Chemicals-in-Progress Bulletin Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Vol. 11 No. 1 February 1990 To Proceed with Caution EPA Sets Biotechnology Goals Biotechnology may help society solve serious and important environmental problems. Yet this new technology must be handled cautiously to protect the public from dangerous unintended consequences, EPA Administrator William K. Reilly told a meeting of the Industrial Biotechnology Association. A cautious attitude is appropriate, he said, "because of the possibility that a genetically modified organ- ism might react with the environment in unantici- pated ways." EPA has four primary goals in regulating biotechnol- ogy, he said: • To minimize risks to the public health and safety without imposing crippling costs on a fledgling industry. • To help create a public climate in which the tech- nology can develop safely. • To establish a flexible program that can adjust as the technology evolves and matures. • To write regulations that take into account all of the scientific uncertainties surrounding the behavior of microorganisms in the environment. The last goal, Mr. Reilly pointed out, may be the toughest. "It is exceedingly difficult to determine the potential risk from new microorganisms in advance, when we know so little about how genetic modifica- tion might affect their behavior in the environment. EPA is looking for ways to deal with this problem by undertaking a research program into microbial ecol- ogy, especially as it relates to risk assessment and bioremediation." While this research is underway, EPA is continuing to develop a comprehensive regulatory program and to review and, in most cases, approve applications for field tests of modified microorganisms. EPA has received 70 submissions for review of bio- technology products under the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Sixty-eight submissions have been approved, one is pending, and one was with- drawn by the manufacturer. Biotechnology also holds out great promise for solv- ing environmental problems. Developing microorga- nisms that can safely and inexpensively neutralize dangerous hazardous wastes, or pollutants in air and water, could save the U.S. billions of dollars, Mr. Reilly said. Biotechnology also may help develop plant species with natural resistance to pests and fungus, thus cutting down reliance on the excessive use of agricultural chemicals. pHIGHLIGHTS Page EXISTING CHEMICALS: EPA to Study CFCs 2 APPOINTMENTS: Senate Confirms Fisher 3 RIGHT-TO-KNOW: TRI Fee Waiver Pilot Program 7 ASBESTOS: AHERA Compliance Data In 8 ASBESTOS: Buildings Dialogue Nears End 9 ENFORCEMENT: Texas Eastern PCB Case Settled 10 CHEMICALS: EPA Revises Consent Order Language 12 EXISTING CHEMICALS: New PCB Rule Issued 15 ------- What's Happening in OTS OTS and the Challenges of the 90s By Charles L. Elkins We have now begun not just another new year, but a new decade. This is a good time to reflect on the accomplishments of the recent past and the chal- lenges that lie ahead. The Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) can take pride in some significant accomplishments during the past fiscal year. After many years of effort we announced on June 12, 1989, a rule banning the manufacture, importation, and processing of almost all asbestos- containing products in the United States. This rule under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), to be phased in over the next seven years, will affect some 94 percent of all U.S. production and imports based on 1985 production-volume estimates. Through this rule we will encourage the development of safer substitutes for a known cancer-causing substance. There have been other recent significant accomplish- ments under TSCA. Expedited new chemical follow- up will be possible through the "Generic SNUR (Sig- nificant New Use Rule)" announced last summer. Under section 4 we completed a rule establishing good laboratory practices, negotiated several testing consent orders, published several test rules—includ- ing one on isopropanol—and issued several testing guidelines. In the new chemicals program we proc- essed over one thousand premanufacture notifica- tions. OTS has also worked over the past year with other parts of EPA to develop a strategy for handling new chemicals that will be proposed as substitutes for ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Because of the need to move full speed ahead to phase out CFCs, we have developed an expedited process for reviewing these substitutes. Our goal is to insure that we do not overlook potential health and environmen- tal threats posed by new chemicals entering the marketplace. While TSCA is the statute that generates most of our workload, the Office acquired significant respon- sibilities under the 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. In response to these new requirements, our Toxics Release Inventory became publicly available on June 19. This informa- tion on estimated chemical emissions to the environ- ment is the first EPA database to be designed and managed specifically for access by the general pub- lic. Its widespread use in these opening months has been gratifying. We have ushered in a new era of public involvement in toxic chemical decisions. I believe the new decade of the nineties will bring new challenges. Chemicals will play an increasing role in our lives, and it will be correspondingly important that these chemicals be used in a manner that protects health and the environment. OTS expects to be a leader in this regard. I predict a new decade considerably different from the past one. I believe we will see more extensive testing of chemi- cals for their toxicity, more restrictions placed on more chemicals, and a greater awareness—and, I hope, understanding—among the general public about toxic chemicals and their proper use and control. 'Prudent Insurance Policy' EPA to Study Effects of EPA will be taking a close look at the health and environmental effects of potential substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons. "There are no red flags which have been raised about the major chemical substitutes at this time," said Charles L. Elkins, Director of the Office of Toxic Substances. "This program which we are proposing to carry out is intended as a prudent insurance policy against any problems of the future." Elkins spoke at the International Conference on CFC and Halon Alter- natives, which was held in Washington, D.C., in October. CFCs, used widely as refrigerants, in air conditioning, and in insulating foam, have been found to damage the earth's protective ozone layer. Use of CFCs is being phased out by 41 nations that signed an inter- national agreement limiting production and con- sumption of CFCs. CFC Substitutes To ensure that substitutes for ozone-depleting chemi- cals do not present other health or environmental problems, EPA has developed a strategy for review- ing CFC substitutes. The strategy provides a comprehensive framework for identifying major CFC substitutes, assessing their health and environmental risks, and preventing any unreasonable risks from occurring. The Chemicals-in-Progress Bulletin informs readers about recent developments in and near-term plans of EPA's Office of Toxic Sub- stances, which administers the Toxic Sub- stances Control Act and a portion of the Emergency Planning and Community Right- to-Know Act. Editor: Joe Boyle 2 February 1990 ------- Senate Confirms Fisher as OPTS Chief Linda J. Fisher has been confirmed by the U.S. Sen- ate to be Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances of the U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency. EPA Administrator William K. Reilly said, "Linda Fisher will do an outstanding job managing our pesticide and toxic programs. She has a proven track record dealing with a wide array of technical issues, complex laws, and intense public and congressional scrutiny." In January 1988 Fisher became Assistant Administra- tor for Policy, Planning and Evaluation, overseeing EPA's development of policy and managing its reg- ulatory process. She has had primary responsibility for developing the Agency's position on global cli- mate change. During her tenure, the policy office pro- duced two key climate change reports to Congress, "The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States" and "Policy Options for Global Climate." Fisher joined EPA in July 1983, serving until Decem- ber 1984 as Special Assistant to the Assistant Admin- istrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response. From January 1985 until January 1988, she was Executive Assistant and Chief of Staff for EPA's Administrator Lee M. Thomas and, as such, was his principal policy liaison with Congress and the White House in the reauthorization of the Superfund law in 1986. Earlier, Fisher served as legislative assistant to Rep- resentative Clarence J. Brown from 1974 to 1976 and Representative Ralph Regula from 1976 to 1978. She was an associate staff member for the House of Rep- resentatives Appropriations Committee from 1979 to 1980. Fisher, 37, a native of Columbus, Ohio, was gradu- ated from Miami University of Ohio in 1974 and received a master of business administration degree from George Washington University in 1978 and a law degree from Ohio State University's College of Law in 1982. ATSDR Profiles 48 More Hazardous Substances Thirty more draft toxicological documents profiling 48 hazardous substances are available for review and comment. Notice of the availability of these docu- ments was published in the Federal Register on October 17 (54 FR 42568). This is the third set of pro- files issued. The first two sets were published in 1987 and 1988. The draft profiles are produced by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the Public Health Service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Requests 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Acrolein Acrylonitrile Ammonia Asbestos Bromoform Chlorodibromomethane Chlorobenzene Chloromethane Copper Creosote Di-n-butylphthalate 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 1.1-Dichloroethane cis-1,2-Dichlorethene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.2-Dichlorethen e Endrin/Endrin Aldehyde Ethylbenzene Ethylene oxide Hexachlorobenzene Naphthalene 2-Methylnaphthalene Nitrobenzene Polycyclic aromatic hydrocar bons (PAHs). 107-02-8 107-13-1 7664-41-7 1332-21-4 75-25-2 124-48-1 108-90-7 74-87-3 7440-50-8 8001-58-9 84-74-2 122-66-7 75-34-3 156-59-2 156-60-5 540-59-0 72-20-8 7421-93-4 100-41-4 75-21-8 118-74-1 91-20-3 91-57-6 98-95-3 for the latest draft profiles should be sent to ATSDR, E-29, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA 30333. The public comment period for each of the 30 latest drafts ended on February 10, 1990. Each profile includes an examination, summary, and interpretation of available toxicological information and epidemiologic evaluations. Profiles also include a determination of whether adequate information on the health effects of each substance is available or in the process of development. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene . Benzo(g,h,i)perylene .., Benzo(k)fluoranthene .. Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)enthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene , Phenanthrene Pyrene Plutonium Radium Radon Silver Thorium Toxaphena 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ., 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol . Uranium Total xylenes 83-32-9 208-96-8 120-12-7 56-55-3 50-32-8 205-99-2 191-24-2 207-08-9 218-01-9 53-70-3 206-44-0 86-73-7 193-39-5 85-01-8 129-00-0 7440-07-5 7440-14-4 10043-02-2 7440-22-4 7440-29-1 8001-35-2 71-55-6 88-06-2 7440-61-1 1330-20-7 February 1990 ------- Committee Adds New TSCA Priority List to In its 25th semiannual report to the EPA Administra- tor, the Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) added one chemical substance, 4-vinylcyclohexene (VCH), and one group of chemicals, the brominated flame retardants (BFRs), to the list of chemicals to be given priority consideration by EPA. The notice was pub- lished in the Federal Register on December 12 (54 FR 51114). Five of the BFRs were designated for response within 12 months. They are pentabromodiphenyl ether (PBDPE) (CAS No. 32534-81-9); octabromodiphenyl ether (OBDPE) (CAS No. 32536-52-0); decabromodiphenyl ether (DBDPE) (CAS No. 1163-19-5); 1,2-bis (2,4,6-tribromophenoxy) ethane (BTBPE) (CAS No. 37853-59-1); hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) (CAS No. 3194-55-6). These five BFRs were designated because of high production volumes and potential for exposure/ release or potential to cause adverse effects. The ITC recommended VCH (CAS No. 100-40-3) with intent-to-designate because the Committee wanted an opportunity to consider TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d) submissions for this high-production chemical. Additional information on the "recommended with intent-to-designate" category is contained in the Committee's 17th Report (50 FR 47603, November 19, 1985). Additional information on the ITC actions fol- lowing a recommendation with intent-to-designate is contained in the Committee's 18th Report (51 FR 18768, May 19, 1986). Seven of the chemicals in the BFR group were rec- ommended without being designated for response within 12 months. They were recommended because of high volumes and limited exposure, persistence, and effects data. In its cover letter to the Administrator, the ITC also indicated that it is requesting that EPA propose 8(a) and 8(d) rules for numerous BFRs for which the Com- mittee has insufficient information on which to base a decision. Additions to TSCA 4(e) Priority List, November 1989 Chemical/Group ITC Recommended Studies Chemical/Group ITC Recommended Studies Designated for response within 12 months: Brominated flame retardants Brominated diphenyl ethers Pentabromodiphenyl Chemical Fate; Water sol- ubility; octanol/water ether CAS No. 32534-81-9 Octabromodiphenyl ether2 CAS No. 32536-52-0 partition coefficient; vapor pressure; sediment and soil adsorption; pho- tolysis; aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation. Health Effects: Pharma- cokinetics; metabolism; neurotoxicity; reproductive and developmental tox- icity; chronic toxicity and oncogenicity testing. Ecological Effects: Acute tox- icity to algae; chronic toxicity to fish and aquatic invertebrates and toxicity to benthic organisms. Chemical Fate: Water sol- ubility; octanol/water partition coefficient; vapor pressure; sediment and soil adsorption; pho- tolysis; anaerobic biodegradation rate. Aero- bic biodegradation if pentabromodiphenyl ether aerobically biodegrades. Decabromodiphenyl ether3 CAS No. 1163-19-5 Health Effects: Pharma- cokinetics; metabolism; neurotoxicity; reproductive toxicity; chronic toxicity and oncogenicity testing. Ecological Effects: Acute tox- icity to algae; acute and chronic toxicity to fish, and aquatic invertebrates and toxicity to benthic organ- isms only if pentabrom- odiphenyl ether causes adverse ecological effects. Chemical Fate: Water sol- ubility; octanol/water partition coefficient; vapor pressure; sediment and soil adsorption; pho- tolysis; anaerobic biodegradation. Aerobic biodegradation if pen- tabromodiphenyl ether aerobically biodegrades. Health Effects: Reproductive toxicity. Ecological Effects: Acute and chronic toxicity to fish and aquatic invertebrates and toxicity to benthic organ- isms only if pentabromo- diphenyl ether causes adverse ecological effects. 4 February 1990 ------- Chemical/Group ITC Recommended Studies Chemical/Group ITC Recommended Studies 1,2-Bis(2,4,6, tribromophenoxy)- ethane4 CAS No. 37853-59-1 Hexabromocy- clododecane5 CAS No. 3194-55-6 Chemical Fate: Vapor pres- sure; sediment and soil adsorption; photolysis; aerobic and anaerobic bio- degradation. Health Effects: Chronic tox- icity with emphasis on hepatotoxicity, neurotox- icity and reproductive effects. Ecological Effects: Acute tox- icity to algae, fish and aquatic invertebrates; chronic toxicity to fish and aquatic invertebrates and toxicity to benthic organ- isms based on results of its acute toxicity testing. Chemical Fate: Vapor pres- sure; sediment and soil adsorption; anaerobic bio- degradation. Health Effects: Pharma- cokinetics; metabolism; subchronic toxicity. Ecological Effects: Acute tox- icity to fish and aquatic invertebrates; chronic tox- icity to fish and aquatic invertebrates and toxicity to benthic organisms based on results of its acute toxicity testing. Recommended with Intent-to-Designate: 4-Vinylcyclohexene6 CAS No. 100-40-3 Chemical Fate: Aqueous vol- atilization rate. Health Effects: Pharma- cokinetics and oncogenicity by inhalation route of exposure. Ecological Effects: None Recommended without being designated for response within 12 months: Brominated flame retardants: 2,4,6-Tribromophenol7 Chemical Fate: Chemical CAS No. 118-79-6 properties and persistence. Health Effects: Chronic tox- icity, except for dibromoneopentyl glycol. Ecological Effects: Chronic toxicity. Tetrabromophthalic anhydride8 CAS No. 632-79-1 Dibromoneopentyl glycol9 CAS No. 3296-90-0 Ethylene bis- (tetrabromophthalimide)10 CAS No. 32588-76-4 Ethylene bis(5,6- dibromonorbornane- 2,3-dicarboximide)1' CAS No. 41291-34-3 Tribrominated polystyrene12 CAS No. 57137-10-7 Ethylene bis (pentabromo phenoxide)13 CAS No. 61262-53-1 CA Index Names (9 CI) 'Benzene, 1,1'-oxybis-, pentabromo deriv. ?Benzene, 1,1'-oxybis-, octabromo deriv. 3Benzene, 1,1'-oxybis ([2,3,4,5,61-pentabromo- "Benzene, 1,1'-(1,2-ethanediylbis (oxy)bis) 2,4,6-tri- bromo &Cyclododecane, 1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromo- 6Cyclohexene, 4-ethenyl- 7Phenol, 2,4,6-Tribromo- 81,3-lsobenzofurandione, 4,5,6,7-tetrabromo- 91,3-Propanediol, 2,2-bis(bromomethyl)- 101 H-lsoindole-1,3(2H)-dione, 2,2'-(1,2-eth anediyl)bis[4,5,6,7-tetrabromo- n4,7-Methano-1H-isoindole-1,3 (2H)-dione, 2,2'-(1,2- ethanediyl)bis[5,6-dibromohexahydro- ,2Benzene, ethenyl-, tribromo deriv., homopolymer 13Benzene, 1,1 '-[1,2-ethanediyibis(oxy)]bis[2,3,4,5,6- pentabromo- From 1977 to 1983, the ITC conducted five scor- ing exercises to select chemicals for detailed review. Initially, these manual scoring exercises, which used the 1977 TSCA inventory chemicals and employed sequential exposure and biological scoring, identified high-produc- tion chemicals and large categories of chemi- cals that needed testing. Recently, the need to use coordinated, resource-conserving approaches for selecting testing chemicals provided the incentive to develop new chemical selection processes. The new computerized processes use member agency testing con- cerns, simultaneous exposure and biological scoring and structure-activity relationships (SAR) to identify chemicals for testing. The chemicals in the 25th ITC report were identified using these new processes. An explanation of the SAR computerized proc- esses that can be applied to ecological effects testing are described in a paper, "New Cost- Effective, Computerized Approaches to Select- ing Chemicals for Priority Testing Considera- tion," that was published in Aquatic Toxicology and Environmental Fate: Eleventh Volume, ASTM STP 1007 (1989). The paper was written by John D. Walker, the ITC's acting executive secretary, and by the late Robert H. Brink, for- mer ITC executive secretary. February 1990 5 ------- TSCA Section 4(e) Priority List Chemical/Group Month of ITC Designation Chemical/Group Designated for response within 12 months Crotonaldehyde Brominated flame retardants Brominated diphenyl ethers Pentabromodiphenyl ether Octabromodiphenyl ether Decabromodiphenyl ether 1,2-Bis(2,4,6-tri- bromophenoxylethane Hexabromocyclododecane 11/88 11/89 11/89 11/89 11/89 11/89 Recommended with intent to designate Chloroalkyl phosphates Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate 11/88 Tris(2-chloro-1-propyl)phosphate 11/88 Tris(1-chloro-2-propyl)phosphate 11/88 Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate 11/88 Tetrakis(2-chloroethyl)ethylene 11/88 diphosphate 4-Vinylcyclohexene 11/89 Recommended without being designated for response within 12 months Disperse Blue 79 dyes C. I. Disperse Blue 79 11/86 /V-[5-[bis[2-(acetyloxy)ethyl]amino]- 5/87 2-[(2-bromo-4,6-dinitrophenyl)azo)- 4-methoxy phenyl]-acetamide A/-[5-[bis[2- (acetyloxy)ethyl]amino]- 5/87 2-[2-chloro-4,6-dinitrophenyl)azoj- 4-methoxy phenylj-acetamide Imidazolium quaternary ammonium compounds 4,5-dihydro-1-methyl-2-nortallow alkyl-1 -(2-tallow amidoethyl), Me sulfates 5/88 Ethoxylated quaternary ammonium compounds Ethanaminium,2-amino- N-(2-aminoethyl)- N-(2-hydraxyethyl)-N-methyl-, N,N'-ditallow acyl derivs.,Me sulfates (salts) 5/88 Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), u-[2-[bis(2-aminoethyl)- methylammonio]-ethyl]- (o-hydroxy-, N,N'-dicoco acyl derivs., Me sulfates (salts) Month of ITC Designation Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[2-[bis(2-aminoethyl)- methylammonio]-ethyl]- to-hydroxy-, N,N'-bis(hydrogenated tallow acyl)derivs., Me sulfates (salts) Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), «-[2-[bis(2-aminoethyl)- methylammonio-ethyl]- io-hydroxy-, N,N'-ditallow acyl derivs., Me sulfates (salts) Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], a-[2-[bis(2-aminoethyl)- methylammonio]-methylethyl]- co-hydroxy-, N,N'-,ditallow acyl derivs., Me sulfates (salts) Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), «-[3-[bis(2-aminoethyl)- methylammonio]-2-hydroxy- propyll-co-hydroxy-, N-coco acyl derivs., Me sulfates (salts) Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[2-[bis(2- aminoethyl)- methylammonio]-ethyl]- uj-hydroxy-, N,N'-di-C1418 acyl derivs., Me sulfates, salts) Butyraldehyde Brominated flame retardants 2,4,6-Tribromophenol Tetrabromophthalic anhydride Dibromoneopentyl glycol Ethylene bis(tetrabromophthalimide) Ethylene bis (5,6-dibromo- norbornane- 2,3-dicarboximide) Tribrominated polystyrene Ethylene bis (pentabromo phenoxide) 5/88 5/88 5/88 5/88 11/88 11/89 11/89 11/89 11/89 11/89 11/89 11/89 5/88 Correction In the September issue of Chemicals-in- Progress Bulletin, an incorrect telephone number was given for TOXNET, which pro- vides online personal-computer access to national Toxic Release Inventory data. The correct number to call for information on subscribing to TOXNET is (301) 496-6531. 6 February 1990 ------- New EPA Pilot Program TRI Fees Waived for Under a new pilot program, EPA will waive the fees it charges for access to the national Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) for 17 groups. EPA is evaluat- ing the need for, interest in, and utility of fee waivers. The fee waiver pilot program was targeted to Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), which received 5 of the 17 waivers. LEPCs were created by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Know Act to develop plans for preparing for and responding to chemical emergencies. LEPC members include representatives of state and local govern- ments, health and safety officials, environmental and transportation agencies, the news media, community groups, and affected businesses and industries. Others receiving fee waivers include a health depart- ment, universities, environmental and public interest groups, emergency planning groups, and local, county, and state agencies. These groups will use their waivers in cooperation with their LEPCs. The average fee waiver was $1,400. The following projects were granted waivers: Executive Office of the City Manager Office of Planning and Community Development Worcester, Mass. City of Fall River LEPC Fall River, Mass. Westchester County LEPC Westchester County Department of Health White Plains, N.Y. Delaware Valley Toxics Coalition Philadelphia, Pa. 17 Groups Drexel University Philadelphia, Pa. Citizens' Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, Inc. Arlington, Va. Lexington/Fayette LEPC Lexington, Ky. Birmingham-Jefferson County LEPC Emergency Management Agency Birmingham, Ala. Indianapolis Center for Advanced Research Indianapolis, Ind. Business and Professional People for the Public Interest Chicago, III. Texas City-LaMarque LEPC of Galveston County La Marque, Tex. Dallas County LEPC Dallas, Tex. University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Ark. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Baton Rouge, La. Mesa County, Colorado, LEPC Grand Junction, Co. State of California Sacramento, Ca. Northwest Environmental Advocates Portland, Or. EPA Won't Delete Two Citing concerns about cancer and other health and environmental effects, EPA denied a petition to delist two 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 toxic chemicals. The denial of the petition filed by SCM Chemicals Inc. was based on a weight-of-evidence determination that the two chemicals, cadmium sulfide (CdS) and cadmium selenide (CdSe) cause, or can reasonably be anticipated to cause, cancer as well as other serious or irreversible health and environmental effects. The petitioner's major arguments for delisting were that both chemicals had low solubility and low bio- availability and that the substances do not pose the same health and environmental risks as do other cad- mium compounds. In denying the petition, however, EPA said both chemicals may cause developmental and reproductive system toxicity and mutagenicity in humans. There also is evidence from studies of other cadmium salts to indicate that the cadmium ion released from CdS and CdSe is toxic to aquatic spe- cies at very low doses. Chemicals from TRI List The denial was published in the Federal Register on October 19 (54 FR 42962). EPA Denies Petition To Delist DBDPE EPA denied a petition to delist decabromodiphenyl ether (DBDPE) from the list of toxic chemicals under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Com- munity Right-to-Know Act. EPA said the chemical can be reasonably anticipated to cause developmental and chronic toxicological effects in humans. The decision was included in the Federal Register on November 3 (54 FR 46424). The petition was filed by Great Lakes Chemical Corp. As a result of the petition review, EPA will consider initiating rulemaking to add another chemical, octabromodiphenyl ether (OBDPE), to the section 313 list. There is evidence, EPA said, that the chemical can be reasonably anticipated to cause developmen- tal toxicological effects in humans. OBDPE was included in the documentation on DBDPE. February 1990 7 ------- Schools Complying with AHERA Approximately 94 percent of the nation's public school districts and private schools are currently complying with the initial requirements of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), according to new compliance statistics. "We are greatly pleased with the high rate of com- pliance," said EPA Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances Linda Fisher. "Our nation's schools are serious about tackling the asbestos problem. Through informed and involved school officials and parents, we can ensure that asbestos will be managed properly, providing a safer school environment for our children and for all school employees." Based on final information voluntarily submitted by the states and territories to EPA nearly four months before the congressionally mandated date of Decem- ber 31, 1989, 28 states have compliance rates of 95 percent or higher and a total of 40 states are above 90 percent compliance. Arkansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the Vir- gin Islands all have 100 percent compliance rates. California, which is unable to process fully its vast number of management plans due to budgetary con- straints, has not yet released its compliance figures. The AHERA regulations required all public school dis- tricts and nonprofit private schools, otherwise known as local education agencies (LEAs), to have their school buildings inspected for asbestos and to develop appropriate asbestos management plans by October 12, 1988. LEAs unable to complete inspec- tions and management plans on time were allowed to request deferrals from their states and have their deadlines extended to May 9, 1989. AHERA, which was passed in 1986, provides a frame- work for addressing asbestos problems in public and private schools. AHERA requires all LEAs to use an EPA-accredited inspector to inspect all school build- ings for both friable (easily crushed or crumbled) and nonfriable asbestos. Additionally, an accredited man- agement planner must develop plans to manage asbestos in schools. AHERA also required that LEAs notify parent and teacher organizations about the availability of the management plan and begin imple- menting the plans by July 9, 1989. Management options for controlling asbestos in schools include maintenance, repair, encapsulation, enclosure, or removal. Fisher stressed that asbestos removal is often not necessary. "Removing asbestos that can be maintained in good condition can cause more chances for exposure than leaving such asbestos in place. Expert advice is needed to assure that the proper corrective action is taken," she said. Fisher also noted that completion of asbestos man- agement plans was only the beginning of the AHERA school management program. "Parents, teachers, school workers, and school officials must all work together closely to ensure that asbestos manage- ment plans are effectively implemented, maintained, and, if necessary, improved upon over time," she said. Approximately 6 percent of all LEAs nationwide have failed to submit AHERA management plans. EPA has and will continue to issue notices of non-compliance to those LEAs. Upon notification, LEAs have 60 days to document compliance or be subject to EPA enforcement action. Under AHERA, EPA can issue civil penalties of up to $5,000 per day per violation. Asbestos can be hazardous if it is in a condition that allows the emission of microscopic fibers into the air. In that friable state, asbestos can be inhaled. Asbestos can cause asbestosis, a chronic disease of the lungs, and various forms of cancer. New School Asbestos Guide For Parents and Teachers "The ABCs of Asbestos in Schools" is a bro- chure published by EPA in conjunction with the National Education Association and the National Parent Teacher Association. The book- let is designed to help parents and teachers learn the facts about AHERA and asbestos in schools. Copies of the booklet are available through EPA regional offices or by calling the TSCA hotline, (202) 554-1404. States Take Over AHERA Course Approvals EPA no longer will review new training courses for requirements are now being made at the state level, Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) closer to enforcement authority and controls associ- accreditation. On October 15, 1989, the states ated with asbestos abatement work. Currently, 19 assumed responsibility for review and acceptance of states have full AHERA accreditation programs, and new courses submitted for AHERA accreditation. all but 4 have some level of contractor certification. AHERA, enacted by Congress in 1986, required EPA to establish a model accreditation plan for persons who inspect for asbestos, develop management EPA has encouraged states to consider additional plans, and design or conduct response actions. requirements beyond those of the model plan. The AHERA further required that all states adopt an Agency will continue to approve state accreditation accreditation program at least as stringent as the EPA programs and aggressively audit EPA-approved model plan. courses. EPA will also provide over $1 million to states during 1990 to help them develop strong Decisions about asbestos-abatement-training accreditation programs. 8 February 1990 ------- Policy Dialogue Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings By Tom Tillman In May 1989, EPA's Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) began a policy dialogue with affected interests on the issue of asbestos in public and commercial buildings. The Agency began the dialogue to help determine the most appropriate programmatic and/or regula- tory actions to take with respect to asbestos in build- ings. The process began on May 3, 1989, when OTS held a public meeting in Washington, D.C., on the asbestos- in-buildings issue. After that initial public meeting, OTS hired The Conservation Foundation to convene and facilitate meetings of a policy dialogue group. This group consists of approximately 35 individuals representing such diverse interests as service and building trade unions, building owners and man- agers, realtors, mortgage bankers, insurance com- panies, asbestos manufacturers, asbestos contractors and consultants, public health groups, and govern- ment agencies. There have been five meetings of the dialogue group—all in Washington. These meetings were held on July 17, July 24-25, August 22-23, and October 3-4, 1989, and on January 30-31, 1990. A final meeting is planned for April 4 and 5, 1990, at which time participants will attempt to determine areas of policy consensus. In addition to the initial public meeting and the dialogue group meetings, OTS held two regional public meetings on September 6 and 7, 1989, in Kansas City and San Francisco, respectively, to allow greater public involvement in the dialogue process. A final public meeting to conclude the dialogue process is planned for May. The dialogue process may produce areas of con- sensus among the various parties about what fed- eral, state, and private organizations should be doing to help address any problems associated with asbestos in public and commercial buildings. OTS has made a public commitment to bring to top Agency management any specific recommendations for EPA action that the dialogue participants make. EPA Cites 24 Firms for In late October, EPA issued administrative complaints against 17 companies for failing to file Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reports as required by section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Know Act. EPA proposed fines totaling $497,000 against the companies, which are located in New Jersey, New York, and Puerto Rico. On December 1, EPA issued civil administrative complaints with pro- posed fines totaling $363,000 against 7 companies, located in Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, for fail- ing to file TRI reports. Under section 313, facilities with 10 or more employees that manufacture, process, or use more than specific threshold amounts of certain chemicals are required to report the chemical emissions into the environment from each facility. The reports go to EPA and to the state in which the facility is located. EPA uses these data in the Agency's environmental protection efforts. The facilities and the proposed fines are as follows: Alfred Heller Heat Treating Co. Inc, Clifton, N.J.— $59,000; American Copper Products Inc., Edison, N.J.— $25,000; Berger Industries Inc., Metuchen, N.J.—$17,000; Colorama Laminating & Printing Inc., Passaic, N.J.— $84,000; Industrial Tube Corp., Somerville, N.J.—$5,000; Marijon Dyeing & Finishing Co., E. Rutherford, N.J.— $51,000; Middlesex Chemicals Inc., Raritan, N.J.—$5,000; New Jersey Steel Corp., Sayreville, N.J.—$67,000; Otto H. York Co. Inc., Parsippany, N.J.—$34,000; Renco Finishing Corp., Fair Lawn, N.J.—$51,000; Teledyne Inc., Clifton, N.J.—$25,000; TRI Violations U.S. Aluminium Inc., Haskell, N.J.—$17,000; Advanced Refractory Technologies Inc., Buffalo, N.Y.—$5,000; PB & H Molding Corp., Syracuse, N.Y.—$5,000; U.S. Polychemical Corp., Spring Valley, N.Y.— $15,000; Zak Inc., Green Island, N.Y.—$17,000; Water Treatment Specialist Inc., P.R.—$15,000; CBI Services Inc., Bourbonnais, III.—$126,000; Accurate Anodizing, Chicago, III.—$49,000; Electronic Plating Co., Cicero, III.—$10,000; Whiting Corp., Harvey, III.—$17,000; Midwest Sintered Products, Riverdale, III.—$93,000; Electro Static Finishing Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.— $51,000; Buckstaff Co., Oshkosh, Wise.—$17,000. Sections 311, 312 EPA Sets Reporting Thresholds The EPA Administrator has signed an interim final rule that extends for one year the current reporting thresholds for hazardous chemicals covered under the reporting requirements of sections 311 and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Know Act. The rule was published in the Federal Reg- ister on October 12 (54 FR 41904). Section 311 autho- rizes the EPA Administrator to establish reporting thresholds for hazardous chemicals present at a facil- ity. Hazardous chemicals must be reported if they are present in an amount equal to or greater than 10,000 pounds. Extremely hazardous substances must be reported if their amount is equal to or greater than 500 pounds or the chemical-specific threshold plan- ning quantity, whichever is lower. February 1990 9 ------- $15 Million Fine Assessed EPA, Texas Eastern Settle PCB Case, Cleanup May Cost Company $400 Million EPA's civil action against Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., a major pipeline operator, was settled by a consent decree entered into the Southern Texas U.S. District Court on October 10. The decree, the most extensive settlement ever obtained by EPA against a single company, includes a $15 million fine. The case involved polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) discharged from the company's 10,000-mile pipeline that runs from Texas to New Jersey. The original EPA action was brought against the company for violations of the PCB storage, handling, and disposal requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Both laws are admin- istered by EPA. The Agency discovered the company disposed of pipeline liquids by discharging them into unlined earthen pits on compressor station sites and by periodic venting of gas containing liquids from the pipeline. The fine is the largest civil penalty ever obtained by the U.S. government for violation of any environ- mental statute. In addition, Texas Eastern will be required to spend an estimated $400 million in cleanup actions. That cost will be the largest commit- ment for environmental remediation ever obtained from a single company. The settlement requires the company to pay up to $18 million for an independent contractor who will assist EPA in overseeing Texas Eastern's characterization and remediation activities. This is the first time such provisions have ever been obtained under TSCA or RCRA. Failed to Comply with Agency Settlement City of Detroit Hit with Record PCB Fine The City of Detroit has been found in violation of the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and a $264,000 civil penalty has been imposed by Administrative Law Judge Marvin Jones. The fine was the largest civil penalty ever imposed by any Administrative Law Judge in EPA's history, although larger fines have been assessed as the result of negotiated settlements. It is significant that the heavy fine was against a "public" entity, said Michael J. Walker, EPA's Assist- ant Enforcement Counsel for Pesticides and Toxic Substances. "Until recently, EPA's Regional manage- ment and personnel were reluctant to cite municipal or public entities for administrative penalties because of concerns that Administrative Law Judges might not uphold the proposed penalties." Walker said the breakthrough came in a 1987 case in which an Administrative Law Judge fined the West Virginia Department of Highways for PCB violations, noting that "PCBs from public entities have identical harm- ful effects on humans and the environment." In 1982 and 1983, Detroit obtained several commer- cial properties from Chrysler Corp. that were not being used because of the economic downturn in the auto industry. Several of the buildings contained equipment subject to TSCA PCB regulations. In 1983, both the city and Chrysler entered into a TSCA administrative order involving one of the facilities in which Detroit agreed to maintain compliance with TSCA. In that settlement, Chrysler paid a $53,000 fine. The city failed to comply with the terms of the 1983 settlement and also was found by EPA to have vio- lated the PCB requirements at other locations. In 1987, EPA's Region 5 management filed four sepa- rate administrative actions against the city for a vari- ety of PCB violations. For more than a year after the EPA action, Detroit refused to settle the cases or clean up the PCBs, which were measured at levels as high as 800,000 parts per million. The trial before Judge Jones took place in June 1989. In March 1989, EPA's Region 5 and the U.S. Depart- ment of Justice took a second legal action, seeking a court order to compel cleanup. The action is pending in the Eastern District Court of Michigan. $75,000 Fine In First TRI Case In late September, EPA imposed a $75,000 penalty on Riverside Furniture Corporation for failing to submit toxic chemical release information (TRI) required by section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Com- munity Right-to Know Act. The penalty decision, for failure to file timely reports, was the Agency's first for violation of the Act. It "rep- resents a strong statement to the regulated com- munity," said EPA's Assistant Enforcement Counsel Michael J. Walker, "that strict compliance with TRI reporting requirements must be observed." Riverside urged reduction of the penalty, stating that it did not know about the reporting requirements. In his decision, however, Administrative Law Judge Marvin Jones found, "It is undisputed that Riverside is charged with knowledge of the United States Stat- utes at Large." In addition, he pointed out that pub- lication in the Federal Register gave the company legal notice of the regulations. 10 February 1990 ------- Six PMN Settlements Bring $1.3 Million in Fines EPA has reached settlements totaling $1.3 million with six companies for violations of premanufacture notice (PMN) requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Under the PMN rule, companies must notify EPA 90 days in advance if they plan to manufacture or import a chemical substance not on the TSCA Inven- tory. This 90-day review period allows the Agency to evaluate potential human health or environmental risks posed by chemicals and, if necessary, restrict their manufacture or distribution. EPA reached a $600,000 settlement with the Minolta Corp., Ramsey, N.J., for repeatedly importing a chemical for which no PMN had been submitted. In addition to the dollar settlement, Minolta has agreed to develop a TSCA compliance program for its imports to the United States, a TSCA training pro- gram for all its operations, and a TSCA compliance manual. The company also will conduct a TSCA sem- inar in Japan for Japanese business people. EPA also assessed the following penalties for related violations of the PMN rules: Dow Chemical Co., Mid- land, Mich., $405,000; Marubeni American Corp., New York, N.Y., $53,725; Digital Audio Disc Corp., Terre Haute, Ind., $122,500; Uniglobe-Kisco, White Plains, N.Y., $9,100; and Nissho Iwai American Corp., New York, N.Y., $7,000. These related cases arose out of a violation involving the failure of General Electric to register a new chemical substance, trade named Panlite, which is a plastic used in the manufacture of compact discs. The companies manufactured Panlite when it was not on the TSCA inventory. EPA Fines Broker for PMN Import Violation Howard Hall International, a broker, has agreed to pay a fine of $8,500 for illegally importing into the United States a chemical that was not on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory. Under TSCA, if a chemical is not on the Inventory, the manufacturer or importer must notify EPA at least 90 days before producing or importing the sub- stance. At that time, EPA must be given basic data about the chemical. Over the 90 days, EPA reviews the submission and determines if the chemical should be subject to restrictions. In December 1987, investigators for the National Enforcement Investigation Center discovered the shipment, which had been certified as being in com- pliance with TSCA. The broker assumed that the sub- stance was on the TSCA Inventory because it had a Chemical Abstracts Serial (CAS) number, according to Vincent Giordano, an EPA attorney. Many chemi- cals with CAS numbers, however, are not on the TSCA Inventory, he said. Importers are supposed to know the U.S. customs rules and what can be imported, Giordano said. Judge Rules No Time Limit On TSCA Violations EPA is seeking $1.3 million in penalties from the 3M Company for numerous violations of premanufacture (section 5) and import certification (section 13) requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In August, Administrative Law Judge Henry B. Frazier III issued an order holding 3M in violation of TSCA. Judge Frazier's ruling broadens the Agency's enforcement powers, holding that the statute of lim- itations does not apply to TSCA administrative penalty actions. Judge Frazier stated, "Congress intended, through the PMN requirement, to increase the likelihood that any unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment which might result from the introduction of a new chemical substance or mix- ture would be brought to the attention of EPA in a timely manner prior to its introduction so that EPA could act to protect human beings and the environ- ment from any risks presented." Judge Frazier pointed out that a five-year statute of limitations would frustrate the premanufacture noti- fication requirement, "since a manufacturer could violate the reporting requirement without fear of punishment if it succeeded in concealing its failure to file a PMN for five years." According to Judge Frazier's ruling, the only remain- ing issue for trial is the size of the civil penalty. Chapter 11 and TSCA Bankruptcy Status No Escape from Penalties A company in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cannot escape from civil penalties levied for failure to comply with federal environmental laws, according to a recent rul- ing by Gerald Harwood, Chief Administrative Law Judge for EPA. In 1988, EPA sought a $29,000 fine from Watervliet Paper Co. of Watervliet, Michigan, for failure to com- ply with all the requirements of the PCB "Fires Rules" of TSCA. The company admitted most of the charges but in March 1989 told the court it would be unable to pay the fine because of its federal bankruptcy filing in October 1988. Judge Harwood denied a motion for dismissal, ruling that proceedings to assess civil penalties for failure to comply with federal environmental laws are excluded from the stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(4) and (b)(5). Judge Harwood said Chapter 11 proceedings contemplate "continued operation in some reorganized form." He also cited legislative his- tory and other court rulings in his decision. In addition, Judge Harwood said if the reorganized company violated TSCA again, its "prior history of violations" would be a factor to consider in assessing a second civil penalty. February 1990 11 ------- TSCA QUESTIONS OF THE MONTH: PCBs Q. What are the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations regarding the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) household goods that contain PCB small capacitors? A. The PCB regulations (40 CFR 761.60(b)(2)) state that any person may dispose of PCB small capaci- tors (intact) as municipal solid waste; i.e., the capacitors are not regulated for disposal under TSCA. There are two situations, however, when PCB small capacitors are regulated for disposal under TSCA: 1. If a person manufactures or at any time man- ufactured PCB capacitors or PCB equipment and acquired these capacitors in the course of such manufacturing, the small capacitors would have to be disposed of in a TSCA- approved chemical waste landfill or TSCA- approved incinerator. 2. If a person wants to dispose of PCB small capacitors that are leaking, that person would have to comply with applicable PCB regula- tions. The Agency strongly recommends that all PCB capacitors be disposed of in a TSCA- approved incinerator or TSCA-approved chem- ical waste landfill. Q. What effort will be made to provide a criminal background check before giv- ing applicants a permit for commercial storage of PCBs under TSCA? A. Under a new PCB manifesting rule, EPA will con- duct an environmental background check on all applicants for commercial PCB storage approvals. This will include a check of criminal and civil vio- lations of environmental statutes relating to waste handling activities, including transportation, stor- age, and disposal of materials, for the preceding five years. This provision will allow EPA to look at a manageable amount of data and assess the applicant's ability to hold a PCB commercial stor- age approval based on compliance with related regulations. EPA Changes Consent EPA has made several recent generic changes to the standard language in Consent Orders issued under section 5(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Upon receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN) or significant new use notice (SNUN) under section 5(a) of TSCA, if EPA determines that there is insufficient information to evaluate the human health and environmental effects of the substance and that either (1) the substance may present an unreason- able risk of injury to health or the environment (the "risk-based" finding) or (2) that the substance will be produced in substantial quantities and there may be substantial human or environmental exposure (the "exposure-based" finding), then EPA may issue an Order under section 5(e) of TSCA to prohibit or limit activities associated with the substance. 1. Expedited Follow-Up SNUR Language On July 27, 1989, under its significant new use rule (SNUR) authority in section 5(a)(2) of TSCA, EPA pro- mulgated a final rule for expedited new chemical fol- low-up, commonly referred to as the "Generic SNUR" (54 FR 31298) (see Chemicals-ln-Progress Bul- letin, September 1989, p. 7). Consequently, in May 1989, EPA began using standard 5(e) Order language revised to closely parallel the new generic SNUR lan- guage. EPA solicited public comment on this stand- ard 5(e) Order language in the March 6, 1988, Federal Register (53 FR 8695). Highlights of these revisions follow: a. Testing—The Agency simplified its testing lan- guage in 5(e) Orders by reducing the copious cross- referencing in the previous version. EPA also added a requirement that submissions for the substance under section 8(e) of TSCA shall reference the PMN identification number and state that the substance is subject to a 5(e) Order. Jer Language b. Worker protection—Dermal protection provisions were rewritten to include a performance-based option allowing the PMN submitter to choose the best method of protection required to achieve appro- priate reductions in exposure levels. EPA still has the ability to require specific protective measures if nec- essary in an individual case. c. Hazard communication—These provisions were substantially revised to more closely parallel the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard. EPA's requirements were made more performance-based by dictating less specific language and allowing the company greater discretion in designing appropriate language. A notification letter that previous Orders required the manufacturer to send to its customers was eliminated because the Agency believes that the required label and Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) will provide sufficient notification. d. De minimis exemptions—De minimis concentra- tions of the PMN substance in mixtures at or below a specified concentration (usually 1 percent for sub- stances not identified as suspect carcinogens and 0.1 percent for substances identified as potential car- cinogens) are exempted from the worker protection and hazard communication requirements. However, the exemptions may be determined by EPA to be inappropriate and therefore inapplicable in individual cases. e. Sunset provisions—Distribution restrictions and the prohibition against encouraging others to man- ufacture the PMN substance will cease to be effective after the corresponding SNUR becomes effective. (continued, next page) 12 February 1990 ------- f. Release to water—A number of standard provi- sions were added to allow EPA to prohibit or limit the release of certain substances into waters of the United States. 2. Changes to Exposure-Based Communi- cation Requirements Beginning in August 1989, exposure-based Consent Orders no longer imposed hazard communication requirements such as labels and MSDSs unless spe- cifically required by EPA for substances which may present an unreasonable risk or until test data on the substance indicate a risk. Thus, pure exposure-based Orders (without a risk-based finding) now require only testing triggered at an affordable production volume and recordkeeping. If the test data required by the Order indicate that the PMN substance may present an unreasonable risk, only then is the com- pany required to disseminate such information in an MSDS to recipients of the PMN substance. (Pure risk- based Orders and SNURs, as well as those Orders and SNURs that combine the risk-based and exposure-based findings, continue to contain the haz- ard communication requirements.) For chemical substances subject to exposure-based Consent Orders with testing triggered at a specific production volume, the corresponding SISIUR will simply define a "significant new use" as production beyond the test trigger volume specified in the Con- sent Order. If EPA receives a notice in response to such an exposure-based SNUR, and EPA has not received satisfactory test results, there may be an increased likelihood that EPA will take action under section 5(e). 3. Response to Data Received Under a Sec- tion 5(e) Order Prior to the implementation of EPA's exposure-based authority under section 5(e), the testing provisions of Consent Orders contained a provision requiring the company to cease all activities associated with the chemical substance if notified in writing by EPA that the data generated by a study required by the Order indicate that the PMN substance "will present" an unreasonable risk of injury to human health despite the protective requirements of the Order. When EPA began issuing exposure-based 5(e) Orders in Febru- ary 1988, those Orders also contained the same "will present" provision that had been contained in the risk-based 5(e) Orders. EPA has now revised this language for both risk- based and exposure-based Orders to provide expressly that the company need not completely cease all activities if the company complies with such additional restrictions as specified in EPA's notice. In addition, EPA has added language clarifying that con- ducting further testing as specified in EPA's notice may be another way for the company to avoid the requirement of complete cessation. The new Order language also provides that the company must either cease all activities associated with the PMN sub- stance or comply with any additional requirements specified by EPA if EPA notifies the company in writ- ing that the data generated by a study are scien- tifically valid and indicate that the PMN substance "will or may present" an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment. 4. Acrylate Agreement Another area of recent change to EPA's standard 5(e) Order language was made for the chemical class of acrylates, methacrylates, and multifunctional acry- lates and methacrylates (acrylates) in response to the commencement of a testing program being con- ducted by the Speciality Acrylates and Methacrylates Panel. The Panel agreed to conduct certain testing, including a cancer bioassay on a multifunctional acrylate/methacrylate pair. During the testing, warn- ing labels for acrylates subject to 5(e) Orders will contain a statement of general health concerns, rather than specific references to cancer and neu- rotoxicity, and will continue to require full dermal and respiratory protection for potentially exposed workers (see Chemicals-ln-Progress Bulletin, Septem- ber 1989, p. 6). New Practices Set under TSCA EPA Revises Lab Standards EPA has issued a final rule to amend the Toxic Sub- stances Control Act (TSCA) Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) Standards. The rule incorporates many of the changes made by the Food and Drug Administration to its GLP regulations, and expands the scope of the TSCA GLP standards to apply to certain types of field testing under TSCA. For details, see the Federal Reg- ister published on August 17 (54 FR 34034). An interim final rule amending the procedures gov- erning testing consent agreements and test rules was published in the Federal Register on September 1 (54 FR 36311). The interim rule modifies and clarifies EPA procedures for reviewing and approving or denying modifications to test standards and test schedules for testing conducted under section 4 of TSCA. Union Camp Penalty Proposed On December 5, EPA issued a civil administrative complaint and proposed penalty of $285,000 against Union Camp Corp., of Savannah, Ga., for violating the Premanufacturing Notification (PMN) rule of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Under the PMN rule, chemical manufacturers must notify EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing a new chemi- cal substance not on the TSCA Inventory of Existing Chemical Substances. Documents submitted by Union Camp to EPA show that the company, on sev- eral separate occasions, manufactured quantities of a new chemical substance at its Valdosta, Ga., facility without first submitting a PMN. EPA lowered its origi- nal proposed penalty of $570,000 to $285,000 because the company contacted EPA immediately upon discovering the violation and voluntarily dis- closed information. February 1990 13 ------- EPA Issues Test Rule on Isopropanol A rule requiring manufacturers and processors of iso- propanol to perform testing for health effects has been issued by EPA. The testing requirements, pub- lished in the Federal Register on October 23 (54 FR 43252), include subchronic toxicity, reproductive tox- icity, developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, muta- genicity, oncogenicity, and pharmacokinetics. Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act autho- rizes EPA to require the development of data relevant EPA Responds to TSCA Section 21 Methanol Petition On July 19, EPA received a petition under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) request- ing that the Agency initiate a proceeding under sec- tion 4 of TSCA to require the testing of methanol. The petitioners, which included the California Trucking Association, Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, Associated General Contractors of California, West- ern Highway Institute, California Manufacturers Asso- ciation, and Car and Truck Renting and Leasing Association, were concerned that although methanol and methanol/gasoline fuel blends were going to be used with increasing frequency, the health effects of the use of these fuels had not been fully determined. Linda Fisher, the Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances, responded to the petitioners by letter on October 17, 1989, announcing that EPA would commence a proceeding to deter- mine what testing is necessary concerning health and environmental effects of all motor vehicle fuels. The fuels that EPA plans to look at include gasoline and diesel, as well as those undergoing development as alternative fuels, such as methanol, ethanol, com- pressed natural gas, and propane. During the pro- ceeding, EPA will consider obtaining necessary testing through various sources, including section 4 of TSCA, section 211 of the Clean Air Act, voluntary industry testing, and government-sponsored testing programs. to assessing the risk to health and environment posed by exposure to particular chemical substances or mixtures. Available data show that the annual production vol- ume of isopropanol has been in excess of one billion pounds in the United States since 1956. The chemical is used as a solvent and as a component of numerous industrial products, consumer products, and commercial sprays. 2,4-Pentanedione EPA Proposes SIMUR EPA has proposed a significant new use rule (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 2,4-pentanedione (CAS No. 123-54-6). The proposed rule would require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days prior to the manufacture, import, or processing of the substance for any use. The Agency believes the chemical may be hazardous to human health and that its use in a consumer product may result in sig- nificant human exposure. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on September 27 (54 FR 39548). EPA said it is not aware of any ongoing use of the chemical in consumer products but proposed the SNUR because the substance has potential consumer applications and may be neurotoxic, genotoxic, and developmentally toxic. At present, the major uses for 2,4-pentanedione are as an intermediate in the production of antibacterial agents, specifically sulfamethazine, and as a chelator or complexing agent for metals. Persons subject to the SNUR would have to comply with the same requirements and procedures that per- sons who want to manufacture, process, or import a chemical that is not on the TSCA Chemical Sub- stances Inventory must follow. The requirements include notifying EPA at least 90 days before begin- ning manufacturing, importing, or processing the chemical. The required notice gives EPA, among oth- ers, data that enables the Agency to protect against potentially adverse exposure to the chemical before the exposure begins. EPA Issues Test Rules EPA has issued final rules requiring testing of tributyl phosphate (TBP) (CAS No. 126-73-8) and methyl ethyl ketoxime (CAS No. 96-29-7) under section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TBP's major use is in aircraft hydraulic fluids. The test rule for TBP, published in the Federal Register on August 14 (54 FR 33400), requires manufacturers and processors to test for health effects (oncogenicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive and developmental tox- icity, mutagenicity, dermal sensitization, and oral/der- mal pharmacokinetics). It requires environmental effects testing for acute effects on algae, fish, and aquatic invertebrates, and triggered chronic effects Two Chemicals on fish and aquatic invertebrates and sediment bio- assay. The rule also requires chemical fate testing for vapor pressure, hydrolysis rate, and sediment and soil sorption. EPA is requiring health effects testing for methyl ethyl ketoxime. This chemical, used primarily as an antiskinning agent in alkyd surface coatings and paints, will be tested for oncogenicity, mutagenicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, neu- rotoxicity, and pharmacokinetics. For details, see the rule published in the Federal Register on September 13 (54 FR 37799). 14 February 1990 ------- EPA to Track PCBs From EPA has strengthened its control over the disposal and storage of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in a final rule signed by the Administrator on October 29. The rule, promulgated under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), was published in the Federal Register on December 21 (54 FR 52716). "This action greatly enhances our power to monitor and regulate PCBs effectively," said EPA Administra- tor William K. Reilly. "In short, it will establish cradle- to-grave control of these hazardous chemicals." The final rule tightens EPA's jurisdiction over PCBs by adopting notification and manifest requirements for PCB waste already regulated under TSCA. These requirements will increase EPA's ability to identify and track PCB waste from generation to disposal at approved facilities. They also establish EPA oversight of the activities and qualifications of PCB waste bro- kers and other intermediate retainers who may store PCB waste generated by others. The final rule bolsters safeguards for PCB storage facilities by requiring that all commercial storers of PCB waste apply for written approval from the appro- priate EPA Regional Administrator. Approvals will be issued only after a thorough evaluation of the appli- cant's qualifications in the waste storage business, Cradle to Grave the quality of his closure plans, and proof of financial responsibility. The review will include the environ- mental compliance history of the company, princi- pals, and key employees. The rule also establishes additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements that will complete the PCB waste-tracking system and facilitate enforce- ment. Animal tests have shown that PCBs cause chronic toxic effects and can cause reproductive problems, gastric disorders, skin lesions, and cancerous tumors. Because PCBs are not readily degradable, they per- sist in the environment and accumulate in the fatty tissues and vital organs of humans, animals, and aquatic life. When TSCA was passed in 1976, approximately 750 million pounds of PCBs were in use. EPA, under sec- tion 6(e) of TSCA, began regulating PCBs in 1978 and virtually banned their manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce in 1979. As a result of these and other regulatory efforts throughout the 1980s, only about 280 million pounds of PCBs remain in use today. EPA expects that another 150 million pounds will be removed by 1993, mostly as PCB-containing electrical equipment is retired from service as stipu- lated under EPA regulations. EPA Issues SIMUR For Chemical Mixture EPA has issued a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for a mixture that it believes may be hazardous to human health and may result in significant human exposure. The rule was published in the Federal Register on September 18 (54 FR 38381). With the SNUR in place, persons who intend to man- ufacture, import, or process the mixture must notify EPA at least 90 days in advance. The required notice would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended uses and if necessary prohibit or limit those activities before they occur. The mixture was the subject of premanufacture notice P-86-1322 and a TSCA section 5(e) consent order. The product is a mixture of 1,3-ben- zenediamine, 2-methyl-4, 6-bis(methylthio), which is CAS No.104983-85-9, and 1,3-benzenenediamine, 4-methyl-2,6-bis(methylthio), which is CAS No. 102093-68-5. The PMN submitter intends to manufacture the sub- stance for use as a chain extender for polyurethane cast molded elastomer production; polyurethane reaction injection molding elastomers; polyurethane foams, coatings, and sealants; adhesives; and other products. 1,1,1-Trich/oroethane Manufacturers to Test Five chemical manufacturers have agreed to test 1,1,1-trichloroethane (CAS No. 71-55-6) for muta- genicity and neurotoxicity. The testing will be per- formed, under an enforceable consent order, by Dow Chemical Company, ICI Americas Inc., Vulcan Chemi- cals, Occidental Chemical Corp., and PPG Industries. Testing of 1,1,1-trichloroethane, which is used pri- marily as a solvent, will be conducted under section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. For additional information, see the final rule published in the Fed- eral Register on August 23 (54 FR 34991). OTS Offers Chemical List To help exporters of chemicals who are subject to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) has produced a new 55-page listing of chemicals subject to the export notification rule of the Act. This listing is intended only as an aid to exporters and cannot be used in lieu of the Federal Register or Code of Federal Regulations for purposes of compliance. Single copies of the listing are now available through the OTS hotline, (202) 554-1404, or by writing EPA, TS-799, Washington, D.C. 20460. To Assist Exporters Under section 12(b) of TSCA, exporters must notify EPA if they export, or intend to export, a chemical substance or mixture —for which submission of data is required under sec- tion 4 or 5(b) of TSCA; —for which an order has been issued under section 5 of the Act; —for which a rule has been proposed or promul- gated under section 5 or 6 of the Act; —or with respect to which an action is pending or relief has been granted under section 5 or 7 of the Act. February 1990 15 ------- Firms Asked to Reexamine 8(e) Compliance We are writing to you concerning section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This provision requires companies learning about "new" information concerning the hazards or risks of chemicals to sub- mit such information to EPA within 15 working days. This provision of TSCA continues to play a significant role for both governmental agencies and the private sector in identifying potential risks of chemicals at the earliest possible time. Section 8(e) requirements apply to any person who manufactures, imports, processes, or distributes a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains (i.e., possesses or simply knows about) "new" information that reasonably supports a conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment. For purposes of section 8(e), "new" information is that information about which the Agency is not already adequately informed. In reviewing recent enforcement cases which we have taken, we have reached the conclusion that further communication with the chemical industry on section 8(e) is appropriate. This is because we sense that at least in a few cases companies are misinterpreting the law and the TSCA section 8(e) policy statement. Specifically, with the continued development of risk assessment capabilities in companies there may be a tendency for scientists and managers to substitute their judgment as to the significance of certain testing results for the judgment of government scientists. This is not allowed by the law or the section 8(e) policy and would defeat the purpose of the law. The following are examples of where the law, as interpreted in the Agency's policy statement, does not allow companies to withhold results of studies. • New information concerning a dose-related increase in benign tumors in an animal study because the company used a "weight-of-the-evidence" risk assessment to discount the findings. • Teratologic or other serious reproductive effects observed in animals simply because maternal toxicity happened to be observed in the study. • Serious toxic effects (e.g., cancer, birth defects, neurotoxicity) because the tested chemical substance is only at the research and development stage and the company believes that there is no exposure to the chemical. Up-to-date information on hazard and exposure is the key to protecting the public and workers from risks from toxic chemicals. EPA scientists can combine information from one company with information from another and put together a more complete risk picture than a single company can. Companies that hold back vital information are undermining the effectiveness of the early warning system intended under sec- tion 8(e). The decision not to submit section 8(e) reportable information can prove to be a very expensive mistake in judgment by corporate management. As you know, TSCA provides very stiff penalties for violations. However, we are able to reduce these penalties if the company voluntarily discloses these violations to EPA before we find them. We would recommend your reviewing once again the enclosed TSCA section 8(e) policy statement and your policies with regard to the submission of health and environmental data to the Environmental Protec- tion Agency under TSCA section 8(e). EPA has urged nearly seven hundred U.S. companies to reexamine their compliance with section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which requires companies that obtain any "new" informa- tion on the hazards or risks of chemicals to submit that information to EPA within 15 working days. Sec- tion 8(e) is intended to serve as an early-warning sys- tem—a mechanism for identifying potential chemical risks at the earliest possible time. In letters dated December 18, 1989, the Directors of EPA's Office of Toxic Substances and Office of Com- pliance Monitoring and the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Pesticides and Toxic Substances recom- mended that companies review the Agency's section 8(e) policy statement and their own policies on sub- mission of health and environmental data under that section. This recommendation resulted from recent enforcement actions that suggest that some com- panies are misinterpreting both the law and the Agency's section 8(e) policy statement. A sample of the letter sent is printed below. Sincerely, Charles L. Elkins, Director Office of Toxic Substances A.E. Conroy, II, Director Office of Compliance Monitoring Frederick F. Stiehl Associate Enforcement Counsel for Pesticides and Toxic Substances 16 February 1990 ------- TSCA Section 8(e) FYI Submissions TSCA Section 8(e) Notices Under section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), persons who obtain information that reasonably supports the conclusion that a chemical substance or mix- ture that they manufacture, import, process, or distribute in commerce presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment must notify EPA in writing within 15 work- ing days. The Office of Toxic Substance (OTS) reviews initial section 8(e) notices and prepares "status reports," which Notices, are made public in order to make section 8(e) information widely available and understandable. A section 8(e) status report typically contains a description and preliminary eval- uation of the submitted information, a statement regarding production and uses of the subject chemical(s), and recom- mendations for appropriate OTS follow-up actions or activities. Below is a list of 39 initial TSCA section 8(e) notices recently placed in EPA's public files. Log No. 8EHQ- Pages* CAS No. Log No. 8EHQ- Pages* CAS No. 0589-0800 2 Dimethyl-1,1,1-trifluoro-2,4-pentane dionato gold 63470-53-1 Preliminary results of an acute inhalation study in rats. 0589-0801 2 Ethylenediamine 107-15-3 Disparate results obtained from several air monitor- ing methods. 0689-0802 2 Octadecylisocyanate 112-96-9 Summary results of a skin sensitization study in guinea pigs. 0689-0803 36 Dichlorosilane 4109-96-0 Preliminary results of a 9-day inhalation study in rats. 0689-0804 2 Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl) (THPC) phosphonium chloride 124-64-1 Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl) (THPS) phosphonium sulfate 55566-30-8 Formaldehyde 50-00-0 Report of formaldehyde contamination of THPC and THPS. 0789-0805 S 2 Unsaturated sulfone (generic name) Summary results of a battery of genotoxicity studies. 0789-0806 S 2 Substituted quinazoline I (generic name) Preliminary results of an acute oral toxicity study in mice. 0789-0807 S 6 Pyrazole 288-13-1 Preliminary results of an oral teratology study in rats. 0789-0808 S 2 Substituted quinazoline II (generic name) Preliminary results of an acute oral toxicity study in mice. 0889-0810 S 2 Methyl vinyl oximino silane 73160-32-4 Preliminary results of an acute oral toxicity study in rats. 0889-0811 S 3 Aryl propyl ether (generic name) Preliminary results of developmental studies in rats and rabbits. 0889-0812 38 1,3-Dichloropropan-2-ol 96-23-1 Preliminary results of a 2-year bioassay in rats. 0889-0813 99 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole 149-30-4 Preliminary results of a developmental toxicity study in rats. 0889-0814 166 bis-Trimethylolpropane tetraglycidyl ether Unknown Final results of a battery of genotoxicity studies. 0889-0815 5 Pyrazole carboxamide (generic name) Preliminary results of an acute oral toxicity study in dogs. 0889-0816 S 3 Halophenylcycloalkenyl substituted aryl ester (generic name) Preliminary results of an oral teratology study in rats. 0889-0817 2 1,3-Dioxolane 646-06-0 Preliminary results of a 13-week inhalation study in rats. 0889-0818 S 2 1-Bromo-2-fluoroethane 762-49-2 Summary results of a battery of acute studies in rats and rabbits. 0789-0809 1 Glycidol 556-52-5 Summary results from an NTP 2-year bioassay in mice and rats. 0889-0819 S 2 Substituted quinazoline III (generic name) Preliminary results of an acute oral toxicity study in mice. February 1990 17 ------- Log No. 8EHQ- Pages* CAS No. Log No. 8EHQ- Pages* CAS No. 0989-0820 5 Phosphorus 7723-14-0 Preliminary results of a 1-generation reproduction study in rats. 0989-0821 S 6 Adhesive product containing Ethyl- cyanoa-crylate 7085-85-0 Report of reproductive dysfunction among female workers. 0989-0822 3 2,2'-([1,1'-Biphenyl]-4,4'-diyldi-2,1- eth- enediyDbis-benzenesulfonic acid, disodium salt 27344-41-8 Results of a 2-year feeding study in rats. 0989-0823 227 0-(2,4-Dichlorophenyl)-0-ethyl-S-n- propyl-phosphorodithioate (Tokuthion; Prothiophos) 34643-46-4 Results of an oral teratology study in rats. 0989-0824 S 2 Aryl substituted azole carboxamide (generic name) Preliminary results of a 90-day feeding/reproduction study in rats. 0989-0825 S 2 Substituted anilides I, II and III (generic name) Preliminary results of teratology studies in rats. 0989-0826 S 525 N-Amino-N-(carboxymethyl (glycine Unknown Results of many in vitro/in vivo toxicity and environ- mental tests. 0989-0827 S 2 N-Aryl-cyclic imidate I (generic name) Preliminary results of an oral teratology study in rats. 0989-0828 S 3 N-Aryl-cyclic imidate II (generic name) Preliminary results of an oral teratology study in rats. 1089-0829 11 2-Pyrrolidone 616-45-5 Results of an oral teratology study in rats. 1089-0830 11 Allylamine 107-11-9 Preliminary results of an acute dermal toxicity study in rabbits. 1089-0831 15 4,4'-Bipyridyl (low temperature salt (LTS) process) 553-26-4 Report of keratoses among workers involved solely in the LTS manufacturing process for making 4,4'- bipyridyl. 1089-0832 2 Triethoxysilane 998-30-1 Report of eye irritation in employees after workplace incident. 1089-0833 S 2 Substituted quinoline (generic name) Preliminary results of an acute oral toxicity study in mice. 1089-0834 S 2 Organotin compound (generic name) Preliminary results of an acute oral toxicity study in mice. 1089-0835 S 22 Triazole derivative (generic name) Preliminary results of 2-generation reproduction study in rats. 1089-0836 366 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4,6-triamine, N, N'"- [1,2-ethanediylbis [[[4,6-bis[butyl (1,2,2,6,6-pentamethyl-4-piperidinyl) amino]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yI] imino-3,1- propanediyl])-bis[N',N"-bis(1,2,2,6,6- 106990- pentamethyl-piperidinyl)- 43-6 Results of a 90-day feeding study in rats. 1089-0837 S 4 Alkyl trialkoxy silane (generic name) Results of in vitro genotoxicity and in vivo toxicity studies. 1089-0838 S 1 Hydrazide compound (generic name) Preliminary results of an acute oral toxicity study in rats. Public Availability of 8(e) Notices and FYI Submissions 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 S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Single copies of section 8(e) status reports are available from the OTS Environmental Assistance Division, EPA, TS-799, Washington, D.C. 20460; telephone: (202) 554-1404. To obtain a copy of a full section 8(e) or FYI sub- mission, write to EPA, Freedom of Information (A-101), Washington, D.C. 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). Page counts given are for initial TSCA section 8(e) and FYI submissions. New data are constantly being added to EPA's section 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. 18 February 1990 ------- FYI Submissions The For Your Information (FYI) submission classification system was established by OTS to distinguish such submis- sions 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 chemi- cal toxicity and exposure, epidemiology, monitoring, and environmental fate. FYls are submitted by chemical man- ufacturers, processors, federal, state, or local agencies, for- eign 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 Hazard Information Profiles (CHIPs). Listed below are 33 initial FYI submissions received recently by EPA. FYI Number Chemical Name Paget* CAS No. FYI Number Chemical Name Pages* CAS No. OTS-0589-0690S 5 Emery 6724 none Preliminary results from a 2-week subchronic inhala- tion toxicity study in rats. AX-0589-0691 366 Miscellaneous chemicals none Literature review of environmental variables and test conditions in which aquatic species used in NPDES bioassays can survive. OTS-0589-0692 735 Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 Full final reports of a pharmacokinetic study in rats and a developmental toxicity study in mice. OTS-0589-0693 767 C9 Aromatic hydrocarbons none Full final report of a 3-generation reproduction/fertil- ity study in rats. OTS-0589-0694S 2 Confidential unknown Summarized preliminary results from a 28-day inha- lation study in rats. OTS-0689-0695 4 Chlorofluorocarbons none EPA request for information from the Program for Alternative Fluorocarbon Toxicity Testing (PAFT). OTS-0689-0696 3 Dimethyl disulfide 624-92-0 Preliminary data from a 28-day repeat dermal application study in rabbits. AX-0689-0697 97 Petrochemicals none Organic solvents none Review of current information on the acute and chronic central nervous system toxicity of selected organic solvents used in the petrochemical indus- try. AX-0689-0698 291 Benzene 71-43-2 Draft report of a 14-day pa I atabi I ity and stability study in mice with benzene administered in drink- ing water. OTS-0689-0699 12 2-(Diethylamino)ethanol 100-37-8 Summarized results from an inhalation study in rats. AX-0789-0700 32 Toluene 108-88-3 Draft report of a Human Embryonic Palatal Mes- enchyme Cell Growth Inhibition Assay. OTS-0789-0701P 47 Potassium permanganate 7722-64-7 Manganese 7439-96-5 Textile industry worker's allegation of environmental release of chemicals used in the acid wash proc- essing of jeans. OTS-0789-0702 101 Noscapine 912-60-7 Final report of a mammalian cell culture assay. OTS-0789-0703 518 Allyl glycidyI ether 106-92-3 Glycidol 556-52-5 NTP Technical Reports on toxicology and car- cinogenesis studies in rats and mice. OTS-0789-0704 1,655 Chlorofluorocarbon 12 75-71-8 Chlorofluorocarbon 22 75-45-6 Final reports of atmospheric/stratospheric modelling and monitoring studies. OTS-0789-0705 76 N-Phenylmaleimide 941-69-5 Final report of an acute aerosol inhalation toxicity study in rats. OTS-0789-0706S 4 Fiberglass reinforced nylon-6 resin none Notification of five 8(c) allegations of nosebleeds after occupational exposure, MSDS. OTS-0889-0707S 3 Confidential unknown Summarized results from a modified mouse micro- nucleus study. OTS-0889-0708 5 Bis(tributyltin)oxide 56-35-9 Tributyltin compounds none Fact sheet summarizing uses, environmental effects, alternatives, and national and international regula- tory status. OTS-0889-0709S 2 Amoco 6968 (lubricating oil additive) none OTS-0889-0710S 2 Amoco 6888 (lubricating oil additive) none OTS-0889-0711S 2 Amoco 6933 (lubricating oil additive) none Summarized final results from a dermal sensitization study in guinea pigs. OTS-0889-0712 63 Methyl Bromide 74-83-9 Final report of two range-finding inhalation teratol- ogy studies in rabbits. February 1990 19 ------- FYI Number Chemical Name Pages'* CAS No. AX-0989-0713 179 Oil none Report appraising the key economic issues likely to arise in implementing natural resource damage assessments (NRDAs) under the U.S. Department of the Interior regulations. AX-0989-0714 28 Commercial hexane none Status report of a 13-week inhalation toxicity study in rats and mice. AX-1089-0715S 6 Substituted diphenyl ether unknown Results from a dermal teratology probe study in rats. OTS-1089-0716 2 Ethyl hexyl(octyl (nitrate 27247-96-7 Report of several employee allegations of adverse health effects. OTS-1089-0717 4 Dimethylacetamide 127-19-5 Preliminary results from two mouse inhalation tox- icity studies. OTS-1089-0718 3 Metalated alkylphenol unknown copolymer Report of an employee allegation of adverse health effects. OTS-1089-0719 1068 Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 Phenol 108-95-2 Summarized environmental data, ecotoxicity, muta- genicity, chronic toxicity, and miscellaneous studies. OTS-1089-0720 14 Inorganic compounds See sub- mission Discussion of RfD values versus RDA values. FYI Number Chemical Name Pages* CAS No. OTS-1189-0722 1 Garlon ethyl ester none Report of employees experiencing skin rashes. OTS-1189-0723 234 Tetraphenylresorcinol unknown diphosphate Triphenylphosphate 115-86-6 Final reports of range-finding, acute, and 28-day intraperitoneal toxicity studies in mice and rats. "S" following the section 8(e) or FYI Log No. indicates that a sanitized (i.e., nonconfidential) 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 submissions. How to Order Publications Unless otherwise noted, you may obtain sin- gle copies of all reports mentioned in this issue of the Bulletin without charge by writ- ing to the Office of Toxic Substances (TS-799), U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460, or by calling (202) 554-1404. Starting in February 1990, if you would like to request a specific TSCA or asbestos docu- ment, you may fax your request to 202-554-5603. Please include your name, mailing address, and telephone number, as well as the document's title, EPA publication number, and any other information that would help in filling your request. Environmental Assistance Division (TS-799) Office of Pesticides & Toxic Substances U.S.E.P.A. Washington, D.C. 20460. Official tuslnass Panslly for Privata IHa $300 First Class Mall Postaga and Faas Paid EPA Parmit No. G-35 THE CHEMICALS-IN-PROGRESS BULLETIN ------- |