 TSCA FY92-93 HIGHLIGHTS Section Testing of Chemical Substances and 4 Mixtures 1 Section New Chemical Manufacturing and 5 Processing Notices 2 Section Regulation of Unreasonable 6 Chemical Risks 3 Section Industry Reporting 4 8 Section Coordination of TSCA Authority with Other 9 Federal Agency Authority 5 Section Centralized Data System 6 10 Section Chemical Export Notices 6 12(b) Section Citizens' Petitions 7 21 ------- Efforts to Inform Public of TSCA Data 8 Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Substitutes 8 Enforcement Actions 9 Enforcement Cases 9 Defensive Litigation 11 District Court Litigation 12 APPENDIX A Section 21 Citizens' Petitions A-1 APPENDIX B Enforcement Accomplishments B-1 APPENDIX C Defensive Judicial Actions C-1 ------- INTRODUCTION Following is a Report to Congress on Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) implementation in fiscal years (FYs) 1992 and 1993, as required under TSCA sections 9(d) and 30. TSCA FY92-93 HIGHLIGHTS Section Testing of chemical substances and 4 mixtures Under a condition of potential unreasonable risk or high production volume and exposure, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authority to require chemical manufacturers and processors to test their substances and mixtures for health and environmental effects using Agency- approved testing methodologies. TSCA section 4 chemical testing program initiatives - tests required in FY92: approximately 120 - tests required in FY93: approximately 1«60 Estimate of industry costs to perform chemical tests^ ^ - costs incurred in FY92: approximately $1.3 million - costs incurred in FY93: approximately $8.8 million Chemical testing results received - results received in FY92: approximately 140 - results received in FY93: approximately 125 * * includes all tests conducted voluntarily under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's High Production Volume-Screening Information Data Set (HPV-SIDS) program, which enables countries to cooperatively test and assess the priority for action on international HPV chemicals * Includes U.S. chemical industry's 25% share of the overall testing costs for HPV-SIDS chemicals ------- Section New chemical manufacturing and 5 processing notices Manufacturers or importers must notify EPA 90 days prior to manufacturing or importing new chemicals. Premanufacture notices -notices received in FY92: 1,888 -notices received in FY93: 2,148 -subset subject to section 4 tests in FY92: 0 -subset subject to section 4 tests in FY93: 0 Section 5(g) decisions not to take action on chemicals subject to notification or data requirements -decisions made in FY92: 0 -decisions made in FY93: 0 Chemicals subject to final significant new use rules (SNURS) -new chemicals controlled in FY92: 101 -existing chemicals controlled in FY92: 6 -new chemicals controlled in FY93: 96 -existing chemicals controlled in FY93: 1 Section 5(e) consent orders pending development of information on new chemicals -consent orders issued in FY92: 46 -consent orders issued in FY93: 76 Section 5(e) consent order test results for new chemicals received -results received in FY92: 20 -results received in FY93: 32 ------- Section Regulation of unreasonable chemical 6 risks EPA has authority to prohibit or restrict the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of chemicals that present or will present unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. -rules and notices issued in FY92-93: (10/91) Proposed rule to ban acrylamide and N- methylolacrylamide grouts (3/92) Proposed rule to grant exemptions from the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce prohibition for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and a use authorization and to amend the Interim Procedural Rules (4/92) Notice of the effect of a court decision on asbestos manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution in commerce prohibitions (4/92) Final rule to revise PCB test methods incorporated by reference (1/93) Proposed rule to amend criteria for commercial storage of PCB waste (3/93) Final rule to technically amend language on use of PCB waste oil (6/93) Final rule to correct language on use of PCB waste oil ------- Section industry reporting 8 Section 8(a) directs chemical manufacturers and processors to maintain records and/or submit to EPA reports of the following information, as the Agency may reasonably require: (1) Chemical identity. (2) Categories of use. (3) Quantity manufactured or processed. (4) Byproduct description. (5) Health and environmental effects. (6) Number of individuals exposed and duration of exposure. (7) Disposal method. -reports received in FY92: 198 -reports received in FY93: 3 Section 8(c) directs chemical manufacturers, processors, and distributors to maintain, permit the inspection of, and submit to EPA records of significant adverse reactions to health or environment, as determined by the Agency. -records received in FY92: 0 -records received in FY93: 0 Section 8(d) requires chemical manufacturers, processors, and distributors to submit to EPA lists of health and safety studies and copies of studies, as determined by the Agency. -notices received in FY92: 1,063 -notices received in FY93: 487 Section 8(e) directs chemical manufacturers, processors, and distributors to notify EPA of substantial risks of injury to health or environment. ------- -notices received in FY92: 484 -notices received in FY93: 423 In 1990, EPA instituted a section 8(e) Compliance Audit Program (CAP). The Program, the result of an enforcement activity, provided companies the opportunity to submit health and safety studies that had not been submitted previously. The section 8(e) CAP resulted in submission of approximately 12,000 studies. EPA is screening these studies to identify cases for detailed review. Submitted data are shared with groups including the public, EPA programs, other agencies, and the States as screening progresses. Section Coordination of TSCA authority with 9 other Federal Agency authority EPA can refer cases of chemical risk to other Federal agencies with authority to prevent or reduce risk. The Agency has not taken any formal section 9 actions during this time but is working cooperatively with other Federal agencies to address a number of chemical issues. EPA, along with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Mine Safety and Health Administration, has been a member of the ONE Committee. The Committee facilitates cooperation, coordination, and exchange of information on occupational issues and early identification of risk reduction opportunities. EPA, along with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), has established a similar forum to address consumer issues. Informal interagency coordination efforts -actions taken in FY92: ------- Lead solder was referred to OSHA and CPSC. -actions taken in FY93: 2-Nitropropane was referred to OSHA. The chemical, which is in products such as paints, coatings, sealants, and adhesives, poses cancer and liver toxicity concerns for workers. Chlorinated paraffins were referred to OSHA. The chemicals, which are in metalworking fluids, pose cancer concerns for workers. Section Centralized data system 10 EPA makes accessible to all Federal agencies and the public a data system for information submitted under TSCA on the health and ecological effects of certain toxic chemicals. The Agency indexes the nonconfidential, toxicologic, and other scientific data received under sections 4 and 8, as well as voluntary submissions from U.S. industry. EPA maintains the Toxic Substances Control Act Test Submissions (TSCATS) database to store and retrieve these data. The full-text submissions are archived on microfiche. -TSCATS database totals for FY1992: 76,200 studies from 19,949 submissions on 5,684 unique chemicals -TSCATS database totals for FY1993: 77,304 studies from 20,737 submissions on 5,981 unique chemicals Section Chemical export notices 12(b) Domestic exporters must notify EPA annually of their intent to export chemicals regulated under sections 4, 5, 6, or 7. ------- 1992* 1993* notices received and processed 14,328 19,095 companies submitting notices 173 191 letters to foreign governments 4,251 5,751 calendar year Section Citizens' Petitions 21 Authority is granted to anyone to petition EPA to initiate a proceeding for issuing, amending, or repealing a section 4, 6, or 8 rule or section 5 or 6 order. (Disposition of each of the following Citizens' Petitions appears in Appendix A.) (10/92) Environmental Defense Fund, Federation of Fly Fishers, North American Loon Fund, and Trumpeter Swan Society petitioned EPA to promulgate a regulation under TSCA section 6 to require that the sale of lead fishing sinkers be accompanied by a label or notice warning that such products are toxic to wildlife. (12/92) Hazardous Waste Treatment Council; Fulcircle Ballast Recyclers; and Salesco Systems U.S.A., Inc. petitioned EPA to- (1) Amend 40 CFR 761.60 (b)(2)(ii) to virtually end the exemption for PCB small capacitors contained in fluorescent light ballasts from the general disposal requirements for PCBs and (2) Include the requested amendment in the PCB Disposal Amendments (RIN 2070-AC01) or propose a separate amendment no later than three months after the PCB Disposal Amendment proposal. ------- (5/93) John Emmons petitioned EPA to promulgate a regulation under TSCA to require a deposit on the purchase of household and commercial batteries containing lead, cadmium, or mercury. (7/93) Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, Sierra Club, and Izaak Walton League of America petitioned EPA to amend the definition of incinerator at 40 CFR 761.3 to include any device that "heats waste in an oxidative environment." Efforts to inform public of TSCA data EPA has been promoting public access to nonconfidential TSCA data on chemicals to further public participation in chemical management and public understanding of substances. - The Agency has developed products summarizing chemical inventory and health and safety data for commercial inventory companies, States, and other interested parties. - EPA has initiated a Confidential Business Information (CBI) Reform Program to review and challenge CBI claims, educate industry to limit inappropriate claims, and review and amend regulations to ensure compliance with TSCA disclosure provisions. Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) substitutes The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) has been coordinating with the Office of Air and Radiation on the review of the health and environmental effects of CFC substitutes. 8 ------- - Based on studies received during 1991 and 1992, OPPT updated hazard support documents for 5 CFC substitutes [hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)- 123, hydrofluorocarbon (HFQ-125, HCFC-124, HCFC-141b, HFC-134a]. - The Office prepared new hazard support documents for 5 CFC substitutes (FM-100, HFC- 143a, HFC-23, R-32, HCFC-225cb). - OPPT coordinated review of 33 new toxicity studies, including 3 chronic/oncogenicity studies, on 3 CFC substitutes (HCFC-123, HCFC-141b, HFC 134a). Enforcement actions - pending or completed judicial actions taken under TSCA in FY92: 4 FY93: 1 - pending or completed administrative actions taken under TSCA section 16 in FY92: 322 FY93: 265 - penalties assessed through TSCA enforcement in FY92: $8 million FY93: $6.9 million Enforcement cases (Details of these TSCA Title I actions appear in Appendix B.) - Allied Colloids, Inc. (FY92) - ALM Corp. v. EPA (FY92) - Champion Technologies (FY92) - In the Matter of The Eastern Company (FY92) ------- In the Matter of the City of Garland, Texas (FY92) In re: Goetze Corporation of America (FY92) U.S. v. Huisch Detergent, Incorporated (FY92) Jetco Chemicals, Inc. (FY92) Kaneka Texas Corporation (FY92) In the Matter of Lafayette Utilities, Lafayette, Louisiana (FY92) Lindau Chemicals, Inc. (FY92) McGhan NuSil Corporation (FY92) Monsanto (FY92) Sika Corporation (FY92) Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M) Company (FY92) Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Company (Texas Eastern) (FY92) Tosoh (USA), Inc. (FY92) University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (FY92) Coastal Chem (FY93) Ciba-Geigy (FY93) CWM (FY93) Dow Corning (FY93) Halocarbon Products Corporation (FY93) Lonza, Inc. (FY93) PPG Industries, Inc., Mazer Chemicals Division (FY93) Sanncor Industries, Inc. (FY93) Sika, Inc. (FY93) 3M Company v. EPA (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (FY93) Texas Eastern Consent Decree (FY93) Sandoz Chemicals, Inc.; Hoechst-Celanese Corp.; ICI Americas, Inc. (FY92) Hoechst Celanese (FY92) Sandoz Chemical Corporation (FY92) Altana, Inc. (BYK-Chemie USA) (FY93) The Housing Authority of New Haven, Connecticut (FY93) University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH (FY93) In the Matter of ALM Corp. (FY93) In the Matter of CWM (FY93) 10 ------- - In the Matter of CWM (FY93) - In the Matter of CasChem, Inc. (FY93) - In the Matter of Wego Chemical and Mineral Corp. (FY93) - In the Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. (FY93) - In the Matter of Puerto Rico Department of Health, et al. (FY93) - In the Matter of American Airlines, Inc. (FY92) - In the Matter of British Airways, Ltd. (FY92) - §§5 & 8 Filings, December 1992 (FY93) - Quadrennial Reporting Filings, July 1993 (FY93) - §§5 & 8 Filings, September 1993 (FY93) - Cressona Aluminum Company (FY93) - Bryn Mawr College (FY92) - Omega Chemicals, Inc. (FY93) - In re: General Electric Company, GE Aircraft Engines (FY93) - Kennecott Utah Copper (Utah) (FY93) - United States Pollution Control, Inc., et al. (Utah) (FY93) - Weyerhaeuser Company, Longview, Washington (FY93) - Rosboro Lumber Co., Springfield, Oregon (FY93) - Sunshine Precious Metals, Inc., Kellogg, Idaho (FY93) - Cargill, Inc., Chemical Products Division (FY92) Defensive litigation (Details of these TSCA Title I actions appear in Appendix C.) - Caterpillar Inc. v. EPA (asbestos ban challenge) - Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA (asbestos ban challenge by 8 petitioners) - Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) et al. v. EPA (multi-substance rule for neurotoxicity testing challenge) - CMA v. EPA (section 4 test rule on cumene) 11 ------- - Chrome Coalition v. EPA (section 6 prohibition of hexavalent chromium-based water treatment chemicals and section 12(b) export notice) - CMA et al. v. EPA (PCB notification and manifesting rule) - CMA v. EPA (petition for review of Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule (CAIR) revisions) - General Electric Co. (GE) v. EPA (challenge to PCB penalty) - Leonard Strandley v. EPA (challenge to PCB penalty) District court litigation (Details of these TSCA Title I actions appear in Appendix C.) - Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) v. Browner (section 21 petition to regulate lead fishing sinkers) - Service Employees International Uniuon (SEIU) v. William K. Reilly (asbestos in public and commercial buildings) 12 ------- APPENDIX A SECTION 21 CITIZENS' PETITIONS 1. Date filed: 10/20/92 Who filed: Environmental Defense Fund, Federation of Fly Fishers, North American Loon Fund, Trumpeter Swan Society What action requested: promulgate a regulation under TSCA section 6 to require that the sale of lead fishing sinkers be accompanied by a label or notice warning that such products are toxic to wildlife EPA's disposition: granted Date of disposition: 1/14/93 2. Date filed: 12/16/92 Who filed: Hazardous Waste Treatment Council; Fulcircle Ballast Recyclers; Salesco Systems U.S.A., Inc. A-1 ------- What action requested: (1) amend 40 CFR 761.60(b)(2)(ii) to virtually end the exemption for PCB small capacitors contained in fluorescent light ballasts from the general disposal requirements for PCBs (2) include the requested amendment in the PCB Disposal Amendments (RIN 2070-AC01)or propose a separate amendment no later than three months after the PCB Disposal Amendment proposal EPA's disposition: Date of disposition: granted 3/17/93 3. Date filed: 5/27/93 Who filed: John Emmons What action requested: EPA's disposition: Date of disposition: promulgate a regulation under TSCA to require a deposit on the purchase of household and commercial batteries containing lead, cadmium, or mercury denied 9/3/93; 58 FR 46921 A-2 ------- 4. Date filed: 7/14/93 Who filed: Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, Sierra Club, Izaak Walton League of America What action requested: EPA's disposition: Date of disposition: amend the definition of incinerator at 40 CFR 761.3 to include any device that "heats waste in an oxidative environment" denied 10/5/93; 58 FR 51816 A-3 ------- APPENDIX B ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS TSCA enforcement embraces the basic tenets of pollution prevention and data quality. TSCA's regulation of existing and new chemical substances encourages the manufacture and use of substances that pose only reasonable effects on human health and the environment. Specifically, in FY93, EPA launched three successful TSCA §§5 and 8 case initiatives. The initiatives were the result of a coordinated effort between all 10 Regions and Headquarters. Approximately 75 administrative actions were taken by the Agency with proposed penalties totalling nearly $40 million. Through these initiatives, the Agency stressed several themes including- 1) EPA's commitment to vigorous enforcement in order to deter violations of significant requirements relating to toxic chemicals; 2) the pollution prevention aspect of TSCA §5 where the Agency conducts premanufacture screening of chemicals to prevent environmental and health risks by banning or severely controlling high risk chemicals; and 3) the importance of reporting and recordkeeping requirements under §8 that provide EPA with information on which to base regulatory decisions and to track patterns of adverse reactions to chemicals. Many of the settlements in these initiatives are notable for their inclusion of supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) incorporating pollution prevention and environmental auditing provisions. Headquarters Allied Colloids. Inc.: On September 29, 1992, EPA signed a Consent Order assessing a penalty of $900,000, against Allied Colloids, Inc. (ACI) for violations of §§5 and 13 of TSCA. Penalties were assessed for failure to submit proper notices and documentation. In addition, ACI must conduct an audit of its past compliance with TSCA, report additional violations discovered during the audit, and pay stipulated penalties for these violations up to a cap of $1 million. B-1 ------- AIM Corp. v. EPA: Although this is a defensive case rather than an enforcement action, a September 1992 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has important enforcement implications. The decision affirms EPA's assessment of fines against ALM Corp. of New Jersey for violations of TSCA §13 import certification requirements. The decision is the first court test of these requirements. It affirms EPA's requirements of self-policing by importers, upholds EPA's authority to enforce the Customs Service regulations that require certification, and subjects importers which violate certification requirements to civil penalties. ALM filed petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied. Champion Technologies: On April 22, 1992, Environmental Appeals Board Judge Edward E. Reich signed a Consent Order which required an administrative civil penalty of $50,644 for violations of TSCA. The Agency's original civil administrative Complaint charged Champion with violations of the TSCA §5 Premanufacture Notification (PMN) Rule and also with violations of the TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR), which requires covered persons to report to EPA chemicals manufactured in excess of 10,000 pounds during the company's latest complete corporate FY prior to August 25, 1986. Subsequent to issuance of the Complaint, Champion voluntarily disclosed to EPA a TSCA §5 Notice of Commencement violation, and the Agency also learned of an additional IUR violation. EPA chose to amend the Complaint after Champion submitted affidavits showing that it had inaccurately described to the EPA inspector the chemical structure of the substance for which the PMN violation was alleged and that the substance was in fact on the TSCA Inventory. The amended Complaint removed the PMN count and added a new IUR count. In the Matter of The Eastern Company: On March 25, 1992, EPA reached a Settlement with The Eastern Company, which operates a facility in Naugatuck, Connecticut, where it manufactures malleable and stainless steel castings. EPA's administrative Complaint alleged that the company- 1) failed to mark with an appropriate label a PCB transformer; 2) failed to B-2 ------- mark with appropriate labels the means of access to two PCB transformers; 3) failed to register its PCB transformers with the local fire response personnel in accordance with the Federal regulations; and 4) failed to conduct quarterly leak inspections and maintain records of such inspections, for two PCB transformers. All the violations of EPA's PCB regulations occurred at the company's Naugatuck facility. The Settlement Agreement required the company to pay a $39,100 penalty and to undertake a SEP involving the removal and disposal of PCB capacitors and PCB transformers from its facility, at an approximate cost to the company of $134,000. This project was beneficial to the environment and was not required by local, State, or Federal law. The Agreement contained provisions requiring the company to pay a proportional amount to the U.S. Treasury in the event that the cost of the environmental project did not reach at least $134,000. The company has corrected the violations alleged in the Complaint. In the Matter of the City of Garland. Texas: A TSCA PCB administrative Complaint was issued against the City of Garland in I989. Settlement included a SEP requiring the city to implement a PCB identification program which identifies through sampling and laboratory testing and label inspection all transformers that contain PCBs at 2 ppm or greater. This information is required to be kept in a computer database. The Compliance Order required expenditures of $500,000 and a 10 percent case penalty of $14,200. Quarterly status reports are also required to be submitted to EPA, to include actions taken during the previous quarter toward achieving compliance with the PCB identification program and expenditures associated with this identification program. The City of Garland submitted its first quarterly status report in September 1992. The city has currently expended $42,700. The city has until 1997 to complete the project. In re: Goetze Corporation of America: A February 6, 1992, Consent Agreement requires Goetze Corporation of America to B-3 ------- dispose of three PCB transformers at its Sparta, Michigan, facility and to replace the transformers with nonPCB transformers. Goetze Corporation also agreed to pay a penalty of $11,234. This supplemental enforcement project/PCB disposal plan was completed at a cost of $122,297. Goetze Corporation is a Delaware Corporation with a place of business at 252 Gardner Street, Sparta, Michigan. The Complaint, initiated pursuant to §16(a) of TSCA, was filed on October 6, 1990, and alleged in six counts that Goetze Corporation had stored combustible materials within a PCB transformer enclosure; had failed to mark the means of access to its three PCB transformers; and had failed to properly dispose of PCBs. U.S. v. Huisch Detergent. Incorporated: A coordinated multimedia inspection under TSCA §§5 and 8 and EPCRA §313 was conducted at Huisch Detergent located in Salt Lake City, Utah. Violations of both statues were discovered. Huisch Detergent agreed to a combined TSCA/Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) cash Settlement of $30,940 and a SEP of $400,000. The SEP will consist of the construction of an enclosed chlorine delivery system and ancillary systems such as a scrubber, control, and ventilation system. The SEP will minimize the possibility of a chlorine release into the surrounding environment. Jetco Chemicals. Inc.: In this TSCA administrative action, failure by Jetco's Corsicana, Texas, facility to submit a Preliminary Assessment Information Rule (PAIR) Report was alleged. PAIR reporting is required by §8(a) of TSCA and involves basic production/importation volume, use, and exposure information. The Consent Agreement and Consent Order (CACO) settling this case required payment of a $19,500 penalty, establishment of a revised TSCA Compliance Manual, additional training for Jetco employees, and changed company operating procedures to ensure TSCA compliance, especially with regard to PAIR and other TSCA §8 reporting requirements. B-4 ------- Kaneka Texas Corporation: This TSCA administrative action is one of the few cases involving alleged violations of the requirements for the research and development (R&D) exemption to TSCA PMN regulations. The Settlement included a penalty payment of $17,000 and development and implementation of a comprehensive training program and a standard operating procedure for proper adherence to TSCA for all chemicals handled by Kaneka, with specific emphasis on TSCA import certifications and compliance with the requirements for R&D exemption from PMN requirements. The company also agreed to relocate and operate its drum crushing system away from a nearby stream to provide enhanced containment of hazardous material residues and to construct and operate a new storage facility for drummed treatment chemicals to greatly reduce or eliminate the possibility of an environmental release. These SEPs cost approximately $20,500 and were completed in October 1992. In the Matter of Lafayette Utilities. Lafayette. Louisiana: A TSCA PCB administrative Complaint was issued against Lafayette Utilities in 1991. Settlement included a SEP requiring the testing of 8 percent of the utility's transformers within one year of the date of the Compliance Order. The Compliance Order required expenditures of $94,200 and a 10 percent cash penalty of $3,140. Monthly status reports are also required to be submitted to EPA, which include sampling and analytical results showing PCB concentrations of oil in transformers; total number of transformers tested during the calendar month; and actual cost documentation, contracts, invoices, and related correspondence. Lafayette Utilities had expended approximately $162,838 and tested approximately 2348 transformers by June 1992. Lindau Chemicals. Inc.: On June 30, 1992, Environmental Appeals Board signed a Consent Order settling an administrative civil penalty action against this chemical manufacturer. The Agency had charged Lindau Chemicals, Inc. with two violations of the IUR. Lindau had failed to report two chemical substances manufactured in excess of 10,000 B-5 ------- pounds during its latest complete corporate FY before August 25, 1986, as required by the IUR. Subsequent to issuance of the Complaint, Lindau voluntarily disclosed that it had also failed to report three chemical substances manufactured during the company's last complete FY before August 25, 1990, in violation of the IUR recurring reporting provisions. Lindau agreed to pay a $51,000 penalty to settle all five of the violations. McGhan NuSil Corporation: EPA charged McGhan Nusil Corp., a subsidiary of Union Carbide, with illegal manufacture of chemicals under TSCA §5. EPA filed an administrative Complaint seeking an adjusted civil penalty of $384,000. Pursuant to a recent Consent Agreement, McGhan NuSil agreed to pay $180,393 as the gravity-based penalty. This penalty is due within 30 days of a signed Consent Order. Monsanto: This administrative enforcement action was brought for violation of TSCA §8(e). Monsanto failed to report the results of a carcinogenicity study of Santogard PVI within 15 days as required by §8(e). Pursuant to a Consent Agreement, Monsanto agreed to pay a fine of $198,000 and to conduct an Environmental Audit on its studies of developmental toxicity effects, reproductive effects, and carcinogenicity. Post audit, the company paid $648,000 for the violations found in the audit. Sika Corporation: Late last year the Agency issued an administrative Complaint against Sika Corporation for the illegal manufacture (import) of chemicals into the U.S. The Complaint sought an adjusted proposed penalty of over $6.5 million. This is the highest penalty ever sought under TSCA §5(a) which requires chemical manufacturers to notify the Administrator at least 90 days prior to manufacturing a new chemical. Pursuant to an executed Settlement Agreement Sika has agreed to pay a cash penalty of $1,120,700. 3M Company: In the last opinion from EPA's Chief Judicial Officer (CJO), the CJO ruled that the general five-year Federal statute of limitations does not apply to the assessment of civil penalties under TSCA. (The Environmental Appeals Board now B-6 ------- handles appeals that were formerly heard by the CJO.) The ruling resulted from EPA's appeal of a TSCA administrative case involving 3M Company, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In 1988, EPA assessed a $1.3 million fine against 3M for importing two new chemical substances between 1980 and 1986 without submitting a PMN as required by §5 of TSCA. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reduced the penalty to $104,700. EPA appealed the penalty reduction on the ground that the ALJ had not properly applied EPA's TSCA §5 enforcement response policy. During the appeal, 3M argued that the ALJ erred in narrowly construing the general statute of limitations as not applicable to an administrative action for the assessment of a civil penalty under TSCA. In ruling on EPA's appeal, the CJO upheld reduction of the penalty and also ruled that EPA was not barred from filing charges for TSCA violations more than five years after an event had occurred because "Federal courts have held that the U.S. is not bound by statutes of limitation unless Congress clearly manifests such an intention." 3M has appealed this decision with respect to the statute of limitations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Texas Eastern: EPA is supervising the cleanup of PCBs at 89 sites subject to a Consent Decree entered in October 1989 with Texas Eastern. The Consent Decree remains the most extensive Settlement ever obtained by the Agency against a single company, requiring PCB cleanup estimated to exceed $750,000,000. The Consent Decree requires investigations at 89 compressor station sites, which include remediation of 49 Class A-1 sites (heavily contaminated sites that require remediation) and characterization of 27 A-2 sites (sites that are contaminated with PCBs at less than the PCB cleanup levels of 25/10 ppm) and 13 Class A-3 sites (sites where no PCBs are thought to be present). To date, 12 A-1 sites have been remediated (6 sites were remediated in 1991, 6 sites have been remediated in 1992). In B-7 ------- addition to the 6 sites remediated in 1992, Texas Eastern conducted limited remediation activities at one other site. Further, site characterization or sampling activities have been completed at the 30 Class A-1 sites, with 6 additional Class A-1 site characterizations being undertaken. Sampling has been completed at 4 of the 27 Class A-2 sites. Under the Decree, Texas Eastern is required to perform groundwater monitoring at the 76 Class A-1 and A-2 sites. To date, groundwater contamination, primarily PCBs and BTEX, has been detected at 29 sites. Texas Eastern has, to date, installed 500 groundwater monitoring wells. Tosoh (USA). Inc.: CJO Ronald L. Mcdallum, on January 30, 1992, signed a Consent Order requiring Tosoh (USA), Inc. to pay a $60,510 administrative civil penalty for several violations of TSCA. Specifically, Tosoh failed to submit to EPA a notice of commencement after beginning manufacture or import of two new chemical substances, in violation of TSCA §5; imported for commercial purposes a covered chemical substance without submitting a PAIR manufacturer's report, in violation of TSCA §8; and failed to provide written notification to customers to whom it distributed an R&D substance that it was to be used only for R&D purposes, in violation of TSCA §5. In addition to paying the civil penalty, Tosoh agreed to notify each of its customers that the substances they received were for R&D purposes only. University of Washington. Seattle. Washington: On January 6, 1992, the University of Washington was fined $52,488 for storage, marking, disposal, and use violations of the PCB regulations. (The penalty amount was affected by the fact that the University had voluntarily disclosed several of the violations prior to the inspection; accordingly, a portion of the penalty had been reduced consistent with EPA's TSCA Enforcement Response Policy.) In settling the Complaint by the signing of a CACO, the University agreed to a cash penalty of $26,244 and received mitigation of the remaining balance of $26,244 by agreeing to spend at least $52,488 on the disposal of PCB ------- equipment not required by regulation. Coastal Chem: On October 4, 1993, the Environmental Appeals Board approved the CACO settling the TSCA §8 case against Coastal Chem. The CACO required a penalty of $5,100 for failure to submit the necessary Form U report by the regulatory deadline under the IUR regulations. The civil administrative Complaint was filed on July 21, 1993, with a proposed civil penalty of $6,000. Ciba-Geigy: The Environmental Appeals Board approved a Consent Agreement between Ciba-Geigy and EPA. Pursuant to this Agreement Ciba-Geigy conceded to EPA's conclusions of law and fact as alleged in the Complaint and agreed to pay a cash penalty of $62,000 and perform a TSCA §5 audit to ensure compliance with EPA regulations. The stipulated penalties resulting from this voluntary audit are capped at $1 million. This case was part of the TSCA §5 initiative filed between December 17-18, 1992. CWM: On June 23, 1993, the Agency argued before the Environmental Appeals Board the issue whether or not the concentration of PCBs must be measured on a dry weight or wet weight basis. The argument has arisen in the administrative civil penalty action In the Matter of CWM, a $7,000,000 TSCA PCB case. ALJ Lotis had ruled against EPA, holding that the requirement to use a dry weight measurement had been deleted from the rule nine years ago, therefore, EPA was precluded from enforcing it. EPA is arguing that it was inadvertently deleted, that it remains as an implicit requirement, and that a dry weight measurement is the only reasonable interpretation of the rule. Dow Corning: Dow Corning, of Midland, Michigan, has agreed to pay a penalty of $46,000 and perform a SEP in Settlement of a TSCA §5 PMN and TSCA §13 case. The Agency filed a Complaint against the company in 1992 for $172,000. The Agency provided a 50 percent reduction in the proposed penalty for timely and voluntary disclosure of the violation, 15 percent for good attitude (primarily for firing their previous attorney), and a B-9 ------- 15 percent reduction for the SEP. The SEP involves the installation of a spill control measure, which involves a skimmer attached to the pipe that leads to one of the outfalls in the Carrolton plant's Kansas pollutant discharge elimination system permit, which in turn leads from this plant to the Ohio River. Dow Corning certified that the project would cost a minimum of $500,000 and the project would capture spills of chlorosilanes or silicones. Dow Corning will begin the construction of the project within one month of the effective date of the Consent Agreement. Halocarbon Products Corporation: This TSCA administrative civil penalty action is one of the few cases involving alleged violations of the substantial risk reporting requirements of §8(e) of TSCA. The case arose from a chemical release incident exposing two Halocarbon employees at the company's Hackensack, New Jersey, facility, which resulted in one fatality. The Settlement includes a payment of $60,000 and the conduct of a TSCA §§8(d) and 8(e) compliance audit of Halocarbon's facilities. ALJ Vanderheyden earlier in the litigation denied a Motion by Respondent to Compel Discovery on the grounds that Halocarbon's request had not met the prerequisites of the Consolidated Rules of Practice governing discovery (40 CFR 22.19(f)) and because of the attorney work product privilege asserted by the Agency. Lonza. Inc.: A CACO was approved by the Environmental Appeals Board on August 5, 1993, in which Lonza agreed to pay a civil administrative penalty of $240,640 for violations of §5 and §8 of TSCA. In 1988, Lonza self-disclosed that it had manufactured on two occasions for commercial purposes a potentially new chemical substance without submitting a PMN to EPA. In 1990, Lonza self-disclosed 80 errors, 13 nonreporting violations, 6 underreporting violations, 61 overreporting violations, in the original Forms U submitted to EPA pursuant to the TSCA IUR. PPG Industries. Inc.. Mazer Chemicals Division: On January 14, 1993, EPA's Environmental Appeals Board issued a Consent B-10 ------- Order settling the Agency's civil administrative enforcement action against PPG Industries, Mazer Chemicals Division, of Gurnee, Illinois. PPG-Mazer was charged with failure to file PMNs 90 days before commercial manufacture of 5 new chemical substances and late submission of TSCA inventory update reports for 14 chemical substances, in violation of TSCA §§5 and 8. The CACO requires PPG-Mazer to pay a civil penalty of $359,550. Sanncor Industries. Inc.: In this TSCA administrative action, failure by Sanncor's Leominster, Massachusetts, facility to submit TSCA §5 PMNs and a TSCA §8(b) notice of commencement was alleged. The CACO setting this case requires payment of a $211,050 penalty, conduct by Sanncor of a TSCA compliance audit with stipulated penalty provisions, and development and implementation of SEPs consisting of isocyanate and hydrazine closed-loop storage and delivery systems. The isocyanate and hydrazine closed-loop storage and delivery systems will substantially reduce atmospheric emissions, employee exposure and handling, and potential spillage of isocyanate and hydrazine used by Sanncor, and eliminate the isocyanate/hydrazine-contaminated rinse water generated from cleaning the transport/storage drums, which otherwise must be disposed of as hazardous waste. These SEPs will cost approximately $240,000 and are due to be completed in December 1994. Sika. Inc.: Sika Inc. of Lyndhurst, New Jersey, settled this TSCA §5 administrative civil penalty action for $1,120,700. Sika imported chemicals from Europe that were not registered with the TSCA Inventory of Chemical Substances in violation of TSCA. In the CACO executed by the Environmental Appeals Board, Sika agreed that it violated TSCA and is liable for the full penalty proposed in the Complaint of $6,500,000. Due to Sika's demonstrated inability to pay the full proposed penalty and remain in business, following an exhaustive analysis of financial records, EPA agreed to a reduced payment of $1,120,700. This Settlement amount will still make the penalty one of the largest ever collected under TSCA §5, which requires B-11 ------- chemical manufacturers to notify EPA prior to manufacturing a new chemical. 3M Company v. EPA (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit): On September 7, 1993, oral argument was heard regarding the applicability of the general five-year Federal statute of limitations to the assessment of civil penalties under TSCA. The case was filed by the 3M Company, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 3M had not prevailed on the statute of limitations issue in any of the TSCA administrative proceedings below. A decision by the Court of Appeals is expected sometime in FY 1994. In 1988, EPA assessed a $1.3 million fine against 3M for importing two new chemical substances between 1980 and 1986 without submitting a PMN as required by §5 of TSCA. After a Hearing, the ALJ reduced the penalty to $104,700. EPA appealed the penalty reduction on the ground that the ALJ had not properly applied EPA's TSCA §5 enforcement response policy. During the appeal, 3M argued that the ALJ erred in narrowly construing the general statute of limitations as not applicable to an administrative action for the assessment of a civil penalty under TSCA. In the last opinion from EPA's CJO, the CJO ruled that the general five-year Federal statute of limitations does not apply to the assessment of civil penalties under TSCA. (The Environmental Appeals Board now handles appeals that were formerly heard by the CJO.) 3M appealed the CJO's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Texas Eastern Consent Decree: The first modification of the Texas Eastern Consent Decree was finalized and submitted by the Department of Justice to the U.S. District Court in Houston in June 1993. Negotiations on the second modification to the Texas Eastern Decree regarding the integration of the Pennsylvania Agreement with the Federal Decree are nearing completion. The intent of the modification is to harmonize the existing State and Federal agreements into one comprehensive agreement. To date 17 of the 49 Texas Eastern sites have been characterized and remediated under the Consent Decree for PCBs and other hazardous substances. The period of B-12 ------- performance of the Consent Decree, estimated to cost more than $750,000,000, is from 1989 to 1999. Chloranil Importers Cases Sandoz Chemicals. Inc.; Hoechst-Celanese Corp.: IC1 Americas. Inc.: The unique coordination between enforcement and regulatory forces continued in FY 1992 in the chloranil cases. Preliminary risk assessments on chloranil by OPPT indicated significant health risks resulting from dioxin contamination of chloranil. The fortunate coincidence of Office of Enforcement's (OE's) ongoing enforcement actions against all chloranil importers created the opportunity to quickly achieve important risk reduction through settlement of these enforcement actions, rather than a protracted TSCA §6 rulemaking. The Agency arranged Settlements with each of the chloranil importers that would reduce the amount of dioxin imported into the U.S. Under these Settlements, the companies commit to stop importing chloranil or to import only chloranil containing less than 20 ppb dioxin. During FY 1992, OE satisfactorily settled cases with Sandoz Chemicals, Inc.; Hoechst-Celanese Corp.; and ICI Americas, Inc. Together with A&D International, Inc. (settled in FY 1991) and Chugai Boyeki (America) Corp. (who has committed to the dioxin reduction but not yet resolved all issues related to settling the enforcement case), all chloranil importers and manufacturers have significantly reduced dioxin contamination. OPPT is now in the process of ensuring that other companies do not import or manufacture chloranil with higher dioxin concentrations by issuing a SNUR under TSCA §5. Hoechst Celanese: On June 1, 1990, the Agency filed a civil administrative Complaint against Hoechst Celanese for violating several provisions of TSCA in regard to the importation of the chemical substance chloranil. Based on preliminary data from testing in progress pursuant to the Dioxin/Furan Test Rule (40 CFR 766), the Agency has found that chloranil manufactured by certain processes can be contaminated with polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans. Among B-13 ------- the violations alleged were that Hoechst Celanese failed to submit the test protocol in a timely manner and failed to ensure that the study submitted to the Agency pursuant to TSCA §4 complied with TSCA Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs). The Complaint proposed a penalty of $26,500. In addition to agreeing to pay a proposed penalty of $15,300, Hoechst Celanese agreed to import only low dioxin chloranil. Sandoz Chemical Corporation: On June 10, 1992, EPA entered into a CACO with Sandoz Chemicals Corporation of Charlotte, North Carolina, resolving alleged violations of TSCA §4. Specifically, EPA filed a civil administrative Complaint in the amount of $39,750 against Sandoz in June of 1990, alleging violations of the Halogenated Dibenzo-p-Dioxin/Dibenzofuran Test Rule (Test Rule) and violations of the TSCA GLPs. Sandoz imported the chemical substance chloranil, a chemical used in the manufacture of dyes and rubber, for which testing is required under the Test Rule and §4 of TSCA. The Complaint charged Sandoz with late submission of a notice of intent to test, late submission of test protocols, late submission of test data, failure to test in accordance with the EPA approved protocol, failure to submit statements certifying that the tests adhered to the TSCA GLPs, failure to perform the test in accordance with the TSCA GLPs, and failure to submit additional required information upon detection of halogenated dibenzo-p-dioxins or dibenzofurans above the limit of quantification. The original Complaint was amended in October of 1991 to add an additional day of violation, increasing the proposed penalties up to $87,000. The Settlement called for a cash penalty of $32,521 and a commitment from Sandoz to import a lesser-contaminated form of chloranil in the future. EPA has negotiated similar agreements on a voluntary basis with other manufacturers and importers of chloranil not subject to enforcement actions, until such time as a SNUR can be promulgated. This will allow EPA to gather detailed information on specific uses and exposures resulting from the import or manufacture of more contaminated chloranil and enable the Agency to control risk on a case-by-case basis. B-14 ------- Region 1 Altana. inc. (BYK-Chemie USA): On September 30, 1993, Region 1 issued its first TSCA §4 civil administrative Complaint to Altana, Inc. of Wallingford, CT, assessing a penalty of $75,000. BYK-Chemie USA, an independent operating division of Altana, Inc., self-disclosed the violations of TSCA §4 testing rules resulting from the importation of four subject chemicals without notice to the Agency or participation in required toxicity testing on the chemicals. The Housing Authority of New Haven. Connecticut: On August 10, 1990, EPA Region 1 approved the Settlement of claims alleged in a civil administrative Complaint issued in December 1990 against the Housing Authority of the City of New Haven, a federally funded low-income housing provider. The Complaint alleged violations of regulations governing PCBs uncovered during an inspection, in June 1990, of an unoccupied, seven-building, low-income housing complex known as the Elm Haven Extension Housing project in New Haven. Specifically, the Housing Authority was cited by EPA for failing to properly dispose of PCBs, failing to maintain records concerning PCBs, and failing to properly mark and store PCB transformers. The Elm Haven complex was built in the 1950s and demolished in 1990. The Settlement requires the Housing Authority, in lieu of paying a penalty, to spend at least $112,000 on an environmental compliance program designed to protect public housing residents from future environmental risks through better identification and reporting of potentially hazardous conditions involving pollutants such as PCBs, asbestos, pesticides, and rodenticides. Specifically, the Settlement requires the Housing Authority to hire an environmental consultant to train Housing Authority personnel at all levels in recognizing and reporting environmental problems, as well as to perform an Environmental Audit of all 32 Housing Authority properties. This sort of Settlement, known as a SEP, permits those targeted for EPA B-15 ------- enforcement to offset penalty payments with environmentally beneficial expenditures not required by law. This Settlement evidences EPA's commitment to principles of environmental justice and provides a direct benefit to the low-income tenants whom Respondent serves. Because of the age and condition of available housing stock, such tenants arguably face potential hazards from pollutants commonly associated with such housing such as asbestos,; lead paint, pesticides, and rodenticides. The SEP is designed to reduce the environmental risks borne by the low-income population whom Respondent serves. University of New Hampshire. Durham. NH: On March 10, 1993, the Agency settled a TSCA civil administrative action for violation of PCB regulations. The case was settled for a penalty of $62,500 and a SEP with an estimated value of $271,000. The project included the removal and disposal of 3 PCB transformers and 28 PCB-contaminated transformers and sponsoring, organizing, presenting, and financing a one-day seminar on the management of PCBs for area schools, colleges, and universities. The removal of all PCB items from the University eliminates the possibility of future violations and potential releases into the environment at this facility. The seminar for area schools, colleges, and universities will help to ensure the future compliance of this portion of the regulated community that has exhibited a poor compliance history. Region 2 In the Matter of ALM Corp.: On March 8, 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court denied ALM Corporation's petition for writ of certiorari requesting that the Court review a decision rendered by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in September 1992. The petition filed by ALM followed a decision by the Third Circuit upholding the final decision of the Administrator of EPA, who had in turn upheld the initial decision of EPA ALJ J.F. Greene. B-16 ------- In the Complaint initiating this case, Region 2 alleged, and the ALJ and reviewing courts have found, that ALM failed to provide the U.S. Customs Service with a certification that seven of ALM's shipments of certain materials into the U.S. were subject to, and complied with, TSCA. The issue presented to the Supreme Court, as framed by ALM, was whether a court reviewing an agency decision in an enforcement proceeding should defer to the agency's broad interpretation of a penal, not regulatory, statute or whether the court should apply the rule of lenity and construe the statute strictly against the government. The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal and has thereby let stand Judge Greene's decision imposing a penalty of $19,500 on ALM. In the Matter of CWM: On December 7, 1992, Region 2 executed a Settlement of an administrative enforcement action initiated in 1989 against CWM for violations of the TSCA regulations governing disposal of PCBs. The Complaint alleged that CWM operated a mobile PCB disposal unit that had an incorporated heating unit that had not been approved by EPA. Use of the unit with the heater resulted in disposal of PCBs at temperatures greater than those specified in the EPA approval. CWM has agreed to pay a cash penalty of $300,000 and to expend $730,000 on two SEPs. CWM will purchase an emergency response vehicle and other related equipment for Niagara County, New York, and will train local volunteers in their use. The vehicle and equipment were to be donated to Niagara County, a county with heavy chemical transportation and major hazardous waste facilities. CWM has also developed and implemented a household hazardous waste collection and disposal project in Niagara County, which includes outreach programs to apprise the community as to the nature of household hazardous wastes. In the Matter of CWM: In December 1992 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed an interlocutory appeal by CWM from a March 1992 ruling of EPA's Environmental Appeals Board. This proceeding commenced with Region 2's issuance in B-17 ------- March 1991 of an administrative Complaint against CWM and its parent corporations alleging improper disposal of PCB wastes at the Model City, New York, disposal facility; these disposals occurred between February 1984 and October 1987. The Complaint sought over $7 million in civil damages. CWM moved to dismiss that part of the Complaint alleging violations that occurred prior to March 1986 (five years prior to the issuance of the Complaint). The motion was based upon the general five-year limitations period contained1 in 28 U.S.C. 2462. If successful, the motion would have barred EPA from prosecuting about half of its case. The EAB ruling held that statute of limitations is not applicable to an administrative proceeding conducted under authority of §16 of TSCA. The Board's decision reversed the November 1991 decision of EPA ALJ Yost and reinstated that part of the Complaint that Judge Yost had dismissed. Before the Board, Region 2 maintained that the absence of an explicit statutory requirement for appellate court jurisdiction denied the court jurisdiction to hear the petition and that the case was therefore presently not ripe for judicial review. The D.C. Circuit upheld the Agency's position, holding that, because there has been no penalty assessed against CWM, the company was not "aggrieved," as required by §16(a)(3) of TSCA. In the Matter of CasChem. Inc.: On October 30, 1992, EPA ALJ Greene ruled in the EPA's favor on the question of what constitutes a reporting violation of the inventory update provision of TSCA. The Complaint, issued by Region 2 in September 1989, alleged, inter alia, that Respondent failed to report, for the partial updating of the TSCA inventory data base, 29 chemicals it manufactured at its facility in Bayonne, New Jersey. The Complaint seeks over $500,000 in civil penalties. Both parties moved for partial accelerated decision with regard to liability. Respondent sought an Order declaring that the failure to report more than one chemical (CasChem conceded its failure to report two chemicals) constitutes, for purposes of assessing a penalty under TSCA, one violation. EPA claimed that each failure to B-18 ------- report a chemical for the inventory update constitutes a separate and distinct violation. In sustaining the Agency's position, Judge Greene held that "respondent is liable for failure to report each of the 29 chemical substances for the partial updating of the TSCA inventory data base, which constitutes 29 separate violations of [the regulations] and 29 acts prohibited under... TSCA...." The parties are now pursuing Settlement options. In the Matter of Wego Chemical and Mineral Corp.: On February 24, 1993, EPA's Environmental Appeals Board upheld ALJ Vanderheyden's penalty of $42,000 on Wego Chemical and Mineral Corporation. This case stems from a June 1988 administrative Complaint issued by Region 2, alleging that Wego had failed to report to EPA regarding its importation of chemical substances into the U.S. The Board's decision upheld EPA's application of its TSCA penalty policy and EPA's interpretation of "naturally-occurring substances" under §8 of TSCA. The decisions followed a two-day trial held in New York in June 1990. In the Matter of Mobil Oil Corp.: On September 23, 1993, Region 2 issued an administrative Complaint under TSCA for violations of PCB regulations at Mobil Oil's Edison, N.J., facility. The Complaint assessed a penalty of $116,000 for violations at the facility, including failure to develop and maintain annual documents and failure to make quarterly visual inspections of a PCB-containing transformer for significant time periods; failure to store PCBs for disposal in a proper storage facility; and failure to dispose of PCBs within one year of storage for disposal. In addition, the Complaint alleges that Respondent failed to file a notification of PCB waste handling activities. In the Matter of Puerto Rico Department of Health, et al.: On August 27, 1993, Region 2 issued an administrative Consent Order requiring the Puerto Rico Department of Health to pay a penalty of $49,920. The Order also includes a SEP, which requires Respondent to certify that it has retrofilled and B-19 ------- reclassified to nonPCB status its four PCB transformers; this work is estimated to cost approximately $142,868. The Order settles a September 1991 Complaint that alleged that the Health Department and the Arecibo Community Health Care Center had not timely registered its PCB transformers with appropriate fire response personnel; did not have records of inspection and maintenance history for four of its PCB transformers; had not begun cleanup of a leaking PCB transformer within 48 hours of discovery; and did not have annual documents for the disposition of its PCBs and PCB items for a specified period. The Arecibo Community Health Care Center filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint against it and, later, for reconsideration of the ALJ's adverse ruling. Both of these motions were denied. The Puerto Rico Department of Health filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint against it on May 28, 1993. This motion also was denied. Airline Maintenance Facility Initiative In the Matter of American Airlines. Inc.: An administrative Complaint had been issued by Region 2 against this carrier that cited PCB infractions at its facility in JFK Airport in New York City. A CACO was issued imposing a penalty of $112,700. The Complaint cited 57 violations concerning 13 PCB transformers in 6 separate locations at American's facility. The violations included failure to maintain records of annual inspections and maintenance history, to prepare annual documents, and to provide required protection against electrical faults. In the Matter of British Airways. Ltd.: In March 1992, Region 2 settled an administrative Complaint against British Airways that concerned PCB violations at the carrier's cargo facility at JFK Airport in New York. The CACO provides for a penalty of $65,000. The Complaint, issued in June 1991, cited failures to mark PCB transformers properly, to perform required quarterly inspections, and to prepare and maintain annual documents. The Complaint was based on an EPA inspection done November 1990. B-20 ------- Region 2 Participation in National TSCA Enforcement Initiatives Region 2 was an active participant in three TSCA national enforcement initiatives that were conducted as part of the Agency's special emphasis on data quality issues during FY93. Fourteen administrative Complaints were filed by Region 2 as part of these three separate national efforts. Highlights included- §55 & 8 Filings, December 1992: Region 2 issued three Complaints as part of this initiative, which addressed failure to submit required information prior to manufacture of new chemicals (§5) and failure to submit accurate and timely information on chemicals in commerce (§8). Region 2 cases included a Complaint issued to Sakai Trading New York, Inc. of New York City, charging the company with failing to submit required inventory update information by the required date and failing to submit a CAIR form to EPA. A penalty of $221,189 was proposed. Another Complaint was issued to a second New York City company, Crowley Tar Products, charging it with ft "ling to submit required inventory update information for four chemicals in both 1986 and 1991. EPA proposed a penalty of $136,000 for these violations. Quadrennial Reporting Filings. July 1993: Region 2 issued 5 of the 28 administrative Complaints filed nationally in this initiative to enforce requirements that manufacturers and importers of certain chemical substances report the quantity and site of their manufacture or importation of these substances every 4 years and within a specified degree of accuracy. This information is used to update the Agency's chemical substances inventory data base. In its largest case, Region 2 alleged that Hatco Corporation, operating out of Fords, New Jersey, had failed to submit required inventory update information for 39 chemical susbstances by the required date. A penalty of $234,000 was proposed. §§5 & 8 Filings. September 1993: In late September the Agency B-21 ------- filed another 23 administrative cases enforcing the requirements of §§5 and 8 of TSCA. Region 2 issued six of these Complaints, including one to Haarmann & Reimer Corporation of Branchburg, New Jersey, and OCG Microelectronics Materials of West Patterson, New Jersey. Haarman & Reimer was cited for importing two chemicals that were not on the TSCA chemical substance inventory, without filing the advance notification required by law, and failing to certify to U.S. Customs officials in the manner required by TSCA. A penalty of $241,500 was proposed. The Complaint against OCG cited its failure to notify EPA prior to the importation of a new chemical into the U.S. and its failure to certify as to the TSCA compliance status of the chemicals at the port of entry. A penalty of $550,875 was proposed. (The amount of the penalty was lower than it would otherwise have been since the company had itself brought these violations to EPA's attention.) Region 3 Cressona Aluminum Company: In FY93, a judicial Consent Decree was entered into under TSCA. This Consent Decree was an innovative solution that addressed the improper use, storage, and disposal of PCBs at the Cressona Aluminum Company. As part of the Consent Decree, Cressona is required to remediate the PCB contamination at the 115-acre facility. All plant equipment, including the hydraulic and wastewater treatment systems, will be decontaminated, the concrete floors will be removed where necessary, and the plant outfalls will undergo a toxics reduction evaluation to eliminate the discharge of PCBs into the Schuylkill River. EPA submits that these efforts will reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the past use of PCBs at the facility. Bryn Mawr College: Region 3 signed a CACO memorializing a Settlement with Bryn Mawr College for violations of TSCA and the PCB Rule. The CACO provided for a civil penalty of $126,240 and takes into account a completed SEP in which the college removed or retrofilled all of its PCB transformers before the end of their useful life. The college documented B-22 ------- expenditures for the project totaling nearly $600,000. Region 4 Omega Chemicals. Inc.: On September 30, 1993, an adminstrative Complaint was filed against Omega Chemicals, Inc., located in Spartanburg, South Carolina, for violations of §5 of TSCA. Section 5(a)(1) of TSCA provides that no person may manufacture a chemical substance that does not appear on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory without first submitting a PMN at least 90 days before manufacturing such substance. Omega Chemicals violated that § of TSCA by failing to submit a notice to the Administrator of its intention to manufacture a new chemical substance before commencing the manufacture of that chemical. This enforcement action was part of a national toxics enforcement initiative and includes a proposed assessment of a penalty in the amount of $90,000. Region 5 In re: General Electric Company. GE Aircraft Engines: On November 9, 1992, Region 5 filed a CAFO in settlement of EPA's administrative action against General Electric Company, GE Aircraft Engines. Pursuant to the CAFO, GE must pay, after offset in consideration of its having spent over $272,750 on a SEP, a $1,000 civil penalty and maintain compliance with the requirements of TSCA. Region 5 filed a Complaint on August 18, 1989, alleging in two counts that GE had violated TSCA's PCB requirements, 40 CFR 761.20(a) and 761.40(a)(7), by failing to reduce the PCB concentration in its Building 703, Cell 5, hydraulic test stand to less that 50 parts per million by July 1, 1984; by failing to mark the test stand; and by improperly using a PCB contaminated oil/water separator and drainage collection system. After EPA filed its Complaint, GE investigated other areas of the facility and found extensive PCB contamination of, among other things, compressor systems and piping. As a result of this discovery, GE is completing a comprehensive cleanup of PCB B-23 ------- contamination at its Evendale, Ohio, facility at a cost exceeding $5,000,000. In addition to the above mentioned corrective action, GE has undertaken an extensive pollution prevention SEP. Specifically, GE has removed several score of PCB transformers not required by law. While GE could legally continue to use these transformers, removal significantly reduces the risk of accidental discharge of PCBs to the environment. Region 8 Kennecott Utah Copper (Utah): On November 3, 1992, Kennecott Utah Copper and the EPA agreed to settle a Complaint issued by the Agency on December 30, 1991, for violations of TSCA, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and EPCRA in the amounts of $1,129,000, $22,500, and $269,850, respectively, for a total penalty of $1,421,350. The Respondent agreed to a cash payment of $480,000 and to purchase an upgraded emergency computer system with a value of $70,000 for the Salt Lake County Local Emergency Planning Committee. As a part of the Settlement, the Respondent agreed to remove and properly dispose of all transformers containing fluids with PCB concentrations of 50 ppm or more. A significant cash payment was insisted upon by the Agency to emphasize the seriousness of the violations. This Complaint corresponds to an instance of the ubiquity of PCB use by the mining industry. The nationwide use of PCBs in the mining industry and the need for regulation has been a Regional concern for some time. United States Pollution Control. Inc.. et al. (Utah); Three TSCA cases from a cluster of 12 have settled during FY93. The largest penalty, $163,375, was paid by United States Pollution Control, Inc., which also admitted all factual allegations including its obligation to meet specific closure deadlines. This precedent may be valuable in future similar circumstances in this and other Regions. The two other Settlements involved small penalties but established the enforceability of the new requirement under B-24 ------- the Notification and Manifesting Rule to submit written information regarding a company's PCB activities. Several cases still pending are expected to establish a precedent for proper containerization of bulk loads of PCB. Region 10 Weyerhaeuser Company. Longview. Washington: A CACO was signed on May 13, 1993, ordering Weyerhaeuser Company to pay a penalty of $118,950. This CACO settled an August 11, 1992, TSCA Complaint for violations of the recordkeeping and storage provisions of the PCB regulations. $59,075 of the penalty was suspended and deferred on the condition that Weyerhaeuser Company spent at least $118,950 in actual disposal costs for the removal of TSCA-regulated PCB equipment from use at its Longview facility. Weyerhaeuser has 18 months from the date of the CACO to document these expenditures. Rosboro Lumber Co.. Springfield. Oregon: A CACO was signed on March 30, 1993, ordering Rosboro Lumber Co. to pay a penalty of $37,230. This CACO settled an October 9, 1992, TSCA Complaint for violations of the recordkeeping, use (registration), labeling, and use (inspections) provisions of the PCB regulations. $18,615 of the penalty was suspended and deferred on the condition that Rosboro Lumber Co. spent at least $37,230 in actual disposal costs for the removal of TSCA-regulated PCB equipment from use at its Springfield facility. Rosboro Lumber Co. has two years from the date of the CACO to complete these expenditures. Sunshine Precious Metals. Inc.. Kellogg. Idaho: CACO was signed on October 27, 1992, ordering Sunshine Precious Metals, Inc., a mining company, to pay a penalty of $6,588. This CACO settled a February 5, 1992, TSCA Complaint for violations of the use and disposal provisions of the PCB regulations. $3,294 of the penalty was suspended and deferred on the condition that Sunshine Precious Metals spent at least $6,588 in actual disposal costs for the removal of TSCA-regulated PCB B-25 ------- equipment from use at its Kellogg facility. EPA is especially concerned about PCB equipment in use in mines because this equipment is frequently in substations below the surface; releases of PCBs from such equipment would pose serious logistical problems in remediation Sunshine Precious Metals had one year to provide documentation of these expenditures. More Than One Region Cargill. Inc.. Chemical Products Division: On March 18, 1992, the Regional Administrator for EPA Region 4 executed a Consent Order in In the Matter of Cargill Inc.. Chemical Products Division. The Regional Administrator for EPA Region 5 had executed a companion Consent Order in In the Matter of Cargill Inc.. Chemical Products Division, on February 19, 1992. This concluded the first and only multiregional Settlement of a TSCA administrative enforcement action. Region 5 issued an administrative Complaint against Cargill on March 27, 1990. After a Region 4 TSCA inspector arrived at Cargill's Georgia facility, Cargill approached EPA about the possibility of a single, national Settlement. EPA negotiated a national Settlement covering five EPA Regions. The Consent Agreement for these two cases provides that Cargill will pay a civil penalty of $121,050, or 90 percent of the proposed penalties in both cases, and will conduct a TSCA §§4, 5, 8, 12, and 13 Compliance Audit covering seven Cargill research and manufacturing facilities in Minnesota, Georgia, Illinois, California, and Texas. Cargill will pay stipulated penalties for violations identified during the audit, up to a limit of $1,200,000. Cargill may perform some or all of 11 SEPs described in the CACO at Cargill Resin Products Division facilities across the country in exchange for credit against stipulated penalties in excess of $250,000. B-26 ------- manufacturing facilities in Minnesota, Georgia, Illinpis, California, and Texas. Cargill will pay stipulated penalties for violations identified during the audit, up to a limit of $1,200,000. Cargill may perform some or all of eleven SEPs described in the CACO at Cargill Resin Products Division facilities across the country in exchange for credit against stipulated penalties in excess of $250,000. B-27 ------- APPENDIX C DEFENSIVE JUDICIAL ACTIONS On October 18, 1991, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded most of the Agency's rule banning the future production of asbestos products. In response, on November 5, 1993, EPA issued a Federal Register notice that clarified which asbestos-containing products were no longer regulated by the rule. In response to an April 1990 remand by the Fifth Circuit of EPA's cumene test rule, the Agency on May 14, 1993, published in the Federal Register its Final Statement of Policy articulating the criteria for evaluating substantial production, substantial release, and substantial or significant human exposure for purposes of TSCA §4(a)(1)(B). Since the last report, the Agency has also settled cases with petitioners who challenged rules relating to hexavalent chromium-based water treatment chemicals and PCBs in the D.C. Circuit. In an action in the D.C. Circuit, petitioner has challenged EPA imposition of a $25,000 penalty against a Georgia facility for PCB disposal violations. The case is scheduled for argument in February 1995. Another PCB penalty appeal was dismissed by the Tenth Circuit in September 1993 due to petitioner's failure to comply with a court filing deadline. In a district court case, the Agency was sued for failure to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking under §6 of TSCA to address risks to wildlife posed by lead fishing sinkers. The Court dismissed the suit after EPA published a proposed §6 rule regulating lead sinkers. C-1 ------- DEFENSIVE LITIGATION Headquarters Caterpillar. Inc. v. EPA. No. 89-4829 (5th Cir. December 27, 1993) Petitioner challenged EPA's 1989 rule that banned the future manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution in commerce of most asbestos-containing products and that required labeling for certain products. The Court granted a stay to allow Caterpillar and EPA to negotiate a Settlement agreement to resolve the matter without further litigation. During these negotiations, Caterpillar proposed to formally request an exemption from the rule that would allow it to continue to use certain asbestos-containing parts and assemblies that were already in Caterpillar's possession. Caterpillar also indicated that parts and assemblies acquired in the future would not contain asbestos. If an exemption were granted, the company said it would withdraw its challenge to the rule. EPA and Caterpillar were in the process of discussing the details of the proposal when the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the asbestos rule in a related case. See Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA. 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991). On November 5, 1993, EPA issued a Federal Register notice that clarified which asbestos-containing products were no longer regulated by the rule as a result of the Fifth Circuit's decision. After Caterpillar reviewed the notice, it determined that the rule no longer applied to any of the asbestos-containing products in its possession. Accordingly, Caterpillar asked the Fifth Circuit to dismiss the petition for review. EPA did not oppose the request, and the Court dismissed the case. Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA. 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991) These petitioners also challenged EPA's rule that banned the C-2 ------- future manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution in commerce of most asbestos-containing products and that required labeling for certain products. By February 5, 1991, all briefs were filed and oral argument was completed. On October 18, 1991, the Court vacated and remanded most of the rule to EPA. Subsequently, the Court clarified its decision and held that the rule continued to govern asbestos-containing products that were not being manufactured, imported, or processed on July 12, 1989, when the rule was issued. The Court agreed with EPA's determination that asbestos is a toxic material and that certain exposure to asbestos can cause cancer. The Court, however, interpreted TSCA to require EPA to conduct a more extensive evaluation of regulatory alternatives to a ban and of the risks of likely asbestos substitutes than EPA had previously conducted. The Court also found that EPA had failed to comply with a procedural requirement that gave the public an opportunity to comment on one of the methods used to calculate some of the benefits of the rule. On November 5, 1993, EPA issued a Federal Register notice that clarified which asbestos containing products were no longer regulated by the rule as a result of the Fifth Circuit's decision. CMA et al. v. EPA. No. 93-5381 (5th Cir. October 8, 1993) Petitioners challenged EPA's Multisubstance Rule for the Testing of Neurotoxicity, 58 FR 40262 (July 27, 1993) (codified in part at 40 CFR 799.5050) (final test rule). The final test rule required several neurotoxicity tests be conducted on 10 high production volume organic solvents. On April 28, 1994, EPA and CMA entered into a Settlement Agreement providing for a modified testing program, and on May 13, 1994, the Court dismissed CMA's appeal. CMA v. EPA. 899 F.2d 344 (5th Cir. 1990) On September 26, 1988, CMA and five manufacturers and C-3 ------- processors filed a petition for review of a §4 rule requiring testing of the chemical cumene. EPA issued this rule under TSCA §4(a)(1)(B), which authorizes the Agency to require testing if it finds that a chemical is released into the environment in substantial quantities or that there is, or may be, substantial exposure to the chemical. On April 12, 1990, the Court remanded the rule to EPA for further consideration. The Court did sustain, as a proper basis for supporting regulation, EPA's extrapolations to determine the amount of cumene released to the environment (3 million pounds per year) and the numbers of people exposed (13.5 million). However, the rule was remanded because the Agency had not articulated at the time of rule promulgation criteria for determining the meaning of the statutory term, "substantial," as it applies to these quantities of chemical production and numbers of humans exposed. The Court did allow the rule to remain in effect, however, because much testing had already been completed and because the Court could not say there were no conceivably appropriate criteria under which EPA could properly require cumene testing. The Court also provided guidance for the Agency to develop the criteria for determining the meaning of "substantial." The Court also indicated that, contrary to plaintiff's suggestions, it is not necessary to adopt a construction of "substantial" that requires affirmative evidence and findings of toxicity of a chemical or persistence of that chemical in the environment. In response to the remand, EPA proposed in the Federal Register of July 15, 1991 (56 FR 32294) criteria to be used for testing of cumene and for subsequent test rules promulgated under TSCA §4(a)(1)(B). EPA published its TSCA §4(a)(1)(B) Final Statement of Policy articulating the criteria for evaluating substantial production, substantial release, and substantial or significant human exposure in the Federal Register of May 14, 1993(58 FR 27836). All testing of cumene required under the test rule has been C-4 ------- completed. Chrome Coalition v. EPA. No. 90-1138 (D.C. Cir.) On January 3, 1990, EPA promulgated a final rule under TSCA §6 prohibiting the use of hexavalent chromium-based water treatment chemicals in air-conditioning cooling towers. This rule automatically triggered TSCA §12(b), under which persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance regulated under §6 are required to notify EPA of such export. The preamble to the rule states that notification is required under §12(b) whenever a shipment contains hexavalent chromium, not just hexavalent chromium-based water treatment chemicals. The petitioner challenged this interpretation. The Court stayed the briefing of this case pending settlement discussions. The Chrome Coalition and EPA signed a written Settlement Agreement on December 15, 1992. The Agreement provides, among other things, that- 1) EPA will conduct ndtice-and- comment rulemaking on the issue of whether 40 CFR 749.68 (the hexavalent chromium §6 rule) should be amended in the manner specified in the attachment to the Settlement Agreement; 2) EPA will use its best efforts to publish a proposed rule by August 15, 1993; 3) the preamble to the proposed rule will specifically mention examples of types of mixtures that are not subject to the rule, such as paints, dyes, and pigments; and 4) EPA will use its best efforts to publish a final rule by August 15, 1994. The proposed rule was published on November 30, 1993, and the final rule was published on August 19, 1994. EPA believes that the final rule is in substantial conformance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. CMA et al. v. EPA. Nos. 90-1127, 90-1469, 90-1121 (D.C. Cir.) CMA, the National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), and General Motors filed petitions for review challenging the PCB Notification and Manifesting Rule (54 FR 52736, December 21, 1989). The rule establishes requirements for notifying EPA of PCB activities, manifesting PCB waste, and C-5 ------- seeking approval for the commercial storage of PCBs. Petitioners challenged a number of the rule's provisions as being arbitrary and capricious. In 1990, EPA settled the suit brought by General Motors and one of CMA's suits. Following promulgation by EPA of final amendments to the PCB rules, on December 13, 1993, CMA and NSWMA filed a joint motion, which EPA did not oppose, to dismiss the remaining lawsuit. On March 21, 1994, the motion was granted by the Court. CMA v. EPA. No. 89-1153 (D.C. Cir.) CMA filed a petition for review of the CAIR, which EPA issued pursuant to TSCA § 8(a). CAIR establishes a general framework for detailed reporting on chemicals by their manufacturers, importers, and processors. As initially promulgated, CAIR requires the submission of information for 19 chemicals. EPA intends to conduct future rulemakings to require reporting on other chemicals as the need arises. In response to comment and concerns raised by CMA and other industry groups, on July 19, 1989, EPA issued a request for additional comments on possible revisions to the CAIR. The litigation has been stayed since November 1989 pending the outcome of EPA's rulemaking to revise the CAIR. EPA issued a proposed amendment to the CAIR on November 30, 1993(58 FR63134). Region 4 GE v. EPA. No. 93-1807 (D.C. Cir.) On May 12, 1989, Region 4 issued a Complaint charging GE with violations of the PCB use and disposal regulations at GE's Chamblee, Georgia, facility. The Complaint alleged that GE had improperly processed and disposed of 10,126 gallons of PCB liquid through an unpermitted distillation method and sought $225,000 in penalties. In his initial decision, the Presiding Officer found that GE had violated both the PCB use and C-6 ------- disposal regulations but reduced the proposed penalty to $40,000. Following GE's appeal, the Environmental Appeals Board, on November 1, 1993, issued a Final Decision, that upheld the disposal violations, dismissed the use violations, and ordered GE to pay a $25,000 penalty. On November 30, 1993, GE filed a petition for review with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court has scheduled argument in the case for February 1995. Region 10 Leonard Strandlev v. EPA. No. 91-70753 (10th Cir.) This case alleged PCB disposal, storage, marking, and recordkeeping violations associated with Mr. Strandley's, now defunct, scrapping and oil recycling operations. ALJ Greene issued an Order on October 21, 1989, which assessed a penalty of $103,500 against Strandley. The Order acknowledged EPA's desire to structure the penalty assessment to support the cleanup of the Purdy, Washington, site, which is being cleaned up under CERCLA, and permanently remitted all but $5,000 of the assessed penalty on the condition that Strandley document that an amount equalling at least the remitted amount had been expended towards cleanup of the site. Strandley's Agency appeal was denied on November 15, 1991, by the CJO. On December 20, 1991, Strandley petitioned the Tenth Circuit for review. On September 15, 1993, the Court issued a voluntary dismissal of Strandley's appeal, following his failure to file a status report in compliance with the Court's July 15, 1993, Order. C-7 ------- DISTRICT COURT LITIGATION Headquarters EDF v. Browner. No. 93-0352 (D.D.C.) On October 20, 1992, EOF, the Federation of Fly Fishers, the North American Loon Fund, and the Trumpeter Swan Society filed a petition under TSCA §21 requesting EPA to issue a rule under TSCA §6 to require that the sale of lead fishing sinkers be accompanied by a label or notice warning that such products are toxic to wildlife. The petition and subsequent correspondence claimed that lead fishing sinkers are causing mortality, due to lead poisoning from ingestion of sinkers, in trumpeter swans, common loons, and a Mississippi sandhill crane, an endangered species. EPA granted the petition on January 14, 1993. After reviewing the petition, its accompanying studies, and other information gathered by EPA, the Agency preliminarily determined that certain lead fishing sinkers present an unreasonable risk of injury to waterfowl and that rulemaking under §6(a) of TSCA to ban the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of certain lead sinkers is necessary to protect against that risk. EPA informed EDF by letter on March 11, 1993, that it was planning to publish a proposed rule to address these concerns. EPA also informed EDF that it was also analyzing the need for a prohibition against the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of certain sinkers made of zinc, copper, and brass, materials likely to be used as substitutes for lead in sinkers, which may also present unreasonable risks to waterfowl. After concluding this analysis, EPA would determine the appropriateness and feasibility of regulatory action regarding these substitutes. Despite EPA's expressed intent to publish a proposed rule to address the risks posed by lead fishing sinkers, including regulatory options more stringent than the labeling requested in the petition, EDF sued EPA on March 15, 1993, in the U.S. C-8 ------- District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging EPA's failure to promptly publish a notice of proposed rulemaking under §6 of TSCA. On March 9, 1994, EPA published its notice of proposed rulemaking. On April 26, 1994, after considering motions by the parties, the Court dismissed EDF's suit. SEiU v. Reillv. No. 89-0851 (D.D.C.) In November 1988 SEIU filed a citizens' petition under TSCA §21 requesting EPA to issue rules controlling asbestos in public and commercial buildings, other than schools. This petition flowed from a long history of asbestos litigation between SEIU and EPA on asbestos in schools and other buildings. This litigation has been extensively discussed in previous annual reports. On March 28, 1989, EPA denied the petition because important information was lacking but did not permanently rule out a regulatory response. Consequently, EPA announced a June 1989 public meeting to gather data and hear arguments to assist in assessing the need for further Agency action on asbestos in public and commercial buildings. On March 31, 1989, SEIU sued under TSCA §21 to compel initiation of a rulemaking. However, the June public meeting convinced EPA to hold further meetings. As a result, SEIU asked that its suit be held in abeyance, expressing its belief that the meetings might result in EPA's voluntarily initiating rulemaking. At a status conference in December 1990 the Court, upon agreement between EPA and SEIU, issued an order holding the case in abeyance while the parties negotiated. OSHA and EPA agreed to engage in rulemaking. First, OSHA would promulgate rules on asbestos, and then EPA would initiate rulemaking to regulate those States that could not be covered by the OSHA rule. OSHA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in 1992 but has not yet published a final rule. As a result, EPA has not yet initiated rulemaking. C-9 ------- EPA CONTRIBUTORS Office of Compliance Monitoring Burgess, Rosemary Office of Enforcement Jacobs, Jon D. Office of General Counsel Curtin, James H. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Auer, Charles M. Blunck, Christopher R. Bushong, Regina L. Cheatham, Anthony L. Cook, Brion T. Coutlakis, Anna C. Flattery, Priscilla S. Gillen, Matthew E. Gimlin, Peter Greenwood, Mark A. Hannemann, David K. Hewlett, Mary Louise Jones, Rebecca A. Kinard, Michele R. Laurson, Nancy V. Matthai, Paul D. McNally, Robert C. Scalera, John V. Sullivan, John J. Tepper, Esther M. Tillman, Thomas D. Travers, Linda A. Vogel, Nancy L. Waugh, William T. Williams, David R. Willis, James B. Woodburn, Wanda Project Manager: Faeth, Lisa E. a U.S. Government Printing Office: 1995 - 615-003 (21001) ------- |