:t jies	Office of
r •	;r>	P'jWh. Aff.iT-. 'A '07)
A
-------
Disinfection and filtration are significant pub 1ic-heaIth measures.
In the late 1800's, filtration of drinking water was proven to greatl/
reduce outbreaks of waterborne disease. In the 1900's, disinfection and
filtration's ability to remove bacteria and viruses from drinking water
was demonstrated by the virtual elimination of waterborne typhoid fevar
and cholera in the United States. In addition, by disinfecting and
filtering, other debilitating illnesses such as amoebic dysentery,
shiqellos is and salmonellos i s have been controlled. Man/ states -md
systems already require or use filtration and/or disinfection.
"Throuqhout this century, remarkable strides have been made in
protecting people from dangerous waterborne bacteria," Jensen said, "but
we still see outbreaks of giardiasis and virus-caused illnesses. These
cases occur in situations where inadequate treatment is in place or a
problem has occurred in the distribution system. Today's proposed rules
require installation of additional treatment technology in water systems
that need it to assure that their drinking water is safe from microbiological
contamination."
Giard ia are protozoa that originate in human and animal waste and
cause giardiasis. Giardiasis has flu-like symptoms, but is usually more
severe, causing diarrhea, nausea and dehydration that can last for months
in some cases.
Viruses are sub-microscopic organisms that cause infection. Common
waterborne diseases caused by viruses include hepatitis A, diarrhea and
gastroenteritis.
Turbidity is a measure of the cloudiness or clarity of the water, and
turbid water can indicate the presence of harmful microorganisms. Hetero-
trophic bacteria are indicators of water quality and can include disease-
causing bacteria. Leg ionella bacteria cause Legionnaires' Disease.
Coliform bacteria come from human and animal waste. While common in
the environment and generally not harmful themselves, their presence
indicates that the water may be contaminated with disease-causing organisms.
Under the proposed rule for coliforms, identification of contamination will
be more rapid than under current regulations, allowing operators to act more
quickly to prevent waterborne disease outbreaks.
Of the 9,800 drinking-water systems in the United States using surface
water, 3,000 systems currently do not filter. Some of these systems are
currently providing biologically safe water and will not need to make any
changes; some will require minor modifications, including disinfection; and
some will need to install filtration. Over 21 million people are served by
these unfiltered systems. The regulations require the states to evaluate
these 3,000 systems to see if they need to install filtration.
Today's announced proposal also requires all water systems to be
operated by qualified operators, to be determined by the state; local
water-system operators to report to their state governments monthly on
R-162
(more)
-------
-3-
their	progress in -nesting the federal rules and within 48 hours on water-
borne	disaasa outbreaks; and operators of both filtered and unfiltered
water	systems to meet federal requirements within four years after the
final	rule is issued.
Nationally, the cost of meeting the surface-water-treatment require-
ments for public wat«r systems without filtration is estimated at $1.6
billion in capital costs and $225 million in annual costs. The cost for
systems which would need to upgrade existing filtration is estimated at
$333 million in capital costs and $95 million in annual costs. A number of
small systems may be able to switch to other sources of water instead of
installing treatment.
The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1936 require EPA to set
drinking-water standards for 83 specified contaminants by June 19, 1989.
Nine were regulated by June 19, 1987. EPA must issue 40 additional
standards by June 19, 1988. The rules announced today propose six of
these standards; the remaining 34, including standards for inorganic and
synthetic organic chemicals, will be proposed later in 1987.
Public hearings on the standards proposed today will be conducted in
Washington, D.C., on Nov. 23-24 and in Denver, Colo., on Dec. 2-3.
The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is available to the public to answer
questions on these proposed rules or on other concerns about drinking
water. The toll-free number is 800-426-4 791; in Washington, D.C. call
382-5533.
Today's proposal will appear soon in the Federal Register.
R-162
# # #
-------
: 'res

'c —^e^:3 ~rz*ez\D"	: -^a's -•'C
Aoe^cv	v\as^^c:o^ 0C 2C^60
f/EPA Note to Correspondents
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1987
Copies of the attached letter outlining the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Endangered Species Pesti-
cides Labeling Program were sent to the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees on Monday, Nov. 2. Similar
copies also will be sent to the State Commissioners of
Agriculture this week.
For further details, please contact A1 Heier at
202-382-4374.
Dave Cohen
Press Services Division
r-166	202-382-5589
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C. 20460
NOV - 2 '987
orrici or
PCSTICJOCS ANO TOXIC
Honorable E. (Kika) de la Garza
House'" of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. de la Garza:
I an writing to you on the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) efforts to design and implement an Endangered Species
Pesticides Labeling Program. As you know, this is an effort to
ensure that registered uses of pesticides do not jeopardize
endangered species.
The Endangered Species Act (Act) is the responsibility of the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Department of Interior.
Under the terms of the Act the FWS informs EPA when exposure
to specific pesticides will be harmful to specific endangered
species. This determination is referred to as a jeopardy
opinion. The opinion further indicates where the endangered
species occur and measures that would acceptably mitigate the
jeopardy call. To date we are in receipt from the Fish and
Wildlife Service jeopardy opinions on about 250 species that
occur in approximately 900 counties throughout the country.
Through its pesticide statute (FIFRA) EPA seeks to develop a
national program of pesticide label directions which directs
pesticide users to a series of county maps depicting where in
the county an endangered species occurs. The basic concept
behind our program is to prohibit or limit the use of certain
pesticides only in the areas currently occupied by endangered
species. Thus we are seeking to both protect endangered species
and minimize the amount of land that would be affected. This
EPA program is only considering formal jeopardy opinions for
endangered and threatened species.
A second basic feature of the EPA plan is to use groupings
or "clusters" of pesticides registered for similar uses. In
the initial effort four (4) clusters were prepared: Forest,
Mosquito Larvacides, Range and Pasture Lands, and Crops (which
contains pesticides registered for uses on corn, cotton, soybeans,
sorghum, rye, barley, oats, and wheat). These four (4) clusters
were selected because the majority of endangered species jeopardy
-------
opinions received by EPA are for pesticides associated
with these uses. Based on the experiences gained through
implementat ton of these four (4) clusters EPA will consider the
utility of this approach for the remaining endangered species
jeopardy opinions for other sites and crops.
In May of this year EPA published a Pesticide Registration
Notice informing pesticide manufacturers that all products
released for shipment after February 1, 1988 must bear labels
that direct potential users to consult the county maps (or
information bulletins) prior to use of that pesticide in specific
counties. Manufacturers are complying with this request. Thus
we will have a transition period where products shipped pre- and
post- February 1, 1988 will be sold with differing label
requirements. This is a common practice to permit the orderly
depletion of existing stocks of pesticides in the marketplace.
Inasmuch as the success of the EPA program relies heavily upon
voluntary compliance by users based on correct information
about the subject, the transition phase of existing stocks is
not of significant enforcement concern. It was the EPA plan to
distribute the maps and educational materials to all State Lead
Agencies, Regional Offices of both EPA and FVS, and USDA Cooper-
ative Extension Service Staff in the winter months of 1987. It
was our hope that the program could be fully implemented in
1988. In anticipation of the February 1, 1988 date EPA sent all
draft county maps to the states for review. The USDA and FWS
were also asked to comment.
The responses from the States, other Federal agencies and
our own review of the draft county maps depicting the location
of endangered species clearly indicates chat major work is
required to correct deficiencies. The diversity of issues to
be addressed is broad, including accuracy of range, potential
versus current habitat, need for greater specificity,
inconsistencies across counties and states, and "corrections"
of the size of buffer zones in which pesticides use may be
restricted. It is also clear that adequate time must be
allocated for describing the endangered species plan, its
objectives and its impact to affected ranchers and farmers.
Resource personnel such as extension, wildlife and agriculture
department personnel and other interested people also need
sufficient opportunity to review and become familiar with the
plan. Each of these tasks is doable but cannot be generally
accomplished in a professional and thorough manner between now
and the original February 1, 1988 target date. I am therefore
modifying the plan to provide that period of time which is
needed for proper planning, comment and orderly implementation.
Following early discussions with California and Florida,
and several pesticide user groups, I became convinced that in a
number of cases states could create a specific plan that would
better meet the dual goals of protection of endangered species
-------
-3-
and avoidance of unnecessary disruption of routine pesticidal
uses within the state. State,Departments of Agriculture and
the State Natural Resource Agencies are frequently in possession
of local and specific information on pesticide use practices
and the occurrence of endangered species that is more accurate
than what we may have ready access to ac the federal level.
Recognizing this, I wrote to all State Commissioners of the
Departments of AgricuLture and invited them to consider develop-
ing state plans if they felt the EPA plan was not best suited
for the unique needs of the state.
To date, California, Florida, Georgia, and New Mexico have
committed to developing a plan. I anticipate that Texas and several
other states also will decide to craft a custom plan. In my
letter of invitation to the States I asked that the states inform
me by late November which draft county maps are accurate and if
the state planned on developing a state-specific plan for some or
all of the endangered species and counties that are affected by the
EPA national program.
I now believe that for some states the November date may be
unrealistic in that it would preclude the careful screening
and correcting of maps. Accuracy of maps is absolutely essential.
I am also convinced that additional opportunities for public
input via the states and other avenues is a preferred requisite
and would significantly improve any EPA or state effort to
protect endangered species from pesticides. Accordingly I am
communicating to all the states that they can and should take
the necessary time to fully evaluate their own unique situations
and the accuracy and utility of use of county maps.
For those states indicating they will not be ready,for
implementation in February 1, 1988 I am asking they inform me of
their specific schedule by February 1, 1988. In submitting this
written schedule I expect that it will include the nature of
tasks to be addressed (e.g., which counties and which species);
the intended approach to solve the problems; the various
organizations that will be included in the state effort (e.g.,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Cooperative Extension
Service, the State Natural Resource Agency); a timeline for the
completion of each of the outlined tasks; and when each or all
aspects of the plan will be implemented in the field.
The review of maps and consideration of the logistics
required to make this program a success convinces me that all
four (4) clusters for all states will not be ready for full
implementation in 1988. On the other hand, I am in possession
of formal jeopardy biological opinions and am obligated, under
the Endangered Species Act, to take action consistent with
these opinions. At the same time I recognize the absolute need
for an orderly and sensible program to both protect endangered
species and minimize disruption of agricultural or other land
use practices. Some have suggested chat I lot seek to implement
any portion of the EPA program until all -r clusters, m a»l
-------
States, are ready. I personally believe chac to tail to move
forward arid implement plans in chose locations where information
is accurate and the mitigation measures understood and consistent
with common sense would be illogical, illegal and indefensible.
For many states use of accurate county maps will prove to
be an effective and reasonable approach. It is ray hope chac
the states promptly identify the accurate maps (or the technical
modifications needed to make the maps accurate). Once EPA, rWS
and the State agree upon a map I hope that we can move cowards
issuance and use of that map as the vehicle for compliance with
the legal mandates of the Endangered Species Act.
One of the original four (4) clusters, Forests, probably
can be implemented, in a majority of cases, in 1988. I base
this upon the discrete user group that treats forest sites
wich pesticides: principally, the U.S. Forest Service and the
large paper and timber companies. These pesticide users are
accustomed to the management of endangered species in forests
and in many cases have long-practiced methods that effectively
avoid damage to endangered species in both public and private
foresd lands. The remaining challenge is to package and market
these successful approaches to other users of forest pesticides.
My staff is working with the Forest Service and FWS to identify
and describe these specific methods to locate forest-dwelling
endangered species. It is our intent to then make these methods
known to potential pesticide users who can then comply with the
nacessary precautions to protect the speci.es. Again I emphasize
chat the states and the public also will be partners in the
selection of techniques and methods co avoid jeopardy to these
species.
As you well know any national pLan that changes the status
quo is subject to both legitimate and unfounded opposition and
apprehension. The EPA is committed co protect endangered species
via a program Chat reflects to the fullest extent possible a
consensus among all interested parties. We can find that balance
of legitimate environmental concerns and the continuation of
effective agricultural practices. I am committed to discharging
EPA responsibility under Che Endangered Species Act, buc in such
a way as to create a spirit of understanding and support among
the farm, pesticide, commodity and public interest groups.
I look forward to your comments on this program and to
briefing you and other members of Congress in the near future.
S incerely,
^John A. Moore
Ass is can c Administrator
for Pesticides
and Toxic £ubstan.- s
-------
United States	Office of
Environmental Protection	Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency	Washington DC 20460
&EPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1987
Priscilla Flattery 202-382-4387
SITE PROGRAM	The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
SELECTIONS
ANNOUNCED	announced 10 new technologies selected for demonstration
under the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program. The agency also is soliciting proposals
for a new SITE component, the Emerging Technologies
Proqram.
The SITE program helps EPA demonstrate, evaluate
and promote the use of new technologies that signifi-
cantly decrease the toxicity, mobility or volume of
Superfund hazardous substances. The program provides
private, public or private non-profit entities an
opportunity to test alternative technologies at
selected Superfund sites with on-site evaluation.
The developer pays for the demonstration and EPA
finances the evaluation.
J. Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, said, "The SITE
program is a very important piece of the research
underway on Superfund cleanup methodologies. These
innovative and emerging technologies are critical to the
work that must be done over the next few years on
finding and putting into place new and effective cleanup
r emed i e s. "
Ten developers and technolgies were selected
from the second annual solicitation of the SITE
demonstration program. Selected for solidification/
stabilization processes were Soliditech Inc. of
Houston, Texas; Chemfix Technologies Inc. of Metairie,
La; Waste Chem Corp. of Paramus, N.J.; and Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratory of Richland, Wash.
Chosen for biological technologies were Air Products
and Chemicals Inc. of Allentcwn, Pa.; Zimpro Environ-
R-165
(more)
-------
-2-
mental Control Systems of Rothschild, Wis.; and MoTec Inc. of Mt. Juliet,
Tenn. Retech Inc. ot' Ukiah, Calif., was selected for a thermal technology;
C.F. Systems Corp. of Cambridge, Mass., for an extraction process; and
Sanitech. Inc. of Twinsburgh, Ohio, for an ion-exchange technology.
One technology from the first SITE solicitation was demonstrated at
the Peak Oil Superfund site in Brandon, Fla. During this removal operation,
an EPA Region IV contractor, Haztech Inc., operated its mobile infrared
incineration system developed by Shirco Infrared Systems Inc. on PCB and
lead contaminated soil. The SITE demonstration occurred from July 31 -
Aug. 6. A second demonstration, involving a pilot scale Shirco unit, is
planned for Rose Township, Mich., in November.
A second demonstration has been completed at the Douglassvi1le
Superfund site near Reading, Pa. A sol idification/stabi1ization process
developed by Hazcon Inc., was demonstrated from Oct. 13 - 16 at a site
contaminated with high levels of oil and grease and low levels of PCBs and
volatile organics. Soil and sludge from six different site areas were
treated to evaluate the process capability on diverse feedstocks.
Two additional demonstrations are planned during the next two months.
The Terra Vac! in-situ vacuum extraction process will be demonstrated at
the Groveland Wells Superfund site, in Groveland, Mass. This site is
contaminated with volatile organics, principally trichloroethylene. This
six- to eight-week demonstration will occur at a manufacturing facility
which is contributing to the contamination of drinking water.
An enhanced oxygen burner developed by American Combustion Inc.,
which can be fitted on a conventional combustion unit, will be demonstrated
at EPA's Combustion Research Facility in Jefferson, Ark. Contaminated
soil from the Stringfellow Superfund site in California will be burned
durinq the five-week demonstration.
EPA issued its third annual solicitation for SITE demonstrations in
the "Commerce Business Daily" in mid-October. The Request for Proposal
will be available from EPA on Jan. 15. with a closing date of March 1. For
a copy of the RFP, contact William Frietsch, USEPA/HWERL, 26 W. Martin
Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
The Emerging Technologies Program, a new component under the SITE
program, will provide funding to developers for technologies which are not
yet ready for full-scale demonstration. The program will deal with innovative
emerging technologies for recycling, separation, detoxification, destruction,
stabi 1 ization and handling of hazardous chemical wastes. The program will
provide up to $300,000 ($150,000 per year) funding to an individual developer
for taking a promising technology from the bench to the pilot stage. If
the pilot technology is successful, then it could be eligible for evaluation
under the SITE demonstration program. In order to obtain second-year
funding, significant progress must be made during the first year.
R-165
(moire)
-------
-3-
EPA is soliciting pre-proposals at the present time for this program.
Please refer to the Sept. 17 issue of "Commerce Business Daily" for more
information or contact William Frietsch, USEPA/HWERL, 26 W. Martin Luther
King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
For more information on the SITE program, contact John Kingscott at
202-382-4506 or Greg Ondich at 2 0 2-382-5747.
R-165
# # #
-------
: ' - »a -* v ¦ • o	' i *' - d * 1
c„o.: -"a -s --'0*
Aae-::.	^vas^c:::' DC 2C46C
vvEPA Note to Correspondents
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1987
Jack Moore, EPA Assistant Administrator for Pesticides
and Toxic Substances, yesterday approved the first
field test of a recombinant-DNA microorganism under
the Toxic Substances Control Act. In early November,
the Monsanto Agricultural Co. plans to begin its
field test of Pseudomonas aureofac iens, a genetically
engineered fluorescent pseudomonad which will be used
to track engineered organisms in the environment.
The field test, executed in conjunction with Clemson
University, will be located at Clemson's Edisto Research
and Education Center in Blackville, S.C.
For further press questions call Alicia Tenuta
at 382-4132.
R-161
Dave Cohen, Director
Press Services Division
202-382-5589
-------
First Approval Under the Toxic Substances Control Act
for Field Test of a Recombinant-DNA Microorganism
FACT SHEET
Background
On June 18, 1987, Monsanto Agricultural Company submitted a
premanufacture notification (PMN) to the Environmental protection
Agency (EPA). The submission described the company's intent to
field test a fluorescent pseudomonad, Pseudomonas aureofaciens,
genetically engineered to contain the lacZY genes from
Escherichia coli.
The objectives of the field test are (1) to verify that the
inserted lacZY genes will be an adequate marker to monitor the
survival and location of the engineered strain under field
conditions and (2) to evaluate the performance and survival of a
well-characterized soil bacterium representative of a type that
could be used for delivery of plant beneficial substances. The
field trial is to be conducted, in cooperation with Clemson
University, at the University's Edisto Research and Education
Center, Blackville, South Carolina.
This microorganism is subject to the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) as explained in the June 26, 1986 FEDERAL
REGISTER notice describing EPA's biotechnology policy. Under
TSCA, EPA had 90 days, extendable to 180 days, to evaluate the
risks and benefits of the microorganism and determine whether
regulatory action was required.
The Agency specifically convened a Subcommittee of the EPA
Biotechnology Science Advisory Committee (BSAC) to assist in its
risk assessment, Eight academic scientists—experts in
pseudomonas genetics and metabolism, soil microbiology, microbial
ecology, community ecology, water quality testing, and plant
pathology—served on the panel. The Subcommittee unanimously
agreed that the field test posed little risk and should be
conducted and that large-scale releases should await evaluation
of the field test data.
Announcements in the FEDERAL REGISTER informed the public of
the receipt of the PMN and the meeting of the BSAC
Subcommittee. Public comment on the PMN and participation in tie
BSAC meeting were invited.
What Is EPA's Final Decision?
In mid-september, the Agency announced its preliminary
conclusions: (1) the field test should be conducted because it
pcsed little risk and offered substantial benefit; (2) there wa3
insufficient information to evaluate the risks of larger-scale
-------
-2-
applications, and (3) information from the field test would
contribute significantly to future evaluations for expanded
uses. Given these conclusions, the Agency's preliminary decision
was to allow the field test provided that it be designed to
obtain certain data and conducted under certain restrictions.
To ensure development of data and to impose restrictions on
the test, the Agency, during a 35-day extension of the review
period, negotiated a TSCA Section 5(e) Consent Order with
Monsanto. Since this is one of the first notifications for a
ger.etically engineered product under TSCA, the Agency provided a
two-week period for public comment on the draft Consent Order.
The final Consent Order was signed by Monsanto and the EPA
Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances this
week. Consequently, Monsanto has the first approval under TSCA
to conduct a field test of a reconoinant-DNA organism.
When Will she Test Be Conducted?
Monsanto plans to begin the field test in early November.
The Consent Order requires the Cocnpany to notify the Agency ten
days in advance of the application of the microorganisms in the
field. As soon as the Agency receives the ten-day notification
from Monsanto, the public will be informed of the date for
initiating.the field test.
What Will the Test Involve?
Monitoring microorganisms in their natural environments is
essential to research in microbial ecology and to the development
of genetically engineered organisms for agricultural or
environmental uses.
In the past, bacteria were c«netically "marked" or
"labelled" so that they could be'traced in the environment.
Typically, bacteria could be marked or differentiated from other
bacteria due to their resistance to certain antibiotics. This
practice suffers from two major drawbacks. The "marked" bacteria
often do not survive in the environment. In addition, the
background levels of naturally occurring antibiotic-resistant
bacteria may be high thereby making it difficult to discern the
marked bacteria from background.
Monsanto has developed a sensitive tracking method that may
bypass some of these problems and is particularly effective for
tie fluorescent pseudomonads. The Company has genetically
engineered a fluorescent pseudoaonad, Pseudomonas aureofaciens,
to "contain two lactose genes (lacZ and lacY) from Escherichia
-------
-3-
coli K-12. These genes were inserted into the bacterial
chromosome and allow the engineere'd strain to grow on lactose-
containing medium and to produce blue rather than yellow-white
colored colonies.
The Company's earlier tests in contained facilities
(laboratory, growth chamber and greenhouse) indicate that the
presence of this color-producing marker greatly facilitates the
distinction of the engineered strain from nonengineered
strains. To continue its research and development activities,
the Company intends to field test the microorganism and determine
whether the engineered strain can be adequately ntonitored under
field conditions.
Does this Test Pose a High Risk?
No. The PMN microorganism presents very little risk to
humans and the environment for the following reasons:
0 Pseudomonas aureofaciens and Escherichia coli K-12 have been
well-studied and are nonpathogenic and nontoxic to animals
(including humans) and plantsT
° The inserted lacZY genes have been well-characterized in
their normal host and their expression does not produce
harmful products.
° Expression of the added genes in P. aureofaciens is not
expected to cause deleterious environmental effects or to
provide a competitive advantage to the engineered p.
aureofaciens.
° Little transport of the microorganisms from the test site and
consequent low exposures are expected because of plans to
contain the microorganism within the field test site. The
test plot will be surrounded by three buffer zones (wheat,
plant-free, and grass), a containment terrace, and an
electrified fence. In addition, Monsanto is requiring
workers applying the microorganisms to wear clothing and gear
that can be destroyed or decontaminated at the site
immediately after the application. Monitoring will provide
data on dissemination and effects of the microorganism in the
environment.
° Human exposures to the microorganism should be very low
because of containment procedures and worker operating
procedures.
The Agency does not believe that extensive worker-protection
gear is necessary for such a low-risk organism. Monsanto, in an
abundance of caution, submitted a protocol in which workers
applying the microorganisms will wear spash goggles, disposable
coveralls, rubber boots, and rubber gloves. EPA incorporated the
protocol into the consent Order.
-------
-4-
Agency representatives will be present to observe the
activities initiating the field test. Additional inspections, as
appropriate, will be scheduled as the test proceeds to verify
compliance with record-keeping and other 5(e)-provision
requirements.
Is EPA Requiring Any Other Tests?
In its review of the engineered microorganism, the Agency
identified two specific areas to be evaluated before a
determination could be made concerning wide-scale use: 1)
potential interference with water-quality testing and 2)
potential reduction in the shelf life of dairy products. First,
it was suggested that the genetically engineered microorganism,
because it contained the lacZY genes from E_j_ coli, may cause
false positive results in tests determining water quality.
Preliminary tests indicate no interference. Additional tests
will provide a definitive answer.
Second, microorganisms closely related to the Monsanto
genetically engineered bacteria cause post-pasteurization
spoilage ind hence reduce the shelf life of dairy products.
Since the Monsanto organism also contains genes for metabolizing
lactose (milk sugar), it was suggested that the presence of these
genes may facilitate the growth of the engineered bacteria in
milk. If this were so and if mil.< products were exposed to these
bacteria, the shelf life of such products may be reduced. The
Agency and Monsanto, with advice of experts, developed milk-
testing protocols designed to indicate the potential for reduced
shelf life of dairy products due co the genetically engineered
microorganism.
These issues are potential economic problems and do not pose
a health hazard. Resolution of these issues was not necessary
prior to this small-scale field test because of the limited
exposure of the microorganism. Monsanto, however, will conduct
the laboratory tests, outlined in the Consent Order, to provide
data on these two issues before evaluation of large-scale use of
the microorganism.
whv Did Monsanto Notify EPA?
The microorganism is subject to the Agency's biotechnology
policy governing "new", i.e., intergeneric microorganisms under
TSCA. Under TSCA such new products are subject to EPA review
before they can be used commercially. Monsanto is voluntarily
complying with EPA's request that companies involved in research
and development testing of "new" microorganisms in the
environment submit a notification prior to conducting such tests.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service determined that the microorganism was not
-------
-5-
subject to the Plant Pest Act. EPA coordinated its review with
two South Carolina agencies, the Department of Agriculture and
the Department of Health and Environmental Control.
What Are the Benefits of this Test?
The successful completion of this test will allow EPA and
the Company to determine whether the new microorganism performs
as predicted and will provide a basis for the Company to proceed
with developing this marker system. Fluorescent pseudomonads are
prime candidates for the delivery of such beneficial materials to
plants due to the bacteria's ability to grow around the roots of
a variety of crop species. Beneficial materials can be
genetically engineered into these bacteria. Evaluation of the
performance of such modified bacteria requires a rapid and
accurate means of monitoring them in the environment. The
Company expects this genetically engineered microorganism to
serve as a more stable, specific and sensitive marker system than
the antibiotic resistance marker systems currently used to
monitor microorganims.
In addition, the field test will provide data on the fate
and effects of genetically engineered microorganisms in the
environment. Such data on products predicted to be low risk are
necessary for developing a body of knowledge from which to make
additional predictions concerning other products.
why is EPA Imposing Restrictions and Data Requirements?
Although EPA is confident that this test presents little
risk, the Agency is imposing certain restrictions and data
requirements. The intent of the EPA Order is to assure (1) the
field test will pose a very low risk by containing the
microorganisms as much as is reasonable; (2) EPA will be able to
monitor the test and evaluate the results; and (3) EPA will have
useful information to, evaluate future requests for field testing
or possible commercial use of this or microorganism.
The Agency believes that it is important to evaluate the
data from this limited field test and from the water-quality and
dairy-product tests before proceeding with large-scale uses of
this microorganism. This conclusion is based primarily on the
limited experience with recombinant-DNA derived organisms in the
environment. The Agency acknowledges that this determination
could be overly cautious but believes it is appropriate for the
first release of an engineered organism under TSCA.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
*>EPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1987
Alicia Tenuta 382-4132
EPA ISSUES SCHOOL
ASBESTOS INSPECTION
FINAL RULES
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today
issued final rules under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response £ct (AHERA) of 1986 that require all public
and private elementary and secondary schools to inspect
for friable and non-friable asbestos, implement response
actions and submit asbestos management plans to
state governors.
Public school districts and private schools, kncwn
as local education agencies (LEAs), are required to
submit management plans to the governors of their
states by Oct. 12, 1988. States have 90 days to approve
or disapprove these plans. Implementation of these
management plans must begin by July 9, 1989, and they
must be completed in a timely fashion. LEAs must use
accredited persons to conduct inspections, develop
management plans and design or conduct response actions
in the areas of operations and maintenance, repair,
encapsulation, enclosure and removal. AHERA describes
the appropriate circumstances for selecting each
response action as well as steps to be taken to properly
conduct and complete these actions.
John A. Moore, EPA's Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, said, "These rules
will effectively reduce exposure to asbestos in our
schools. Schools will have to start scheduling
inspections new in order to meet the requirements of
the deadline next October. If schools wait until next
suraner to begin their inspections, they will miss the
October deadline."
R-160
(more)
-------
-2-
The rules require periodic surveillance ard re-inspection to monitor
asbestos-containirq material left in place in schools. Periodic
surveillance requires checking asbestos-containing material every six
months to determine if its condition has changed since the last inspection
or surveillarce. Re-inspection to assess any retraining asbestos-containing
material is required every three years ard must be conducted by an
accredited inspector.
Schools that fail to conduct inspections, knowingly submit false
information to their governors or fail to develop a managanent plan in
accordance with the regulations can be assessed a civil penalty under the
Tbxic Substances Control Act of up to $5,000 for each day the school is in
violation. AHERA also provides that civil penalties assessed will be used
by schools to comply with AHERA requirements. Unspent portions of the
assessed civil penalties will be deposited in a federal Asbestos Trust Fund,
and added to repaid loans under the Asbestos Schools Hazard Abatement Act
(ASHAA). These monies will be made available for further asbestos abatement
activities.
LEAs that previously have conducted inspections in a manner consistent
with this final rule ard determined that no asbestos-containing material
is present in the schools will be excluded from the nstf inspection require-
ments. A school also will be exerrpt frcm the new rules if its inspection
ard abatement records indicate that all asbestos-containing material has
been removed. In addition, a school will be exempt if it is built after
Oct. 12, 1988, and an architect or project engineer or accredited inspector
signs a statement indicating that no asbestos-containing material had been
specified for use in construction documents. States may receive a waiver
from some or all of the requirements of the proposed rule if they have
established and are implanentirg or intend to implement a program of
asbestos inspection and management at least as stringent as the require-
ments of the final rule.
With furris from the ASHAA techical assistance program, EPA recently
awarded 12 states a total of $5 million in grants to help LEAs carry out
inspections and establisH management plans.
The final rule will be published in the Federal Register within two
weeks.
K-160
# # #
-------
vvEPA Press Advisory
For the week of: OCTOBER 26, 1987
Following are some agency developments which may interest you. If you need more
information on any of these subjects, call the appropriate contact:
TOPIC	CONTACT	
EPA DENIES PETITION FROM DOW CHEMICAL
The Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic	Alicia Tenuta
Substances has denied the petition submitted to the	202-382-4132
EPA by Dow Chemical Co. to delete ortho-phenylphenol
(OPP) from the emissions inventory list of toxic
chemicals under section 313 of the Superfund Amendments
Reauthorization Act (SARA). Dow Chemical based its
petition on the contention that OPP does not meet the
health or environmental toxicity criteria mandated
in section 313. Given the available data on OPP, the
agency believes that there is enough evidence on potential
carcinogencity, developmental toxicity and environmental
toxicity/persistence to maintain OPP on the emissions
inventory list. Dow Chemical is currently the sole
producer of OPP in the United States. Section 313 of
SARA requires owners and operators of certain facilities
that manufacture, process or otherwise use one of the
listed 329 toxic chemicals and chemical categories to
report annually their environmental releases of such
chemicals. The purpose of the emissions reporting
provision in section 313 is to make information available
to the public about total annual releases of toxic
chemicals from nearby industrial facilities. The
public may petition the agency to add or delete from
the emissions inventory list and the agency has 180
days to respond. The EPA Administrator has delegated
authority of denial for all section 313 petitions to
the Assistant Administrator. For further information,
docket materials are available for inspection in the
Office of Toxic Substances* Reading Room, NE-G004, 401
M St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. The OPP notice of
denial appeared in the Federal Register on Oct.29.
EPA RELEASES COMMERCIAL HAZARDOUS-WASTE-FACILITY DIRECTORY
EPA has published a directory of commercial hazardous-	Robin Woods
waste-management facilities which store, treat or	202-382-4377
dispose of hazardous wastes. The report provides
information on the types of services offered and the
types of waste managed. The report can be obtained
from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
at 703-487-4650 for $24.95, or $6.50 for microfiche.
The order no. is PB88-109-699/AS.
R-164
# # *
-------
United States	Office of
Environmental Protection	Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency	Washington DC 20460
&EPA Press Advisory
For the week of: October 12, 1987
Following are tome agency developments which may interest you. If you need more
information on any of these subjects, call the appropriate contact:
TOPIC	CONTACT
FORD RECALLS SOME 1982 LYNX AND ESCORT CARS
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency today said	Martha Casey
Ford Motor Co. began recalling 85,053 1982 model	202-382-4378
year Ford Escort and Mercury Lynx cars with manual
transmissions on Oct. 12 to repair an excessive
hydrocarbon emissions problem. Ford is revising the
air injection system to increase the duration of air
supply upstream of the catalytic converter to allow
more complete oxidation of of the pollutants. They
also will change the spark timing and check the
operation of the exhaust gas recirculation valve,
replacing it if necessary, free of charge. EPA
discovered the problem during routine surveillance
testing. Ford agreed to recall the vehicles after
conductinq similar tests of its own.
EPA PROPOSES STANDARDS FOR PURCHASE OF RE-REFINED
OIL FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT VEHICLES
EPA is proposing guidelines which require federal	Robin Woods
agencies to purchase certain lubricating oils	202-382-4377
containing re-refined oil for use in government
vehicles. The guidelines would affect primarily the
Department of Defense, which purchases petroleum
products on behalf of all federal agencies, including
the General Services Administration and the Postal
Service. The Defense Department has already moved
to allow the purchase of re-refined oil, by setting
new specifications for the oil (referred to as
"military specifications.") EPA's proposed require-
ment also would affect government contractors.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
federal agencies must purchase certain items con-
taining recovered materials to the maximum extent
possible, provided technical performance is maintained
and costs and availability are reasonable. EPA must
designate suitable items containing recovered materials,
including recommendations for procurement practices
and information on availability, relative price, and
performance. EPA's new proposal would apply speci-
R-15 9
(more)
-------
-2-
fically to the purchase of vehicular lubricating
oils, gear oil and hydraulic fluids. The requirement
is expected to encourage the re-refining of oil by
creating additional markets. The federal government
annually purchases a combined total of nearly 9
million gallons of the three oils, less than two
percent of annual domestic purchases. However,
since many state and local procuring agencies, as
well as private organizations purchase only oil
meeting military specifications, the new specifica-
tions for the purchase of re-refined oil are expected
to create additional markets outside of the federal
government. Used lubricating oils contain contaminants
picked up during their use? re-refining removes the
contaminants and additives to produce a new basestock,
allowing the oil to be used repeatedly. Approximately
70 percent of the 1.2 billion gallons of used oil
produced each year are recycled; the remaining 30 per-
cent dumped into sewers or on land, sometimes creating
public health and environmental problems. With the
creation of the new markets, EPA expects much of the
non-recycled oil to be diverted for recovery. The
proposal will be published in the Federal Register
within the next two weeks.
EPA ISSUES FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES UNDER
CLEAN WATER ACT
EPA's Region VI Office in Dallas has handed out the	Dave Ryan
first administrative penalties in the U.S. ever	202-382-2981
issued under the federal Clean Water Act. Adminis-
trative penalties, enabling EPA to bypass the court
system and fine a company or government entity
directly, were first authorized by Congress in
their February 1987 amendments to the 1972 Clean
Water Act. On September 23, EPA issued direct
administrative fines totaling $136,000 to ten
companies and municipalities. Those cited: BASF
Corporation, Freeport, Texas, $9,000 for allowing
contaminated stbrmwater discharge into a canal; H.
Mulhstein and CQ., Inc., Houston, Texas, $20,000
for discharging pollution exceeding their permit
into a bayou; ANR Production Company, Houston,
Texas, $9,000 for failing to submit monitoring
reports on discharges from their offshore oil
platform in the Gulf of Mexico; City of Westlake,
Louisiana, $13,000 for discharging sewage sludge
and sludge runoff into a bayou; Shepherd Oil,
Inc., Jennings, Louisiana, $25,000 for failure to
submit discharge monitoring reports; Georgia Pacific
Chemicals, Lufkin, Texas, $25,000 for discharge of
R-159
(more)
-------
-3-
contaminated stormwater from three unauthorized
outlets into a creek; City of Orange, Texas, $10,000
for failing to submit water pollution discharge
monitoring reports according to requirements of
EPA permit; A. Schulman, Inc., Orange, Texas,
$10,000 for violations of maximum allowable discharge
of pollants and failing to submit discharge monitoring
and noncompliance reports; Ethanol Management
Group, Vidalia, Louisiana, $12,000 for allowing
unauthorized pollution discharge and failing to
report it; and Nueces County Water Control and
Improvement District #5, Banquete, Texas, $3,000
for submitting inadeqate discharge monitoring
r epor ts.
REGULATIONS SIGNED TO REIMBURSE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
FOR EMERGENCY ACTIONS
EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas signed an interim	Priscilla Platte
final regulation for reimbursements to local govern-	202-382-4387
ments for emergency response activities under Section
123 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act. Local governments
may apply for reimbursement of costs incurred in
conducting emergency response activities at sites
that pose a threat to human health or the environ-
ment. Temporary emergency measures may include such
activities as erecting security fencing to limit
access, responding to fires and explosions and other
environmental threats that require immediate response
at the local level. The intent of the regulation is
to alleviate significant financial burden on local
governments that conduct temporary measures. There-
fore, reimbursement funds wiil be distributed to
those local governments that demonstrate the most
significant financial burden. The reimbursement
funding is limited to $25,000 per single response
and cannot supplant local funds normally provided
for emergency response1 activities. This interim
final regulation will appear in the Federal Register
in the next two .weeks.
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILES
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry	Alicia Tenuta
(ATSDR) will announce the availability of 10 draft	202-382-4132
tox icolog ical profiles. Section 110 of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act mandates ATSDR to
prepare toxicological profiles for the 100 hazardous
chemicals most commonly found at Superfund sites.
EPA worked in conjunction with ATSDR to prepare the
R-159
(more)
-------
list of 100 chemicals. The draft toxicological
profiles will be publicly available by Oct. 17.
Written comments on the draft profiles should be
submitted by Jan. 17, 1988. The profiles available
are: Benz (a) anthracene, Benz (a) pyrene, Chrysene
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene, Heptachlor, Arsenic, Chloro
form, Chromium, Nickel and N-nitrosodiphenylamine.
For copies of the draft profiles contact: Georgi
Jones, Director, Office of External Affairs, ATSDR,
Chamblee 28 South, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, Ga.
30333; 404-236-4620. Fifteen more profiles will be
made available as expeditiously as possible and a
full 90-day public comment period will be provided*
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATER QUALITY REPORT AVAILABLE
"Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living
Resources," a compilation of information available
on water quality and habitat conditions necessary
to sustain life in the Bay, is now available from
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. The report, developed
over the past two years by the Bay Program's Living
Resources Task Force, will be used by the newly
formed Living Resources Subcommittee to recommend
changes needed to enhance conditions for shellfish,
finfish and vegetation in the Chesapeake and to
help fulfill a key commitment proposed in a new
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The new agreement,
approved in draft form in August by Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia
and EPA, calls upon participants to "develop and
adopt, by January 1988, criteria for the protection
of water quality and habitat conditions necessary
to support the? living resources found in the
Chesapeake Bay." The Task Force report is available
from: EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, 410 Severn
Ave., Annapolis, Md. 21403; 301-266-6873.
EPA TO HOLD HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE CONFERENCE
IN SAN DIEGO
EPA, in conjunction with Tufts University and the
American Public Works Association, will hold a
conference on household hazardous waste management
in San Diego on November 2,3 & 4, 1987. Household
hazardous wastes, such as pesticides, paints,
cleaning agents and batteries, currently are exempt
by law from federal hazardous waste controls. The
safe disposal of household hazardous wastes is
becoming an issue of increasing interest: since
1981, 550 local collection programs have been
R-159
(more)
-------
-5-
undertaken in 32 states. EPA is sponsoring the
conference to demonstrate support for local
collection programs. The conference is designed
to provide communities with information on how to
set up local collection programs, and on how to
improve currently existing programs. The conference
will also explore special issues concerning household-
generated wastes. There is no registration fee.
Persons interested in agenda topics should call
Dana Duxbury, at 617-381-3486. Those interested
in registration information should call Dan Hansen,
at 312-667-2200.
R-159
# # #
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Puolic Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
oEPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1987
Priscilla Flattery 202-382-4387
LOVE CANAL RECORD	The final Superfund c leanup 'dec ision for the Love
OF DECISION
SIGNED	Canal creeks and sewers in Niagara Falls, N.Y., was
signed today by Dr. J. Winston Porter, Assistant Admini-
strator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
The remedy will utilize on-site thermal destruction
to clean up the dioxin-contaminated creek and sewer
sediments. The residuals from the thermal treatment will
be disposed of on site. The cost is estimated to be
between $26 and $31 million.
"This remedy provides a realistic plan to deal with
the dioxin contamination and is protective of human
health and the environment," says Dr. Porter, manager
of the Superfund program. "This is a very important
step towards the cleanup of the Love Canal area."
Dr. Porter further noted that the Love Canal cleanup
is indicative of the increasing pace of the national
Superfund program. He indicated that work is underway at
over 500 Superfund sites, with site work to be completed
at approximately 25 sites this fiscal year.
A transportable thermal-destruction unit will be
sited at Love Canal to treat all creek and sewer sediments
as well as other contaminated materials that have
resulted from the remediation process. The process will
be capable of successfully destroying dioxin-contaminated
materials. The remaining non-hazardous residues will be
disposed of on site.
A dewatering/containment facility will be constructed
to store and dewater dioxin-contaminated material before
thermal destruction. Upon completion of thermal treat-
ment, this facility will be substantially reduced in size
to accommmodate construction/demolition debris only.
R-163
(more)
-------
Love Canal, a neighborhood in the southeast corner of the city and
approximately one-quarter mile north of the Niagara River, first came into
national prominence in the late 1970's when it was discovered that contami-
nated leachate had migrated to the surface of the canal and to nearby
residential basements. Contaminants also migrated through area sewers
to nearby creeks.
In October 1978, containment measures were undertaken at the site
that included the construction of a tile drain and leachate collection
system; placement of a clay cap over 16 acres of the canal; the erection
of an on-site leachate treatment facility; and the installation of a fence
around the area.
Approximately 1000 families have been relocated from the area and
the homes adjoining the canal have been demolished.
In the fall of 1982, sewers leaving the canal were severed. In 1984,
the installation of an expanded 40-acre cap was completed. A long-term
monitoring/perimeter study was implemented to evaluate the effectiveness
of the leachate collection system and to assess the contaminant migration
in the soil and groundwater at the site. Preliminary results indicate
that pollutants have been confined to the site, and the amount of contaminated
groundwater treated at the leachate treatment facility has decreased since
the cap was extended.
This past summer, $2.5 million was made available for the buyout of
additional properties at Love Canal. Funds for maintaining the remaining
homes were also made available.
Copies of the Record of Decision for the Love Canal sewer and creek
cleanup are available at the U.S. EPA Public Information Office, Carborondum
Center, Suite 530, 345 Third St. Niagara Falls, and the Public Informa-
tion Office of the NY-DEC, Love Canal, Colvin Blvd., Niagara Falls.
R-163
« # #
-------
United States	Office of
Environmental Protection	Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency	Washington DC 20460
Press Advisory
For the week of: November 2, 1987
Following are some agency developments which may interest you. If you need more
information on any of these subjects, call the appropriate contact:
TOPIC	CONTACT
FISHER NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR OPPE
Linda J. Fisher has been nominated by the President 1	John Kasper
to be EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of	202-382-4355
Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE). In that
position, she will oversee the agency's development
of policy and manage the agency's regulatory process.
Fisher, who is Executive Assistant to the EPA
Administrator, served as the agency's chief expert
on Superfund reauthorization. She also has served
on the staff of the House Appropriations Committee
and as a legislative assistant to two congressmen.
A native of Columbus, Ohio, Fisher is a graduate of
the Ohio State University Colleqe of Law and Miami
University in Oxford, Ohio. When confirmed by the
Senate, she will succeed Milton Russell, who resigned
in March, as Assistant Administrator for OPPE.
ACID RAIN EMISSIONS INVENTORY AVAILABLE
EPA has released a report documenting the
development of the National Acid Precipi tat ion
Assessment Program Emissions Inventory. The report
represents the best emissions date available for
1980 for the 48 contiguous states and 10 Canadian
provinces. It provides detailed point-source data
for over 14,000 plants and area-source information
by source category for 3,070 U.S. counties and the
Canadian provinces. The emissions included in the
report are: sulfur dioxide, primary sulfate, oxides
of nitrogen, lead, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride,
hydroqen fluoride, ammonia, total suspended parti-
culates, volatile organic compounds and total
hydrocarbons. The purpose of the research effort
was to locate and quantify emissions that may contri-
bute to acid deposition. The report is intended to
serve as a reference baseline year for other research
efforts and legislative bills. Most congressional
efforts dealing with acid deposition use 1980 as the
baseline year. Published by EPA's Air and Enerqy
Enqineering Research Laboratory, the report will
serve as a forerunner to a 1985 emissions
&EPA
Christian Rice
202-382-3324
R—167
(more)
-------
-2-
inventory expected to be published in late 1988.
Copies can be obtained from David Mobley, the project
officer, at 919-541-2612.
EPA'S RADIATION MONITORING FACILITY BEGINS
CONSTRUCTION ON NEW SITE IN MONTGOMERY, ALA.
EPA will hold q roundbreak i nq ceremonies on Monday,	Elly Seng
Nov. 9, at 1:00 p.m., for the Office of Air and	202-332-4384
Radiation's new Eastern Environmental Radiation
Facility (EERF) to be built on Gunter Air Force
Station in Montgomery, Ala. EERF maintains EPA's
principal nuclear accident response team and was
responsible for monitoring after the Chernobyl
accident. It also conducts rad iochemica 1 analyses
for Superfund projects and is EPA's main radon
testing facility. The national Environmental
Radiation Ambient Monitoring System, which is
based at the facility, measures for the presence
o rad ionuc 1 id es in air, water and milk on a
continuing basis. The new 40,000-square-foot
building, which is expected to take 12-18 months
to construct, will cost approximately $7 million.
The facility is beinq built to EPA specifications
by W. M. Marable Inc. of Tuskegee, Ala., on land
under a long-term lease agreement with the
Department of Defense.
EPA PROPOSES PENALTIES FOR FALSE CLAIMS AND STATEMENTS
EPA today proposed regulations for assessing	Robin Woods
penalties of up to $5000 for false claims of less	202-382-4377
than $150,000 and for false written statements
submitted to the agency for the purpose of obtaining
money, property or services. The penalty authority
could apply, for example, in cases where false claims
are made for work performed under EPA contracts.
Under the proposal, the agency also would be able to
assess up to double the amount of a false claim.
The proposal was published under The Program Fraud
Civil Remedies Act, which was signed into law on
Oct. 21, 1986. The act reguires each affected
federal agency to set procedures for investigating
claims, conducting hearings and assessing penalties.
Under EPA's proposal, the Inspector General or his
designee will investigate suspected false claims and
statements, and EPA officials in the General Counsel's
and Administrator's offices will serve as review and
hearinq officials. The proposal was published in
today's Federal Register and provides for a 30-day
public comment period.
R-167	# #
1
-------