Chemicals-in-Progress Bulletin
Office of Toxic Substances (OTS)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Vol. 10 No. 3
September 1989
EPA Bans Asbestos Products
EPA has banned almost all asbestos-containing prod-
ucts in the United States in stages over the next
seven years. The ban, announced in the Federal Reg-
ister on July 12 (54 FR 29460), applies to new product
manufacture, importation and processing. It affects at
least 94 percent of U.S. production and imports,
based on 1985 production-volume estimates.
"This is pollution prevention," said EPA Administra-
tor William K. Reilly. "We're eliminating a known
U.S. Asbestos Consumption
1984-1996
EPA Announces
Plan* to
Ban Atbaalot
(May ItMl
Stage
Or*
Announced End*
(July IMI UNO)
Slag*
Two
End*
I1M3)
Stage
Three
Endt
cancer-causing substance from the marketplace. Vir-
tually all asbestos-containing products will be
replaced with safer alternatives."
The sweeping ban marks the first time EPA has used
its authority under section 6 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) to remove virtually all uses of a
toxic substance from the marketplace. Reilly said the
action, aimed at ending a "terrible legacy of dead,
dying and crippled" victims of asbestos-related dis-
eases, could set an example for similar "pollution
prevention" uses of TSCA authorities in the future.
The final rule bans manufacturing, importing and
processing of most U.S. asbestos products in three
stages, beginning with certain products on Aug. 27,
1990, and with others in August 1993 and 1996. Cor-
responding bans on distribution of the products will
occur in 1992, 1994 and 1997. A primary factor in
determining the stage at which a category of prod-
ucts should be banned was EPA's projection of the
availability of a safe substitute for each asbestos
product.
The rule bans, among other things, the use of
asbestos in automotive vehicle brakes, beginning
with 1994 models. Replacement brakes must be
made of non-asbestos products by 1996.
Estimated costs are about $459 million over 13 years.
Exposure to asbestos, a fibrous mineral, has been
linked to a number of fatal diseases, including lung
cancer, mesothelioma (a cancer of the chest and
abdominal linings), gastrointestinal cancer and
asbestosis. It also is associated with a variety of other
diseases. Controlling the risks posed by asbestos
exposure has been especially troublesome because
asbestos fibers are odorless, typically minute in size,
easily suspended in air and extremely durable.
Humans often are exposed unknowingly to asbestos
fibers with little means of protection.
see EPA, page 10
(-HIGHLIGHTS ...	
RIGHT-TO-KNOW: Toxics Release Inventory Goes Public	 Page 2
CHEMICAL EXPORTS: Changes Coming in Notification Rules	Page 4
CHEMICAL TESTING: Acrylate Plan Is Approved	 Page 6
NEW CHEMICALS: Restrictions Will Apply to All Manufacturers	Page 7
ENFORCEMENT: EPA Tangles With Coast Guard	Page 12

-------
What's Happening in OTS
Toxic Release Data
An important milestone in public participation in
environmental decisionmaking has been reached.
The event could have significant implications for
businesses which produce chemicals or use them in
other manufacturing processes.
On June 19, pursuant to the requirements of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act, EPA made available to the public a computerized
data base estimating amounts of toxic chemicals
released into the environment in 1987. At the same
time, the Agency released a report (The Toxic
Release Inventory: A National Perspective, 1987,)
analyzing the data from a national point of view and
explaining how similar analyses can be done locally
using the computerized data base. The collection of
massive environmental data specifically for public
dissemination and the availability of comprehensive
toxic release numbers via computer are truly
unprecedented occurrences.
Information in the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
came from about 74,000 reports submitted to EPA by
more than 19,000 facilities. These facilities all employ
at least ten persons, fall in Standard Industrial Classi-
fication Codes 20 through 39, and had to report if
they manufactured, processed or used any of more
than 300 chemicals in quantities above certain
thresholds.
And what do the data show? They indicate that in
1987 some 9.6 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were
released to streams and other U.S. waters, 1.9 billion
pounds were sent to municipal wastewater treatment
plants, 2.7 billion pounds were put into landfills and
3.2 billion pounds were injected into underground
wells. An additional 2.6 billion pounds were sent to
off-site treatment and disposal facilities.
A particularly interesting fact is that releases were
split almost 50-50 between facilities that produce
chemicals and businesses, such as food and textiles
operations, that use these chemicals in other man-
ufacturing processes. We also know that there were
By Charles L. Elkins
Goes Public
rather large volume releases from relatively few
sources, and that some emissions are highly concen-
trated either geographically or among a rather small
number of facilities.
TRI challenges the old theory that decisions about
control of toxics should be left to the "experts," since
the data are made available directly to the public,
without analysis or interpretation. The written report,
however, does explain some of the limitations of the
data and lists important caveats that should be kept
in mind when using such information.
Although collected explicitly for the public, the TRI
data have other uses as well. Already the information
is assisting EPA and newly formed state and local
emergency planning bodies in identifying potential
toxic chemical problems and targeting resources for
regulation, enforcement, and pollution prevention
efforts.
Independent environmental groups also are using
the toxics release data, and EPA is actively encourag-
ing producers and users of chemicals to put the infor-
mation to work on behalf of pollution prevention and
waste reduction. Chemical manufacturers can see
how well their customers are using their products;
local citizens can see how their communities are
potentially threatened; and states can set priorities
for regulation and enforcement. Information on how
you can obtain the report or get access to the data
base is on page 3.
See TRI, Page 3
Notice Anything Different?
The Chemicals-in-Progress Bulletin has a new look.
We've increased the size of both body type and head-
lines, reorganized the content to make it easier to
find articles of interest, and added some new fea-
tures and departments. All of these changes are
designed to make the Bulletin more readable and
useful for you, the reader.
You may also notice that we've dropped the term
"TSCA" from the Bulletin's title. This reflects the
changing mission of the Office of Toxic Substances.
OTS now administers a portion of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, as well
as the Toxic Substances Control Act. As you'll see
from this issue, the Bulletin's content is divided
between TSCA news and right-to-know news. With
the next issue, we hope to introduce a new title for
the Bulletin—one that reflects the changing OTS mis-
sion. We're looking for something a bit more imag-
inative than"OTS Newsletter"; any suggestions?
We plan to make other changes in future issues, and
we'd welcome your ideas. Let us know how you like
what we've done so far, and what else we can do—
either in content or presentation—to make the Bul-
letin more "user-friendly." And let us have your ideas
for a new title.
Please call your suggestions or comments in to the
TSCA Hotline at (202) 554-1404; or write to the
Environmental Assistance Division (TS-799), ATTN;
Chemicals-in-Progress Bulletin, U.S. EPA, Wash-
ington, DC 20460
2
September 1989

-------
Accessing the Toxics Release Inventory Data
The national inventory of toxic chemical releases
created by the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act provides a unique opportunity for
citizens to readily obtain data about chemicals in
their communities, either in their own homes or from
a local library.
EPA is providing and distributing a diverse set of
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) products and services
to communities to help the public obtain and under-
stand the data. The information can be accessed in a
variety of ways, ranging from the National Library of
Medicine's on-line database to microfiche available
in public libraries (see below for details).
States, communities, organizations and individuals
are beginning to obtain those products and services.
For example, the Oregon State Library operates and
supports a computer system that is accessible to
every library in Oregon. The State Library probably
will purchase the TRI magnetic tape in conjunction
with products received by Oregon's Federal Deposi-
tory Libraries.
Other examples: New Jersey's Department of Health
will be placing compact disk (CD-ROM) readers in
each county; Michigan's Department of Natural
Resources is interested in incorporating a TRI CD-
ROM reader into its computer/telecommunications
network; and local libraries throughout the country
are expressing excitement about receiving environ-
mental data.
TRI Data Goes Public
(Continued from Page 2)
The Toxic Release Inventory will be updated
annually. Reports on emissions during calendar 1988
were due to EPA on July 1. The next reports will
probably contain more data because reporting
requirements for 1988 and 1989 apply to facilities
manufacturing or processing smaller amounts of
chemicals. In the meantime, as we wait for new
reports to roll in, government, business, community
and environmental groups should be thinking about
how we can work together to use data on toxic
releases to the best advantage. TRI is intended to be
not just a report on a shelf or a set of numbers avail-
able at the touch of a key, but a tool in the hands of
people for setting and reaching new environmental
goals.
How to Get TRI Data:
—	Online computer access from your personal computer to the complete national TRI data base through the
National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD. For information on obtaining an account with NLM or on getting
assistance in your area in obtaining data from NLM, call 301-496-6351.
—	Environmental release data for each state is available for purchase in LOTUS 1-2-3 and dBase III formats for
Apple, PS2 and PC/AT microcomputers from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 703-487-4650.
—	Complete national or state TRI data microfiche are being distributed to more than 1,400 Government Printing
Offices (GPO) Federal Depository Libraries—two or more in each congressional district—and to about 3,000
county or municipal libraries (nondepository libraries) as designated by each state librarian. Microfiche also will
be available shortly for purchase from NTIS and GPO.
—	Magnetic tapes of the entire TRI in either ASCII or EBCDIC format (1600 or 6250 BPI) are being distributed to
States and are for sale by NTIS. Ask for PB 89-186-068.
—	A magnetic tape listing the name, address, and public contact/phone number of all TRI reporting facilities (about
19,000) is available for purchase from NTIS. The order number is PB 89-186-118.
—	The TRI report. The Toxics Release Inventory: A National Perspective, 1987, provides printed detailed summaries
and analyses of the TRI data. This publication is being distributed to all Federal Depository Libraries and is avail-
able for purchase from GPO and NTIS. The NTIS order number is PB 89-208-144 (Executive Summary PB
89-208-151). The GPO telephone ordering number is (202) 783-3238. GPO suggests ordering between 7:30 and 9
a.m. EST. The GPO order number for the TRI report is 055-000-0290-8 (Executive Summary 055-000-0289-4).
—	Shortly, the complete TRI on compact disc (CD-ROM) will be distributed to at least 400 Federal Depository Librar-
ies, each requesting State, 200 other research and academic libraries, and all EPA libraries. GPO and NTIS also
will have TRI CD-ROM available for purchase shortly.
—	Finally, the TRI Reporting Center in Washington, DC, will make data and reports from individual facilities available
in its public reading room and, on a limited basis, will conduct searches and provide printouts on request. Write:
Title III Reporting Center, P.O. Box 70266, Washington, DC 20004-0266 (Attn: Public Inquiry).
To obtain more information about TRI or about the law behind it, call EPA's community right-to-know hotline at
1-800-535-0202 (in Washington, DC, and Alaska, 202-479-2449) or write to:
EPA
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Hotline
OS-120
Washington, DC 20460
September 1989
3

-------
EPA Proposes Export Notification Changes
EPA is proposing amendments to regulations govern-
ing exporters of chemical substances. Under the pro-
posal, the current annual notification requirement for
exporters of chemical substances on which EPA has
issued a TSCA section 4 test rule or consent order
would be changed to a one-time export notification
requirement for each exporter of such a chemical for
each country of destination. In other words, an export-
ing company sending a section 4 chemical to a specific
country would have to report to EPA only the first such
shipment; notification of subsequent shipments of that
chemical to the same country would not be required.
The proposed rule would make no change in the
annual notification requirements triggered by a rule,
order, action, or relief under TSCA sections 5, 6, or 7.
Persons subject to the rules implementing TSCA sec-
tion 12(b) are currently required to submit a written
notice to EPA for the first export or intended export to
a particular country in a calendar year for chemicals
subject to a rule, order, action, or relief under sections
4, 5, 6, or 7 of TSCA. Since 1984, there has been
approximately a 10-fold increase in the number of
notices required from exporters under the 12(b) rule
(see chart). By 1993, it is estimated that 84 percent of
the 12(b) notices received by EPA from industry will be
in response to test rules. In 1989, it is estimated that
from one-third to one-half of EPA's export notifications
to foreign governments will be in response to test
rules.
EPA believes the proposed amendments would aid for-
eign governments' monitoring of chemicals by reliev-
ing the administrative burden imposed by the present
annual notices received on section 4 chemicals and
through encouraging the thoughtful review of notices
regarding chemicals subject to more restrictive regula-
tory action. Additionally, the proposed amendments
are necessary to reduce the notification burden on EPA
and industry. Under the current annual notification
requirement, the large volume of notices received has
hampered EPA's ability to respond to requests from
foreign governments for additional information on a
particular chemical or export notice.
This proposal was published in the Federal Register on
July 12 (54 FR 29524). Comments on the proposed
amendments are due to EPA (Public Docket No.
OPTS-12-0004) by September 11.
TSCA Section 12 (b) Export Notices
* Estimate
I I Total Received	( %) Section 4 Percent of Total
V///A Section 4 Notices Received	+ Under Current Regulations
4
September 1989

-------
EPA Seeks $235,000 from Four
Companies for TSCA Violations
On July 21, EPA's Office of Compliance Monitoring
(OCM) filed complaints against four companies for
failing to comply with various provisions of TSCA
relating to manufacture of chemicals. The total penal-
ties sought amount to $235,000. Three of the com-
panies are based in New England.
OCM issued an administrative civil complaint against
Surface Coatings Inc., of Wilmington, Mass., for man-
ufacturing seven chemical substances not on the
TSCA Inventory. OCM is seeking a $28,000 penalty.
The noncompliance was discovered in December
1986, during an inspection of the company by OCM's
National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC),
which operates out of Denver.
OCM filed an administrative civil action against Cave-
don Chemical Co., Inc., of Woonsocket, R.I., for failing
to notify EPA of an intention to manufacture four
chemicals not on the TSCA Inventory. OCM is seek-
ing an $85,000 penalty, which is half of an original
OCM-proposed $170,000 fine. The proposed fine was
reduced because Cavedon officials had voluntarily
confessed to OCM that the company was out of com-
pliance with TSCA's section 5 premanufacturing
notice (PMN) regulation.
OCM filed a civil administrative complaint against 3-V
Chemical Corp., of Charlotte, N.C., seeking a $112,000
penalty for violating several provisions of TSCA. The
company is charged with violating the PMN require-
ments, the certification provision of section 13, and
for twice violating the section 4 test rules provision,
by failing to submit a letter of intent to test or a valid
request for exemption from testing. The company
also is charged with violating section 12, the export
notification provision. The company sent a late sub-
mission of export notification. Originally, OCM
sought a $150,000 penalty against 3-V but that pro-
posed fine was reduced 25 percent because company
officials voluntarily disclosed the violations to OCM.
In the fourth case, after an NEIC investigation, OCM
filed an administrative civil action against Howard
Hall International, of Cos Cob, Conn. OCM is seeking
a $10,000 penalty for the company's violation of sec-
tion 5, importing a chemical substance not on the
TSCA Inventory. A section 13 count was not added
because the illegal importation took place before the
effective date of the section 13 final rule.
TSCA QUESTION OF THE
Q. We are importing a shipment of chemicals
into the United States. What must we do to
be in compliance with the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA)?
A. All chemicals are subject to TSCA except:
1.	Pesticides
2.	Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - regu-
lated products
3.	Tobacco or any tobacco products
4.	Any nuclear material, special nuclear material
or byproduct material
5.	Firearms
6.	Chemicals incorporated into an article
Pesticide intermediates, however, are regulated by
TSCA. If your substance is subject to TSCA, you must
determine whether it is on the TSCA Chemical Sub-
stance Inventory and which TSCA rules and regula-
tions, if any, apply.
Importation of a chemical substance subject to TSCA
that is not on the TSCA Inventory is a TSCA violation.
To search the public and confidential inventory, it is
best to file a bona fide intent to import or manufac-
ture with EPA (40 CFR 720.25). It is also possible to
search the public file through CAS Online or Dialog
subscriber services. The 1985 printed edition of the
Inventory is available for purchase through the Gov-
ernment Printing Office, and also can be found in
many large college or university libraries. A supple-
ment to the 1985 edition will be printed sometime in
1990—after the Inventory Update Rule has been
issued.
To obtain the most up-to-date regulatory status on
your chemical, call the TSCA hotline after determin-
ing that the substance is on the TSCA Inventory. Rule
searches can be done only for substances on the
Inventory.
If the substance you wish to import is not on the
TSCA Inventory, you must file a premanufacture
notice (PMN) (40 CFR 720.). The review period for a
PMN is 90 days, starting when EPA receives the
PMN.
Once an importer has met the Inventory and rule
search obligations, import of the substance into the
U.S. Customs Territory can begin.
All shipments subject to TSCA must have a positive
TSCA certification statement, as must all research
and development shipments exempt under 40 CFR
720.36. Shipments containing pesticides, nuclear
source material, firearms and ammunition all require
a signed negative certification statement. FDA foods,
food additives, drugs, cosmetics, or devices, tobacco
or any tobacco product, and articles (40 CFR 720.3)
do not require certification.
September 1989
5

-------
EPA OKs Manufacturers'
Aery late Test Program
OTS has approved a program under which a trade
organization, the Specialty Acrylates Manufacturers
(SAM), will test certain acrylate chemicals. The group
has agreed to conduct a series of toxicity tests that
will provide OTS with better information on the
potential health effects of acrylate chemicals. Some
acrylates cause cancer in animals and humans.
During the development of the data, EPA will modify
slightly its regulatory strategy for acrylates, while
maintaining stringent controls on worker protection
and training activities. During the testing EPA will
revise its warning label requirement for acrylates that
already are covered by TSCA section 5(e) consent
orders. The revised warning will continue to require
full dermal and respiratory protection for potentially
exposed workers. However, the specific health end-
points of cancer and neurotoxicity will be replaced
with a more general statement about health con-
cerns.
The testing program includes several tiers. EPA and
SAM will approve each tier before that testing stage
can begin. Each tier will trigger a modification in
EPA's regulatory strategy, perhaps leading to a sig-
nificant new use rule (SNUR) for all new acrylates. A
SNUR would broaden the coverage already provided
by section 5(e) consent orders, making their provi-
sions applicable to other manufacturers and proc-
essors of acrylates.
With more than 450 acrylates on the TSCA inventory
and a large number of premanufacture notices
(PMNs) filed for new acrylates, the information gen-
erated through SAM's testing plan will increase the
understanding of their health effects and help
develop a strategy for managing risks associated
with new acrylates. EPA and SAM also hope to pro-
mote safe handling of new acrylates throughout the
chemical industry, while encouraging the replace-
ment of older, more toxic acrylates with newer prod-
ucts.
Fish Toxicity Data
Available from Studies
Two fish toxicity screening studies, completed in the
mid-1970s but never published, are now available
from OTS. The data were developed by Craig
MacPhee and Fred F. Cheng of the University of
Idaho. A review is provided on additional sources of
fish toxicity screening tests and how these data have
been used in the development of quantitative
structure-activity relationships (QSARs) for estimat-
ing aquatic toxicity.
In a 1989 preface to the EPA report. Fish Toxicity
Screening Data, Dr. Robert Lipnick of OTS says these
data, on the effects of more than 2,000 organic chem-
icals on a variety of fish species, should prove valu-
able to scientists interested in the potential hazards
posed by the release of chemicals into the environ-
ment. The screening data have helped EPA assess
potential risks posed by the release of new and exist-
ing industrial chemicals into aquatic environments.
HDI Test Rule Proposed
EPA has proposed a test rule for 1,6-hexamethylene
diisocyanate (HDI) under section 4 of TSCA. The pro-
posal, which would require testing HDI for
oncogenicity, mutagenicity, reproductive toxicity,
developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, pharmacokine-
tics, and hydrolysis, was published on May 17 (54 FR
21240).
The Interagency Testing Committee designated HDI
for priority testing consideration for health effects in
its 22nd report to the EPA Administrator. HDI is an
important component of resins and trimers used in
polyurethane paint systems.
EPA Proposes Changes in TSCA
Small Quantity Reporting Rule
EPA is proposing to change its TSCA test rule proce-
dures for certain small-quantity chemical manufac-
turers who are subject to TSCA section 4 test rules.
Under the proposal, small-quantity manufacturers
would be treated as processors now are under the
rule.
The proposed rule, published on May 17 (54 FR
21237), would eliminate the requirement that man-
ufacturers of small quantities (less than 500 kg, or
1,000 pounds, per year) file letters of intent to test
and exemption applications, unless no other man-
ufacturer subject to a section 4 test rule submits a let-
ter of intent to test. Because small quantity
manufacturers do not conduct testing on their own,
little impact on industry's testing capacity is
expected.
The proposed rule also would eliminate the require-
ment to submit study plans at least 45 days before
testing begins.
EPA Clarifies Policies
On Free-Radical Initiators
EPA has published a policy statement aimed at clar-
ifying the premanufacture notification (PMN) require-
ments and TSCA Inventory reporting regulations for
polymers manufactured using free-radical initiators.
The policy, published in the Federal Register on June
28, requires that manufacturers and importers of
polymers using free-radical initiators at levels greater
than two weight percent in the manufacture of a
polymer, include the initiator in the polymer descrip-
tion. This policy applies only to polymers not listed
on the Inventory as of July 28, 1989, the effective
date of the Federal Register notice.
Copies of the policy statement may be obtained by
calling the TSCA Hotline at (202) 554-1404.
6
September 1989

-------
EPA Expedites New Chemical Follow-Up
EPA has established an expedited procedure to
ensure that any restrictions on the manufacture and
commercialization of a new chemical are applied
equally to all manufacturers of the chemical.
The rule, published in the Federal Register on July 27
(54 FR 31298), was developed during a series of infor-
mal and public discussions involving EPA, the Toxic
Substances Dialogue Group, and concerned citizens.
It applies to new chemicals for which EPA has issued
consent orders under section 5(e) of TSCA, as well as
to new chemical substances for which no consent
orders have been issued but which may present haz-
ards to health or the environment if exposure or
release is significantly different from those described
in the premanufacture notice (PMN).
The purpose of the action is to ensure that all man-
ufacturers of a chemical face the same requirements
as the first manufacturer, and that such restrictions
are put in place quickly and economically.
Under TSCA, whenever a company decides to man-
ufacture a new chemical, it is required to notify EPA
and to provide basic information about the chemical.
In fiscal year 1988, the Agency received more than
3,000 PMNs for the manufacture of new chemicals.
EPA has 90 days to review the submission and deter-
mine if the chemical's manufacture, processing, dis-
tribution in commerce, use or disposal should be
subject to restrictions. EPA places restrictions on
about 15 percent of the chemicals for which notifica-
tions are received. Restrictions generally control
workplace exposures, releases to the environment, or
uses of the new chemicals in consumer products.
If EPA determines that restrictions are necessary, an
agreement is reached with the manufacturer on the
limitations of manufacture and commercialization of
the chemical. That agreement, however, is binding
only on the first manufacturer of the chemical unless
EPA initiates a formal rule-making to impose the
restrictions on all subsequent manufacturers of the
chemical.
The new rule establishes an expedited process for
issuing significant new use rules (SNURs) on new
chemicals which will ensure that all manufacturers of
the new chemicals are subject to the same rules. The
rule also codifies the criteria which EPA uses under
the new chemical program to determine when a new
chemical should be included in this program.
EPA also is establishing standard language for use in
designating certain significant new uses and rec-
ordkeeping requirements. The standard language will
be referred to as needed in individual SNURs.
"Creating a level playing field for all chemical man-
ufacturers of new chemicals is only fair and equita-
ble," said Victor Kimm, EPA's deputy assistant
administrator for pesticides and toxic substances.
"That is the purpose of this rule under the new chem-
ical program.
"Otherwise," said Kimm, "subsequent manufacturers
of the chemical would be free to do as they wish
while the first manufacturer is subject to restrictions
which protect the environment, workers, and con-
sumers."
SIMUR Proposed for
Citing concerns about potential human health haz-
ards, EPA has proposed a significant new use rule
(SNUR) for 1,3-benzenediamine, 4-(1,1-dimethyl-
ethyl)-3r-methyl under section 5(a)(2) of TSCA. The
proposed rule was published on May 31 (54 FR
23228).
This chemical's use as a chain extender for reaction
injection molding polyurethane elastomers already is
regulated by a consent order developed under sec-
tion 5(e) of TSCA that requires use of appropriate
controls. EPA uses consent orders to limit manufac-
ture, processing, distribution, use or disposal of a
chemical pending development of information
needed to evaluate its potential health or environ-
mental effects.
This consent order was developed after evaluation of
a 1985 premanufacture notice (PMN) submitted to
EPA. At that time EPA evaluated test results from
structurally similar chemicals, and found that 1,3-
benzenediamine may cause cancer and chronic
organ and systemic effects. However, the consent
order applies only to the PMN submitter. By propos-
ing a SNUR now, EPA would ensure that all manufac-
turers, importers or processors are subject to similar
reporting requirements.
1,3-benzenediamine
The terms of the SNUR are approximately the same
as those of the consent order, which requires dermal
and inhalation protection for persons exposed to the
chemical, notifying exposed persons of possible haz-
ards, labelling of containers that may be distributed
in commerce, and limited production pending com-
pletion of certain tests.
PEB SNUR Issued
EPA has issued a significant new use rule (SNUR)
that will require persons planning to manufacture,
import or process pentabromoethylbenzene (PEB,
CAS No. 85-22-3) for any use, to notify the Agency at
least 90 days in advance. This final rule, under
authority of section 5(a)(2) of TSCA, was published
on April 28 (54 FR 18283).
EPA believes that this SNUR is necessary because
PEB may be hazardous to health and the environ-
ment. The notice will provide EPA with the informa-
tion needed to evaluate any proposed use and an
opportunity to protect against potentially harmful
exposure to PEB before it can occur.
PEB has been used as an additive-type flame retar-
dant.
September 1989
7

-------
OTS Prepares Rule Covering Microorganisms
OTS has completed a review of public comments on
EPA's approach to regulating commercial uses of
microorganisms under TSCA. The timetable for pro-
posing the rule is also being developed.
Comments were submitted in response to a Feb. 15
Federal Register notice (54 FR 7027). In addition EPA
has received over 300 letters from concerned citizens
encouraging the Agency to get the rule out.
EPA solicited comments on five subject areas:
•	Scope of microorganisms subject to TSCA
•	Review of research and development activities
involving release of microorganisms to the
environment
•	Definition of "commercial purposes" in the context
of research conducted at educational and research
facilities
•	Definitions of "release to the environment" and
"contained facility"
•	The extent to which independent review groups,
such as environmental biosafety committees,
should be established.
Many comments addressed whether the 1986 Coordi-
nated Framework for regulating biotechnology was
actually working, while other commenters indicated
that the only way the Coordinated Framework could
work was for EPA's TSCA rule to be published soon.
One major controversial issue often raised was about
the criteria used to establish what is risky under
TSCA. Many comments questioned what criteria
should be used to identify microorganisms which
should be screened to determine what is risky.
EPA has indicated that once it reviews a genetically
engineered microorganism, any regulatory control of
a microorganism would be based on its potential
risk. Many commenters felt that EPA should limit its
review to only those microorganisms and activities
that may pose a significant risk to human health or
the environment. An equal number of commenters;
however, indicated that EPA's decision to screen or
review all "inter-generic" microorganisms, those
with genetic material from organisms of different tax-
onomic genera, was appropriate given the current
state of scientific knowledge. Other commenters sug-
gested EPA link submission for review to phenotype
rather than what appeared to be the Agency's pre-
ferred genotypic approach. Some felt that low risk
microorganisms should be exempted from review.
Many respondents said that naturally occurring
microorganisms should not fall under the scope of
EPA review.
In the area of commercial R&D, the draft proposed
rule requires reporting only for environmental
releases of inter-generic microorganisms. Some
commenters approved of EPA's oversight of R&D
field tests of inter-generics. Some thought EPA's
oversight was too restrictive and will impede innova-
tion while still others gave suggestions for expanding
the scope to be more inclusive and have stringent
review.
Under the draft proposed rule, a researcher would be
allowed to submit a TSCA experimental release
application (TERA) in lieu of a premanufacturing
notice (PMN) for R&D releases to the environment of
inter-generic microorganisms. While most commen-
ters favored the TERA system of abbreviated report-
ing, some urged further streamlining or clarification
of the process.
Many comments were received on the draft pro-
posed rule's distinction between academic R&D and
commercial R&D. A wide variety of comments were
given ranging from: no distinction can be made
between a same experiment done in a commercial
setting or an academic setting, to only having over-
sight of "commercial purpose" academic R&D, to not
regulating academic R&D because it would decrease
academic freedom and innovation.
Many people commented on the establishment of the
independent review groups or environmental bio-
safety committees (EBCs). Concerns were raised over
the design, jurisdiction, funding, liability and makeup
of the committees.
On other issues, major comments were received on
confidential business information and the public's
right to know the contents of submissions under
TSCA.
CHIP on CTP Available
OTS has completed a Chemical Hazard Information
Profile (CHIP) on N-(cyclohexylthio)phthalimide
(CTP).
CHIPs are summary reviews of all the readily avail-
able information concerning the health and environ-
mental effects and potential exposure to a chemical.
CHIP candidates are chosen on the basis of informa-
tion indicating a potential for adverse health or
environmental effects, along with evidence of signifi-
cant production or some type of exposure.
Chips are available by contacting:
Environmental Assistance Division
Office of Toxic Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (TS-799)
Washington, DC 20460, or
by calling—(202) 554-1404
CAIR Technical Amendment Published
EPA is adding over 600 chemical substance trade
names to the list of substances subject to the Com-
prehensive Assessment Information Rule (CAIR). This
amendment, published on June 14 (54 FR 25398), is
necessary because certain processors may purchase
and process a CAIR regulated substance under a
trade name and not realize they are required to
report.
Persons who purchase and process a substance
known to them by any of the trade names listed in
the amendment must comply with the reporting and
recordkeeping obligations set forth in the CAIR rule,
which was published on December 22, 1988 (53 FR
51698).
8
September 1989

-------
OTS Begins Dialogue
On Asbestos in Buildings
By Tom Tillman
To help EPA determine the most appropriate actions
to take in dealing with asbestos in public and com-
mercial buildings, OTS has begun a policy dialogue
with representatives of all major groups which have
an interest in the issue.
The groups include building owners, service
employees, mortgage bankers, asbestos contractors
and consultants, asbestos manufacturers, real estate
interests and insurance companies. Also participating
are representatives of the various federal, state, and
local organizations responsible for the development
and implementation of asbestos policies.
OTS has hired the Conservation Foundation to con-
vene and facilitate the discussions, which began with
a public meeting in Washington on May 3. Several
more meetings will be held before October. At least
two of the meetings will be held outside the Wash-
ington area.
The early discussions will focus on issues identified
at the May 3 meeting. They include:
•	"Right to know"—the obligation of building
owners to inspect buildings for asbestos and notify
occupants of the results.
•	Standard of care—deciding what to do when
asbestos is found in a building.
•	Accreditation and training—how to upgrade the
quality of asbestos abatement personnel.
•	Improperly performed removals—how to ensure
that asbestos removal work is performed properly.
EPA hopes the meetings will produce new ideas and,
perhaps, areas of consensus among the participants
as to what federal, state and private organizations
should do to resolve the asbestos-in-buildings prob-
lems.
If the participants develop suggestions about any
programmatic or regulatory steps that EPA should
take, OTS Director Charles Elkins has pledged to
bring these matters to the Agency's top management
for consideration.
Chemical Strippers
EPA Seeks NMP Data
OTS is seeking both published and unpublished
information on N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP; CAS No.
872-50-4). This chemical is currently being reviewed
by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
because it is used as a substitute for methylene chlo-
ride in paint strippers. OTS will develop a proposed
test rule under section 4 of TSCA in support of the
CPSC's need for health effects data.
OTS is encouraging individuals and firms to submit
unpublished or recently published reports and all
other hard-to-obtain studies on population exposure,
commercial production and uses, environmental lev-
els, and health effects data on NMP. OTS is also
interested in current testing of NMP or ongoing
assessment activities by other organizations. Sub-
missions must contain complete study protocols and
raw data in addition to final reporting results to be
considered useful.
Persons who have unpublished data on NMP, but
who also want answers to questions prior to
responding, should contact Robert Jones, of the OTS
Test Rules Development Branch, at 202-475-8150, as
soon as possible.
All information submitted in response to the solicita-
tion will be placed in a public file and made available
for public inspection, unless the submitter is able to
assert a claim of confidentiality under the provisions
of section 14 of TSCA. EPA will handle all con-
fidentiality claims in accordance with its procedures
governing the confidentiality of business informa-
tion.
All published or unpublished information should be
submitted to:
Lynn Marcus
TSCA Public Docket Office (TS-793),
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Rm. NE-G004,
401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
ITC Adds No Chemicals to Priority List
In its recently released 24th report to the EPA Admin-
istrator, the Interagency Testing Committee (ITC)
added no new chemicals to the list of chemicals to be
given priority consideration by EPA. The ITC did
remove one chemical, diisodecylphenylphosphite
from the priority list because EPA issued a consent
order requiring testing of the chemical.
EPA Again Sending PMN Letters
Submitters of premanufacture notification notices
(PMNs) are once again receiving written acknowl-
Jedgements that their submissions have been received
by OTS. This practice, which was temporarily sus-
pended on March 15 because of budgetary constraints,
was resumed on June 28.
The acknowledgement letter shows the date the PMN
was received and the PMN submission number
assigned to the case. Submitters need this informa-
tion to file accurate notices of commencement once
manufacture of a new chemical begins. The letter
now also includes a unique "User Fee (TS) number,"
which is supplied by each submitter, in lieu of the
chemical identity.
September 1989
9

-------
EPA Bans Almost All Asbestos Products
(continued from page 1)
Asbestos has been in widespread use in many impor-
tant industrial, construction and other applications in
the United States since early in this century.
Although the use of asbestos has declined signifi-
cantly since this rulemaking was initiated in 1979—
from 561,000 metric tons to less than 85,000 metric
tons today—there is continued significant use in a
variety of products.
Reilly recommended against unnecessary replace-
ment of certain asbestos-containing products.
"Disturbing asbestos brakes, shingles or siding
already in place, when there is no health or safety
reason to do so, can cause a much greater health
hazard than leaving them in place," he said. "If
asbestos-containing products must be replaced, con-
sumers should seek professional advice and assist-
ance in identifying safe substitutes and in properly
removing the asbestos products."
Phasing Out Asbestos:
First Stage Ban — 1990
Felt Products
Pipeline wrap
Roofing felt
Flooring felt
A/C Products
A/C sheet, corrugated
A/C sheet, flat
Products out of use
V/A floor tile
Asbestos clothing
Second Stage Ban — 1993
Friction Products
Drum brake linings (OEM)
Disc brake pads, LMV (OEM)
Disc brake pads, HV (OEM)
Clutch facings
Automatic transmission components
Industrial and commercial friction products
Gaskets
Beater-add gaskets (except some industrial uses)
Sheet gaskets (except some industrial uses)
A/C — asbestos cement
V/A — vinyl asbestos
OEM — original equipment market
AM — after market
LMV — light and medium vehicles
HV — heavy vehicles
Third Stage Ban — 1996
Coatings
Roof coatings
Non-roof coatings
Paper Products
Commercial paper
Rollboard
Millboard
Corrugated paper
Specialty paper
Friction Products
Brake blocks (OEM)
Brake blocks (AM)
Drum brake linings (AM)
Disc brake pads, LMV (AM)
Disc brake pads, HV (AM)
A/C Products
A/C pipe
A/C shingle
Not Banned
Missile liner
Asbestos diaphragms
Battery separators
Arc chutes
Acetylene cylinders
Asbestos thread
Asbestos reinforced plastic
Sealant tape
Electrical paper
Asbestos packings
Some industrial uses of sheet gaskets
Some industrial uses of beater-add gaskets
Mining and milling
The Chemicals-in Progress Bulletin is intended to
inform readers about recent developments and near-
term plans of EPA's Office of Toxic Substances,
which administers TSCA and a portion of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act.
Editor: Joe Boyle
Associate Editor: Beverly Lehrer
Staff for this issue: Todd Edelman
Eric Maclure
Single copies of most TSCA documents mentioned in
the Bulletin are available from the OTS Environmen-
tal Assistance Division (EAD). To obtain these items
write to: EAD (TS-799), EPA, Washington, DC 20460-
or call (202) 554-1404.
For information or documents related to the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act, write to Right-to-Know Information, EPA,
OS-120, Washington, DC 20460, or call
1-800-535-0202. (For Alaska and the Washington, DC
area, call (202) 479-2449.)
10
September 1989

-------
TSCA Section 8(e) Notices, FYI Submissions
Listed below are 8 initial TSCA Section 8(e) notices and
5 initial "For Your Information" (FYI) submissions
received recently by EPA.
— TSCA Section 8(e) Notices
Under section 8(e) of TSCA, persons who obtain
information that reasonably supports the conclusion
that a chemical substance or mixture that they man-
ufacture, import, process or distribute in commerce
presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the
environment, must notify EPA in writing within 15
working days. OTS reviews initial section 8(e) notices
and prepares "status reports," which are made pub-
lic in order to make section 8(e) information widely
available and understandable. A section 8(e) status
report typically contains a description and prelimi-
nary evaluation of the submitted information, a state-
ment regarding production and uses of the subject
chemical(s), and recommendations for appropriate
OTS follow-up actions or activities.
Log No. 8EHQ-	Pages* CAS No.
0489-0792	280
1,2,4-Triazole	288-88-0
Final results of two oral teratology studies in rats.
0489-0793	6
5-Methyl-3-heptanone	541-85-5
Preliminary results of a 13-week oral toxicity study in
rats.
0489-0794 S	102
Substituted aryl sulfonic
acid (generic name)
Final results of an oral teratology study in rats.
0489-0795	39
4,4'-Sulfonylbis(phthalic
anhydride)	2540-99-0
Final results of a pulmonary sensitization study in
rats.
0589-0796	39
Benzophenone tetracarboxylic
dianhydride
2421-28-5
Final results of a pulmonary sensitization study in
rats.
0589-0797	6
Antimony trioxide	1309-64-4
Ophthalmologic findings from a 2-year inhalation
study in rats.
0589-0798 S	24
Chlorinated aliphatic ketone
(generic name)
Final results of an Ames mutagenicity assay.
0589-0799	1
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(R12 Refrigerant)	75-71-8
Dimethyl ether (DME)	115-10-6
Bis(chloromethyl)ether
(BCME)	107-30-2
Chloromethyl methyl ether
(CMME)	542-88-1
Detection of parts per billion (ppb) quantities of
BMCE and CMME in a simulated automotive air
conditioning application study of a 93%/7% mixture
of R12 Refrigerant and DME, respectively.
FYI Submissions
The For Your Information (FYI) submission classifica-
tion system was established by OTS to distinguish
such submissions from notices submitted formally to
EPA under section 8(e) of TSCA. FYls are voluntary
submissions that cover a wide variety of information
and may include data on chemical toxicity and
exposure, epidemiology, monitoring, and environ-
mental fate. FYl's are submitted by chemical man-
ufacturers, processors, federal, state, or local
agencies, foreign governments, academia, public
interest and environmental groups, and the general
public. The FYI reporting mechanism is used also to
solicit information for preparation of Chemical Haz-
ard Information Profiles (CHIPs).
Pages* CAS No.
85
FYI Number
Chemical Name
OTS-0389-0684
White mineral oils	none
Full final reports of two 90-day feeding studies in
rats.
OTS-0489-0686	4
1,3-Butadiene	106-99-0
Summarized report of an NTP chronic inhalation
study indicating lung cancer in female mice.
AX-0489-0687	317
SARA 313 Chemicals	none
Final report of monitoring ambient air concentrations
around three oil refineries.
AX-0489-0688	164
Aromatic hydrocarbons	none
Final report of an evaluation of the biodegradation
predictive equations in EPA's CHEMDAT6 Model.
OTS-0589-0689	624
Methyl-t-butyl ether	1634-04-4
Final reports of inhalation developmental toxicity
studies in mice and rabbits.
"S" following the Section 8(e) or FYI Log No. indicates that
a sanitized (i.e., non-confidential) version of the document is
available.
"P" following the Section 8(e) or FYI Log No. indicates that
a portion of the submission is protected under the Privacy
Act.
•Page count is for initial TSCA Section 8(e) and FYI submis-
sions. New data are constantly being added to EPA's Sec-
tion 8(e) and FYI files; thus, the number of pages at the time
of a request for copies may exceed the no-charge 166-page
cutoff.
Public Availability
The section 8(e) notices and status reports, as well as
the FYI submissions, are located in the OTS Public
Reading Room, Room NEG004, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460. Single copies of section 8(e)
status reports are available from the OTS Environ-
mental Assistance Division, EPA, TS-799, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20460; telephone: (202) 554-1404.
To obtain a copy of a full section 8(e) or FYI submis-
sion, write to: EPA, Freedom of Information (A-101),
Washington, DC 20460. Although there is no charge
for duplicating the first 166 pages, at page 167 there
is a $25.00 fee and there is a 15-cent charge for each
additional page (e.g., 167 pages will cost $25.15).
September 1989
11

-------
Enforcement
EPA, Coast Guard Tangle
Over PCB Spill in Alaska
EPA Region X has issued a civil administrative com-
plaint against the U.S. Coast Guard for PCB violations
at the Coast Guard facility at Kodiak, Alaska. The
complaint, issued on June 5, is the second PCB com-
plaint against the service at the same site. EPA
charges the Coast Guard with failure to begin the
cleanup of a PCB spill discovered in 1985.
The Guard's position is that the property was sold in
1984 "as is" to the Kodiak Electrical Association, Inc.,
and any EPA action should be against the new
owner. KEA operates the support center for the Coast
Guard. In the latest legal action, EPA said the prop-
erty sold to the KEA did not include land or buildings,
all of which remain the Guard's property.
In January 1989, in a similar PCB case, Rockwell
International Corp., the operator of the Rocky Flats
nuclear weapons facilities near Denver, admitted
EPA's jurisdiction over the U.S. Department of
Energy-owned facility. In another contractor-operated
federal facility at Cincinnati, EPA collected civil penal-
ties from National Lead Inc. for PCB violations.
EPA is becoming more aggressive in dealing with
federal facilities that fail to comply with laws it
administers, according to Michael J. Walker, assist-
ant enforcement counsel for EPA's Toxic Litigation
Division. " The risks to public health and the environ-
ment from spilled PCBs are no different at federal
facilities," Walker said. "Federal facilities must com-
ply with the same (PCB) use and disposal require-
ments that are applicable to the private sector."
If EPA chooses, it can pursue the complaint against
the Coast Guard by using the provisions of Executive
Order 12088 by escalating the dispute to the U.S.
Office of Management and Budget.
EPA Fines Ethox Chemicals
$67,000 for TSCA Violations
EPA has filed a $67,000 civil complaint against Ethox
Chemicals Inc., of Greenville, S.C., for failing to sub-
mit a premanufacturing notice (PMN) for a chemical
not on the TSCA Inventory and for failing to comply
with the Act's notice-of-commencement require-
ments for three other substances.
The violations were discovered by inspectors from
EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center.
Manufacturers and importers must submit a PMN at
least 90 days before manufacturing or importing a
chemical not on the TSCA Inventory so that EPA can
review the substance. TSCA also requires a manufac-
turer or importer of a chemical that has cleared the
PMN review process to submit a manufacturing com-
mencement notice to EPA. All three chemicals for
which Ethox failed to submit a commencement of
manufacturing notice have since been reviewed by
EPA and now are listed on the TSCA Inventory.
EPA, Dow Reach Accord
In $1 Million PMIM Case
EPA and Dow Chemical Co. have reached an agree-
ment in principle to settle the TSCA civil administra-
tive action subject to a complaint filed June 16. The
complaint seeks a $1,013 million penalty. The terms
of the agreement, reached on July 6, will not be
released until the settlement is finalized.
In the original civil administrative complaint, Dow
Chemical was charged with 227 counts of manufac-
turing a new polycarbonate plastic without having
first submitted a premanufacturing notice (PMN) in
accordance with section 5 of TSCA.
The chemical implicated in the complaint is also the
subject of five other EPA administrative actions
under TSCA sections 5 and 13. Four of these actions
were filed against Japanese importers for failing to
submit PMNs and for failing to correctly certify the
chemicals' import status with the U.S. Customs Serv-
ice. All four of the importers have signed consent
agreements, which EPA has forwarded to the Chief
Judicial Officer for final approval.
The fifth action, filed against the General Electric Co.,
was for the failure to submit a timely TSCA section 5
notice of commencement for the substance. The GE
case was settled for $17,000. Jon Silberman repre-
sented EPA in all six cases.
Judge's Ruling Boosts EPA's
PCB Enforcement Inspections
EPA's right to inspect PCB facilities received a boost
in June, when an EPA administrative law judge
rejected a company's attempt to limit Agency inspec-
tions.
In May 1989, Energy Systems Co., Inc. (Ensco) filed
for an authorization to conduct discovery. In support
of this legal action Ensco said EPA inspections of its
PCB and hazardous waste incineration facility at El
Dorado, Arkansas, were so much more frequent than
at any other facility that the visits were unconstitu-
tional under the due process and equal protection
clauses of the Constitution.
Under a 1986 contract with EPA, Ensco is permitted
to dispose of PCBs at El Dorado. In 1987, EPA insisted
the authorization be amended so that the facility
could be inspected by the State of Arkansas up to
three times a day. The cost of the inspections is
borne by Ensco.
In rejecting Ensco's claim, Judge Marvin E. Jones
said the discovery request was "actually an attack on
the contract entered into with the State of Arkansas"
and that "this is not the appropriate forum to test the
validity of this or any other contract." Jones also
ruled that the disposal permit conditions were bind-
ing, and he rejected the company attempt to claim
that EPA's inspection requirements, which are
greater than at other facilities, were unfair.
12
September 1989

-------
Judge Denies Motion
By Kodak in PMN Case
In a recent pretrial order, an EPA administrative law
judge has denied a motion by Eastman Kodak Co. to
compel discovery by EPA in a TSCA premanufactur-
ing notice (PMN) case. Judge Frank W. Van-
derheyden also denied a motion seeking "amplified
summaries" of EPA's prehearing exchange.
In denying Kodak's motion to compel discovery,
Judge Vanderheyden said that although discovery
can lead to admissible evidence and judicial econ-
omy, "discovery, as a litigation art, can be put to
inapposite uses." He also held that "there is no basic
constitutional right to pretrial discovery in admin-
istrative cases."
The decision "is significant to the practice of admin-
istrative law in thai it discourages dilatory discovery
exercises" by the defendant's counsel, said Michael
J. Walker, assistant enforcement counsel in EPA's
Toxic Litigation Division. The ruling also affirms that
discovery, other than what is ordered by a judge for
pretrial exchange, is to be subject to stringent review
by a court, Walker said.
EPA Wins Significant PCB Case
Boliden Metech, Inc, of Providence, R.I., has been
fined $32,000 for improperly disposing of PCBs in
violation of the TSCA. The TSCA case is also the sub-
ject of a companion case in the U.S. District Court of
Rhode Island involving the Federal Rivers and Har-
bors Act.
The TSCA action was vigorously contested by
Boliden, according to Michael J. Walker, assistant
enforcement counsel, in EPA's Toxic Litigation Divi-
sion. Walker noted several "significant" aspects of
the opinion by EPA Administrative Law Judge Frank
Vanderheyden:
•	It is not always necessary to take a "representative
sample" to prove a violation of the PCB regula-
tions;
•	Procedures for taking samples set forth in the
TSCA inspection manual are "guidelines." Failure
by EPA to follow sample collection procedures of
TSCA "are not fatal" and does not destroy the
validity of the samples;
•	EPA is not required to prove that spilled PCBs were
released into the surrounding soil to prove
improper disposal;
•	The PCB regulations require analysis "by any sci-
entifically valid method";
•	EPA's PCB tests are reliable;
•	Sampling outside a company's property (in this
case sampling in the Providence River) does not
violate unreasonable search and seizure prohibi-
tions of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
Second Judge Rules:
TSCA Not Subject to Time Limit
For the second time within a few months, an EPA
judge has rejected a claim that a general federal stat-
ute of limitations restricts EPA from taking action
under the TSCA.
In the new case, Rollins Environmental Services, Inc.
claimed EPA was precluded from bringing action in a
PCB case because the violations took place more
than five years before the complaint was issued.
Rollins acknowledged that TSCA does not contain a
statute of limitations clause but argued that the gen-
eral federal five-year statute of limitations governing
enforcement does apply.
Rollins also claimed that it did not violate TSCA when
it incinerated kerosene containing less than 50 ppm
of PCBs in a non-TSCA permitted incinerator.
On July 13, Administrative Law Judge Marvin E.
Jones cited an April 2 ruling that the general federal
statute of limitations provision did not apply to EPA
administrative penalty actions under TSCA (May Bul-
letin, p. 2).
Judge Jones also rejected Rollins claim that since the
federal statute of limitations provision applies to
other EPA measures, such as the Clean Water Act,
the Clean Air Act, and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, it should apply to TSCA.
The judge ruled that the other laws differed from
TSCA because TSCA alone provides for civil penalty
assessment with enforcement left to the federal Dis-
trict Court. The other laws include enforcement provi-
sions, he said, ruling that the clock begins only when
the TSCA inspection is made.
Judge Jones also ruled that the disposal of the PCBs,
although below 50 ppm, violated TSCA because
PCBs cannot be diluted with liquid to avoid proper
disposal in a PCB incinerator.
'No-Show' Costs $16,500
In two cases involving PCB violations, an EPA admin-
istrative law judge has issued a default order against
Stephan Zbikowski and two Colorado-based corpora-
tions he controlled. The fines totaled $16,500, but the
respondents failed to appear at a hearing set for May
18. Earlier, they had failed to comply with a prehear-
ing order of the same judge, Marvin E. Jones.
On June 19, Judge Jones found that the "willful
failure of Respondents to comply with the orders
issued in this proceeding is aptly demonstrated by
the record."
Charges against the defendants were brought after
EPA inspectors discovered leaking PCB capacitors
and transformers that were not stored or disposed of
as required by PCB regulations issued under TSCA.
September 1989
13

-------
Right-to-Know
EPA Proposes $1.65 Million in TRI Fines
EPA has proposed fining 42 companies a total of
$1.65 million for failing to report toxic chemical
releases as required under section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act. This information must be reported annually and
is included in EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).
"These companies have a legal responsibility to
provide the data," said EPA Administrator William K.
Reilly. "We have an obligation to enforce the law and
to assure that this national inventory of discharged
toxic chemicals is publicly available. We will not
allow nonreporting companies to thwart the right of
citizens to find out which toxic chemicals are being
released into their communities."
The companies were required to submit data on 1987
emissions to air, land, and water by July 1, 1988. The
cited companies either produce or process chemi-
cals. The companies range from cardboard manufac-
turers to commercial printers.
EPA has now sought fines totalling $3.95 million
from 85 companies nationwide for violations of the
law during the first reporting year. In addition, the
Agency has issued 1,318 notices of noncompliance.
Penalties were assessed based on company size,
total chemical quantity unreported, and quantities
manufactured, processed, imported or used. Each of
the assessed firms was inspected by EPA to deter-
mine compliance with the law.
Failure to prepare and submit the required annual
reports can result in civil penalties of up to $25,000 a
day. About 74,000 reports were submitted to EPA last
year by more than 19,000 facilities.
Companies Cited and Proposed Penalties
Sola-Opthalmics
Phoenix, AZ $25,000
Dolphin, Inc.
Phoenix, AZ $51,000
Beringer Vineyard
St. Helena, CA $17,000
Diceon Electronics
Chatsworth and Irvine, CA $262,000
Integrated Device Technology
Santa Clara, CA $67,000
Elpower Corporation
San Diego, CA $76,000
Hemet Casting
Hemet, CA $17,000
Perkin Elmer Corp.
Los Angeles, CA $17,000
Newport Corp.
Fountain Villa, CA $34,000
Matchmaster Dyeing & Finishing
Los Angeles, CA $42,000
ABC Rail
Pueblo, CO $68,000
Eyelematic Manufacturing, Inc.
Watertown, CT $59,000
A & S Fiberglass, Inc.
Jacksonville, FL $5,000
Sipi Metal Corporation
Chicago, IL $92,000
Metal Lubricants
Harvey, IL $51,000
Park Rubber
Lake Zurich, IL $17,000
Kaw Valley Inc.
Leavenworth, KS $15,000
CPC Rexcel, Inc.
Ludlow, MA $17,000
ChemFax Inc.
Gulfport, MS $51,000
LaValley Construction
Biloxi, MS $34,000
St. Louis Paint Manufacturing Co.
St. Louis, MO $17,000
Decora
Williamstown, NJ $17,000
United Wire Hanger Corp.
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ $68,000
Lehigh Press
Pennsauken, NJ $25,000
Colonial Processing Inc.
Camden, NJ $10,000
Grinnell Lithographic Co., Inc.
Islip, NY $17,000
Harrnac Industries
Buffalo, NY $17,000
ESCO Corporation
Portland, OR $68,000
Woodfold-Marco Manufacturing
Forest Grove, OR $17,000
Reilly Whiteman
Conshohocken, PA $6,000
Damascus Steel Castings Co.
New Brighton, PA $5,000
Teledyne-Uasco
Latrobe, PA $17,000
Johnson Matthey
West Chester, PA $34,000
Falls Manufacturing Co.
Fairless Hills, PA $51,000
Allen's Manufacturing, Inc.
Providence, Rl $5,000
Nyman Manufacturing, Inc.
East Providence, Rl $17,000
BASF Corporation
Chattanooga, TN $17,000
Vandervoort
Fort Worth, TX $59,000
International Extrusion Corp.
Waxalachie, TX $101,000
American Plant Foods
Galena Park, TX $42,000
Southwestern Plating
Houston, TX $15,000
Rohr Industry, Inc.
Auburn, WA $17,000
14
September 1989

-------
EPA Proposes Additions to TRI List of Chemicals
EPA is proposing to add 10 chemicals to the list of
toxic chemicals subject to reporting under section
313 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act. This law requires the collection
and public release of data, through the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI), on more than 300 hazardous or toxic
chemicals.
Sodium Sulfate Deleted
EPA has removed sodium sulfate (Na2S04) from the
list of toxic chemicals included in the national Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI). The TRI, a national inventory
of toxic chemical discharges, is required by section
313 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act.
Sodium sulfate was delisted because EPA deter-
mined that available data do not demonstrate that
the chemical causes or can reasonably be anticipated
to cause significant adverse health or environmental
effects as set forth in section 313. The action was
announced in the Federal Register on June 20 (54 FR
25851).
Sodium sulfate accounted for more than half of the
chemicals reported to the TRI in 1987, with releases
and transfers of more than 12 billion pounds. Most of
the chemical was discharged to surface waters and
public sewage treatment plants.
EPA's action means that companies covered by the
section 313 reporting requirements do not have to
report their 1988 releases of sodium sulfate.
In related actions, EPA has proposed to delete non-
fibrous aluminum oxide, and Pigment Blue 15, Pig-
ment Green 7 and Pigment Green 36 from the
reporting requirements of section 313 for toxic chem-
icals. The proposals were published on April 24 (54
FR 16376) and May 15 (54 FR 20866).
EPA's proposals to remove these substances are
based on the Agency's conclusion that the chemicals
do not cause nor can reasonably be anticipated to
cause adverse human health or environmental
effects.
However, EPA has proposed to retain fibrous forms
of aluminum oxide on the list because EPA believes
there is evidence that breathing the fibrous form may
lead to the development of cancer in humans.
Nine of the chemicals were chosen after a review of
the list of hazardous substances developed under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Ally! alcohol, cre-
osote, 2.3-dichloropropene, diethylamine, m-dinitro-
benzene, O-dinitrobenzene, p-dinitrobenzene, di-
nitrotoluene (mixed isomers) and isosafrole were
chosen based on their cancer-causing potential or
other chronic toxicity.
The tenth entry, toluenediisocyanate (mixed isomers)
was chosen because it is expected that mixtures of
these isomers would generally cause the same
serious chronic health effects as individual isomers
already on the list.
The Agency will continue to review other sources to
locate candidates for the section 313 toxic chemicals
list. EPA is currently looking into the development of
screening criteria for making modifications to the list.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Reg-
ister on April 21 (54 FR 16138).
Firm Held Liable for Reporting Violations
A New England chemical facility has been held liable
for failing to report an accidental release of chlorine
as required by two federal laws.
The case involved a release of 180,000 pounds of
chlorine from All Regions Chemical Labs, Inc., a facil-
ity in Springfield, Mass., on the morning of June 17,
1988. The release caused an evacuation of some
6,000 people from homes and schools.
The company was charged with failing to notify the
National Response Center as required by section 103
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (the Superfund law)
and section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Com-
munity Right-to-Know Act. The company admitted
that it had not provided the required notice but
asserted that "other parties" had notified the appro-
priate authorities. Since the "purposes" of both laws
were accomplished, the company argued, there was
no violation.
EPA to Waive TRI Fees for
An EPA pilot program may make it easier for some
Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) to
obtain information about toxic chemicals. Under the
program, announced on June 7 (54 FR 24415), EPA
will waive fees for accessing the national Toxic
Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) data base for
selected LEPC's based on a showing that the waiver
is in the public interest.
LEPC's were established by the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act to develop
emergency plans to prepare for and respond to
chemical emergencies. They draw their members
Selected Committees
from state and local governments, health and safety
officials, environmental and transportation agencies,
the news media, community groups and affected
businesses and industries.
The fee waiver program is designed to ensure that
access to the TRI data base is not limited by financial
constraints, and to encourage use of the TRI data by
LEPCs and other community organizations and cit-
izens.
Based on its experience with the pilot program, EPA
will consider making fee waivers more widely avail-
able in the future.
September 1989
15

-------
New Division Created in OTS
On June 27, a new unit, the Environmental Assist-
ance Division (EAD), was officially established within
the Office of Toxic Substances (OTS). To form EAD
two existing OTS units were merged—the TSCA
Assistance Office (TAO) and the Hazard Abatement
Assistance Branch (HAAB). Until now HAAB's main
activity was implementing EPA's asbestos-in-schools
program. Michael M. Stahl has been appointed direc-
tor of EAD.
In a memo on the establishment of the new OTS divi-
sion, Stahl listed seven goals for EAD:
•	Involve EPA regions, the states, interest groups
and the public in decisionmaking about toxic sub-
stances;
•	Increase understanding of toxic substances control
programs;
•	Enhance state and local capabilities to carry out
toxic substances control programs;
•	Build a national toxic substances control program
with EPA's regions;
•	Reduce risks through communication;
•	Develop EPA/private sector nonregulatory initia-
tives;
•	Develop and implement programs to control
asbestos in buildings.
The decision to merge TAO and HAAB was made
because the "center of gravity" of EPA's asbestos-in-
schools program has shifted from Washington to
EPA's regional offices and to the states, Stahl said.
HAAB in its asbestos activities has been the principal
OTS practitioner of the themes now set out for EAD.
"More than any other OTS program, the asbestos
program (HAAB) has established a presence in the
regions and states and is in the forefront of the OTS
effort to enhance toxic substances programs in the
states," Stahl said.
... TIPOFF...
... Interested in publishing a statewide inventory of
toxic chemicals based on section 313 data, or in
knowing how others are analyzing statewide TRI
data?...try to get copies of five good reports:
•	Toxics Released ... Vermont Public Interest
Research Group; (802) 223-5221
•	Toxic Hazards (11/88) ... Massachusetts Public
Interest Research Group; (617) 292-4800
•	1st Annual Toxic Chemical Report ... Illinois EPA;
(217) 782-3637
•	Toxic Air Pollution in Illinois (2/89)
Lung Association; (312) 243-2000
•	N.Y. State TRI Review; (518) 457-4107
Chicago
... This may be a first... to help its citizens effectively
use the federal right-to-know law, Kansas has started
a bulletin ... John Flint (913) 296-1690 says he'll add
your name to the Kansas Right-to-Know News mail-
ing list ... it they're coping in Kansas we all have a
right-to-know how they're doing it ...
... For the latest on assessing potential health risks of
dioxin in paper products, see the magazine Environ-
mental Science and Technology, # 6, 1989 ... to bet-
ter understand how FDA monitors for pesticide
residues in foods, see the Journal of Official Ana-
lytical Chemists, May/June 1989 ... that same issue
has a report on levels of PCBs and pesticides in blue-
fish, before and after cooking...
... If you've wondered about chemicals in bottled
water, pick up the March/April 1989 Archives of
Environmental Health ... to learn how workers
reacted when notified that while they were asbestos-
exposed there was a medical screening program on
hand, see vol. 15, #4 of the American Journal of
Industrial Medicine ... this same journal in vol. 15, #5
has an editorial on benzene and lymphoma ... then
turn to the American Journal of Epidemiology, vol.
129, #5, for a letter and reply on 'benzene and leu-
kemia'...
... Joe Boyle
Environmental Assistance Division (TS-799)	owieiai •uiIiwm
Office of Pesticides & Toxic Substances	penalty ior Pri»«i
U.S.E.P.A.	$3oo
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Flnt Clan Mall
Poataga and Fm Paid
EPA
Parmll No. 0-3S
THE CHEMICALS-IN-PROGRESS BULLETIN

-------