 |
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now outdated. |
|
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now outdated. |
Chemicals in Progress Bulletin
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Summer-Fall 1996
EPA-745-N-96-001
To Our Readers
Due to budgetary restrictions, the Fall/Winter 1995/1996 issue of
Chemicals in Progress Bulletin was not printed and distributed.
We regret any inconvenience this may have caused our readers. Two
previous issues, as well as this one, are available
electronically on the Internet via the EPA Web site at:
http://www.epa.gov/docs/ChemLibCIP/
20 Years Under TSCA
by William H. Sanders III, Dr. P.H., P.E.
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Toxic Substances
Control Act, or TSCA. In 1976, passage of this law offered a
promising mechanism to help us better understand chemical risks,
and to address these risks in a comprehensive, multi-media
framework. The purpose of TSCA is to ensure that the tens of
thousands of chemicals routinely used in commerce are used safely
- that they are safe for our children, for our workers, for the
general public and for the environment. What a tremendous vision,
and what a daunting task! EPA set to work compiling information
on, and reducing risks from, chemicals in commerce. Twenty years
later, EPA and industry are continuing this important work, and
looking at ways to improve our efforts to control the risks posed
by thousands of priority chemicals.
While we still do not have complete knowledge of all chemicals in
existence, in many ways TSCA has surpassed the promising
expectations which heralded its arrival. For while the language
is basically the same _ despite the addition of titles dealing
with asbestos, radon, and lead, TSCA has probably seen fewer
changes than any other EPA statute _ the application of the law
has expanded to keep pace with the broadening environmental
principles embodied in the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA, 1986) and the Pollution Prevention Act
(1990). In addition, innovative application of TSCA has become
essential in a federal government with greater limits on its
capacity to respond to the complexity and multitude of public
concerns. Innovative approaches have become increasingly possible
with increased environmental awareness and sophistication among
the general public, and a stronger commitment on both the part of
industry and the federal government to work in partnership to
reduce risks. Representatives from other countries routinely
visit EPA to learn about TSCA and how we implement the law. Only
a handful of countries have developed a similar mechanism _ in
many parts of the world the public has no way of knowing what
chemicals are being manufactured and used.
In implementing TSCA, my office, the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, focuses on three implementation areas:
chemical testing, existing chemicals, and new chemicals. In each
of these areas we have instituted innovative methods to minimize
transaction costs and to fully involve affected parties. We are
currently working with stakeholders to develop a long term
National Toxics Agenda, which will help us in prioritizing risk
assessment and risk reduction activities. Under the Testing
Program, we now use enforceable consent agreements and voluntary
testing initiatives, which have been shown to lower transaction
costs for the regulated community and government alike. These
voluntary approaches provide opportunities for industry to offer
balanced programs combining testing activities with pollution
prevention and product stewardship. In addition, we have
established priority testing needs through the Master Testing
List which directs our resources more efficiently.
The Existing Chemicals Program has become more productive and
more flexible over the years, as its mission has expanded to
incorporate pollution prevention and right-to-know as integral
parts of the program. Tools such as the use cluster approach
allow us to address large numbers of chemicals in a systematic
way aimed at maximizing risk reduction and preventing pollution.
We are using data from the Toxics Release Inventory, or TRI, to
focus in on facilities with large releases of priority chemicals.
TRI was born out of EPCRA, an act which is also celebrating a
major anniversary this year: it has been ten years since Congress
gave the American public the right, through the tools in EPCRA,
to know what toxic chemicals are being released to the air, land,
and water in their communities. The tools and strategies of
today's existing chemicals program, in large part due to advances
gained through EPCRA, go significantly beyond what TSCA
explicitly requires.
The New Chemicals Program has been tremendously productive over
the years in reviewing thousands of new chemical substances.
Recently this program has reinvented itself to meet stakeholder
needs by developing new tools for a more expeditious, effective,
and efficient operation. By evaluating risks and making decisions
before a substance enters the marketplace, TSCA offers perhaps
the most cost-effective means of pollution prevention. It has
been extremely successful in keeping potentially harmful
substances out of commerce. EPA has taken this concept a step
further and is working with industry to prevent pollution at the
molecular level, in designing new products, suggesting
reformulations to reduce and eliminate hazardous by-products of
production, and reducing the toxicity of chemicals.
The past 20 years have taught us three key lessons. First,
preventing pollution offers the first and often best opportunity
for protecting health and the environment. Second, empowering the
public with information helps assure compliance with existing
laws and encourages companies to take additional measures to
reduce toxic releases. Third, industry and EPA can work
cooperatively and in partnership to improve our environment. When
empowered with information on pollution prevention and other
important tools, industry has taken the initiative to reduce the
impact their products and processes have on the environment. A
good example of this type of industry initiative is the
Responsible Care Program, a comprehensive environmental program
for the chemical industry.
These lessons are the cornerstone of our new approach for
addressing toxics in the environment. At EPA, we hope to continue
to incorporate these three lessons into our programs in an
intelligent and responsible manner. We recognize that there are
times when we may need to move beyond the first choice on the
waste management hierarchy, pollution prevention; that public
empowerment carries with it the need to provide the information
and education that the public requires to make sound decisions;
and that there will always be the need for federal oversight in
environmental issues. However, when applied thoughtfully, these
principles will result in a better environment for all of us. The
principles of pollution prevention, right-to-know, and
stakeholder partnerships form the foundation of the nation's
toxics program now and in the future. As over the past twenty
years, our understanding and application of TSCA will continue to
grow and evolve as we face the challenges of reducing chemical
risks over the next twenty years and beyond.
Dr. William H. Sanders III is Director of EPA's Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
EPA Proposes To Expand TRI Industry List, Releases 1994 TRI Data
On June 26, Vice President Al Gore, accompanied by EPA
Administrator Carol M. Browner, proposed increasing by
approximately 30% the number of industrial facilities required to
report releases of toxic chemicals to air, water, and land to
EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). With this addition of
approximately 6,400 facilities, over 31,000 facilities will be
required to report on toxic emissions to the TRI program.
Vice President Gore said, "Putting information about local
pollution into the hands of the public is the single most
effective, common-sense tool available for protecting human
health and the environment."
The proposed increase in facilities reporting comes about as a
result of adding seven new industrial categories to the
Right-to-Know program established under the 1986 Emergency
Planning and Community Right to Know Act. Those categories are:
metal mining, coal mining, electric utilities, commercial
hazardous waste treatment, petroleum bulk terminals, chemical
wholesalers, and solvent recovery services.
As reported earlier in Chemicals in Progress Bulletin, in
November 1994, EPA nearly doubled the list of toxic substances
for which reporting is required, from 337 to 648 chemicals. In
May 1996, a federal court decided in favor of EPA in a suit
brought by the Chemical Manufacturers Association and other
chemical industry groups which sought to limit expansion of the
chemical list. This decision has been appealed. However,
reporting on the new chemicals was required by August 1 of this
year.
1994 TRI data released
TRI data for 1994 were also released at the press conference on
June 26. The data show a decline of 8.6%, or 186 million pounds,
in levels of toxic chemicals released into the environment,
continuing a downward trend. However, most of the 8.6% decline is
attributable to two fertilizer plants in Louisiana. The plants
used pollution control and prevention measures to reduce releases
of phosphoric acid, which accounted for all but about 1.6% of the
national decline in releases that year. Recycling of toxic
chemicals in 1994 increased by 174 million pounds, or 8.5%. The
data also show, however, that the amount of waste generated by
industry increased by 5.4% in 1994, to 26.5 billion pounds.
In releasing the 1994 TRI data, Administrator Browner said, "The
good news today is that the levels of toxic chemcials released
into America's environment continue to decline, and the decline
comes during a period of robust economic growth. This proves once
again that environmental progress and economic expansion can go
hand-in-hand. We're also pleased that the recycling of toxic
materials continues to increase."
"Where there is room for concern," she added, "is that more waste
was generated by industry in 1994 than in previous years, and
projections suggest that trend may continue through 1996.
Although the downward trends in releases into the environment
mean much of the waste is being well-managed, the growth in waste
production underscores an ongoing need for more pollution
prevention strategies and cleaner technologies."
Copies of the 1994 data are available from EPA's Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460, tel: 800-535-0202, TDD 800-553-7672.
EPA Issues Final Rules For TRI Delisting
EPA has issued final rules to delist di-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate,
diethyl phthalate and non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid from
TRI. (See: 61 FR 38600, July 25, 1996; 61 FR 39356, July 29,
1996; 61 FR 39891, July 31, 1996.) Section 313(e) of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) allows
for petitions from the public to list or delist TRI chemicals.
EPA concluded that di-(2-ethylhexyl) and diethyl phthalate did
not meet the listing criteria established under EPCRA; the two
chemicals were delisted entirely. For hydrochloric acid, only
non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid were examined and found
not to meet the listing criteria. Companies must continue to
report releases of aerosol forms.
Since TRI was created in 1986, EPA has delisted or modified the
listing for 17 chemicals. For more information on the TRI
delisting, call Dan Bushman at 202-260-3882.
EPA Moves Toward Chemical Use Reporting
To provide communities with a more complete picture of local
pollution and public health risks, EPA has taken its first formal
action toward giving communities the right to know how local
industrial facilities use toxic chemicals.
EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner said, "The expansion we are
considering would give the public the right to know not just
which chemicals come out of local industrial facilities, but
which chemicals go into their neighborhoods and how they are
used. Putting information about local pollution into the hands of
the public is the single most effective, common-sense tool
available for protecting public health and environment."
EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on October 1
(61 FR 51322) to notify the public of, and take comments on,
potential new requirements for chemical use reporting under the
Community Right-to-Know program. Reporting on chemical use (also
referred to as materials accounting) would expand public
information available on toxic chemicals that enter local
industrial facilities; the amounts of chemicals transformed into
products and waste; and toxic chemicals that leave the facility.
This information would provide the public with a more
comprehensive picture of industrial environmental performance and
toxic chemical releases in local communities.
Copies of the ANPR and other information can be obtained from
EPA's Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline at
401 M St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 or by calling
1-800-535-0202, TDD 1-800-553-7672. Electronic copies are
available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri.
Comments must be received by EPA on or before December 30, 1996.
Written comments should be submitted in triplicate to: OPPT
Docket, TSCA Document Receipt Office (7407), U.S. EPA, 401 M St.
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Electronic comments may be
submitted via oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov.
Polymer Manufacturers Report Use Of New Polymer Exemption
Last year EPA published a final rule amending the 1984 polymer
exemption, which increased the number of new polymers eligible
for exemption from the TSCA section 5 premanufacture notification
(PMN) requirements, and greatly reduced industry's reporting
burden for those polymers eligible for exemption. The amendments
eliminated notification 21 days prior to manufacture and reduced
the information requirements. As a result of the changes,
manufacturers may now submit a simple report by January 31 which
contains information on the number of exempted polymers
manufactured under the provisions of the exemption for the first
time during the preceding calendar year.
The first reports received by EPA covered a seven-month period
from the effective date of the exemption, May 30, 1995, through
December 31, 1995. During this period, 51 companies reported the
manufacture of 99 polymers under the terms of the exemption. EPA
estimates that this initial use of the exemption saved polymer
manufacturers $902,000-$1.3 million by eliminating delay costs,
user fees, and submission costs associated with the 1984 polymer
exemption. (These figures are based on EPA's 1994 Regulatory
Impact Analysis of the PMN Amendments. Even greater savings are
realized if compared to the costs of a full PMN submission.) EPA
estimated its own savings at $100,584-$119,097 for the 99
polymers.
During the same period, EPA also reviewed over 200 PMNs for
polymers that could have qualified for exemption, and if
manufactured under the exemption, would have saved considerable
industry and Agency resources. Nevertheless, EPA expects industry
will take greater advantage of the polymer exemption as other
polymer manufacturers and importers become more familiar with the
exemption criteria and the significant benefits of its
application in their marketing strategies.
The polymer exemption amendments were published by OPPT on March
29, 1995 as part of a comprehensive set of PMN Rule Amendments
aimed at achieving a more efficient regulatory process, saving
costs for EPA and submitters, and allowing submitters greater
flexibility in manufacturing certain new chemical substances. The
amendments incorporate pollution prevention principles, encourage
the manufacture of safer chemicals and allow the Agency to shift
its limited resources from the review of low-risk substances to
those that may present a higher risk. The polymer exemption
amendments also foster international accord since Environment
Canada has adopted the Agency's low-risk criteria for polymers in
its regulation of new chemicals and the Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development has expressed strong interest in
EPA's criteria for low-risk polymers.
To assist industry in understanding and applying the polymer
exemption provisions, EPA has published a draft technical
guidance document on the polymer exemption, which is available
from the TSCA Hotline (202-554-1404). A revised version of this
document, which incorporates industry comments, will soon be
available.
EPA Seeks Public Comment On State Access To TSCA Confidential
Business Data
EPA is seeking public comment on four state reports describing
the value of confidential business information collected under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that EPA shared with
these states for the first time.
Through the project _ supported by industry and the states _ the
state environmental agencies of Georgia, Illinois, New York, and
Wisconsin received controlled access to the data for the sole
purpose of determining the value of the information to state
environmental programs. Much of the information on chemicals in
commerce that EPA receives under TSCA _ including
facility-specific information and health and safety information _
is confidential and may not be reviewed or utilized by persons
outside the federal government, including states. Among other
suggestions, the state reports identify ways in which the TSCA
information could be used in state risk assessment/chemical
management processes.
EPA is soliciting comment on the state reports and the general
issue of state access to TSCA data. The state reports and
background material can be obtained by calling the TSCA Hotline
at 202-554-1404. For additional information, call Scott Sherlock
at 202-260-1536.
TSCA Section 21 Petition: Chicago Legal Clinic
On February 23, 1996, EPA received a petition under TSCA Section
21 from the Chicago Legal Clinic representing 11 community
advocacy groups. The petition requested that EPA issue a rule
under Section 6 of TSCA regulating the disposal of dioxins,
furans, mercury, cadmium, and lead through air deposition from
eight incinerators slated to begin operating (or in one case,
already operating) in Cook County, Illinois and Lake County,
Indiana. The petition alternatively requested the issuance of a
TSCA Section 4 rule that would require the collection of data on
cumulative effects, focusing on those risks posed by dioxins,
furans, mercury, cadmium, and lead. Under Section 21 of TSCA, EPA
had 90 days (until May 23, 1996 in this instance) from receipt of
the petition to prepare and issue a response to the petitioner.
An interoffice workgroup was assembled to evaluate the petition
and generate a response. The workgroup, after analyzing
information collected during the investigation, determined that
insufficient information existed to support the initiation of
regulatory activity. However, the group believed that several
significant issues were raised during the petition investigatory
process, including cumulative effects, loading, and the risks
posed by incinerators and other point, area, and mobile sources.
A letter signed by OPPTS Assistant Administrator Lynn Goldman on
May 23, 1996 denied the petition but proposed that the
petitioners work with EPA to plan and implement a community-based
effort designed to address the issues faced by residents of
metropolitan Chicago to the fullest practical extent.
Hazardous Air Pollutants Test Rule Proposed
On June 26, 1996, EPA published a TSCA section 4 test rule
proposing that manufacturers and processors of 21 hazardous air
pollutants test those substances for a wide range of health
effects. The primary purpose of the test rule is to obtain data
to determine the residual risks posed by these substances after
the imposition of technology based standards emission standards
(maximum achievable control technology or MACT standards)
required by section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act lists 189 substances as
hazardous air pollutants. EPA selected 21 of the substances for
this first HAPs test rule based on their production volume, high
levels of release to the atmosphere as indicated by the Toxics
Release Inventory, and a lack of key data on health effects. The
21 substances are: biphenyl, carbonyl sulfide, chlorine,
chlorobenzene, chloroprene, cresols (3 isomers), diethanolamine,
ethylbenzene, ethylene dichloride, ethylene glycol, hydrochloric
acid, hydrogen fluoride, maleic anhydride, phenol, phthalic
anhydride, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, and
vinylidene chloride.
A public meeting on the proposed rule was held on October 1,
1996. The rule and supporting documentation are available
electronically on the EPA Public Access Gopher (gopher.epa.gov)
or EPA website (http://www.epa. gov) under the heading: Rules,
Regulations and Legislation; Federal Register_ Environmental
Subset; Toxics.
ITC Issues 38th Report
The 38th Report of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee (ITC)
was transmitted to the EPA Administrator on May 31, 1996. During
the six months covered by this Report, the ITC revised the TSCA
section 4(e) Priority Testing List by recommending 18 nonylphenol
ethoxylates and removing white phosphorus, 2 High Production
Volume Chemicals (HPVCs), and 2 Oxygenated Fuel Additives (OFAs).
The ITC took these actions to meet and coordinate the data needs
of U.S. Government Member organizations, to notify the public of
chemical-testing decisions on nonylphenol ethoxylates, HPVCs,
OFAs, and to obtain data for better decision making.
To facilitate communication between U.S. Government organizations
needing data on alkylphenols and ethoxylates and the
manufacturers, importers, processors, and users of these
chemicals, an ITC Subcommittee and the Alkylphenols and
Ethoxylates Panel of the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA)
established a Dialog Group. The Dialog Group convened several
meetings to discuss the uses, environmental fate and ecological
effects of alkyphenols and ethoxylates, the complex nonylphenol
ethoxylates' nomenclature issues and to develop a strategy to
identify the 18 nonylphenol ethoxylates listed in the 38th
Report. In addition, the Dialog Group organized platform and
poster sessions on alkyphenols and ethoxylates for the November
17-21, 1996 Society of Toxicology and Chemistry meeting in
Washington, DC.
The ITC's Subcommittees also met with another CMA panel and the
Silicones Environmental Health and Safety Council (SEHSC) to
discuss several chemicals and chemical groups.
Focus On: Endocrine Disruptors
Endocrine disruptors are substances that interfere with normal
hormone system functioning. They can exert an influence on
hormone synthesis and secretion, transport, binding, or
elimination. Since the endocrine system controls development,
growth and metabolism throughout the life cycle of an organism,
endocrine disruptors can adversely affect growth and development,
sexual differentiation, and a host of biological functions.
Environmental contaminants have caused endocrine disruption in
fish and wildlife and, to a limited extent, in humans. Recent
research indicates that environmental endocrine disruptors need
more attention by chemical and pesticide regulators. As an
indication of the public's concern, the recently amended Safe
Drinking Water Act requires EPA to initiate a screening and
testing program for environmental estrogens and gives the Agency
discretionary authority to expand this effort to other kinds of
endocrine disruptors.
EPA convened a meeting on May 15 and 16 to discuss how EPA can
work cooperatively with industry, the environmental community,
academia and others to develop a screening and testing strategy
to identify chemicals which may pose significant risks through
endocrine disruption. While many participants stressed the
technical and policy challenges that lie ahead in developing and
implementing such a strategy, there was consensus that the
screening and testing of potential endocrine disruptors is a
high-priority effort that should be pursued now and that key
stakeholders would work cooperatively with EPA to develop a
screening and testing strategy. A draft summary of the May
meeting can be obtained by calling the TSCA Hotline 202-554-1404.
The support shown for development of the screening and testing
strategy at the May meeting provided the basis for convening a
federal advisory committee or subcommittee to be known as the
Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee to
develop the strategy. The committee's first meeting is scheduled
for Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 1996 in Washington, D.C. For more
information, contact Gary Timm at 202-260-1859.
Empowering Community-Based Environmental Protection with OPPT's
Catalogue of Tools
EPA is working on a new approach to environmental problems that
reflects the Agency's commitment to integrated, multi-media
strategies, and its increased emphasis on involving citizens and
the regulated community in environmental protection efforts. The
community-based environmental protection strategies are looking
holistically at the range of problems that affect a given
geographic area, ecosystem or community, rather than relying on
programs based on individual media. This place-based approach
takes into account the fact that most areas experience a variety
of interrelated concerns involving not just environmental issues,
but also economic and social concerns.
In February 1995, EPA Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen asked the
Agency's Regional Administrators and Assistant Administrators to
develop strategies for promoting community-based environmental
protection to achieve the following goals:
* To protect and sustain healthy human and ecological
communities;
* To develop goals and solutions in a collaborative
manner, based on sound science;
* To empower, inform and equip those who make,
participate in, and live with environmental management
decisions;
* To create an iterative, dynamic process for ongoing
partnerships, monitoring and adjustments.
OPPTS has developed a strategy that identifies, develops, and
provides information and technical and regulatory tools to the
regions, states, and local communities to help carry out specific
community-based initiatives. The strategy includes a catalogue of
tools along with an action plan for completing milestones.
The catalogue of tools contains some 60 resources from both the
Office of Pesticide Programs and the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, with information about partnerships,
databases, grants and regulations, conferences and training,
hotlines, printed materials, and other OPPTS products. The
catalogue includes familiar tools such as the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) and the Pesticide Information Network (PIN), as
well as lesser-known resources such as the TSCA 8(e) Triage
Information Data Base which contains information from scientific
studies on the health and environmental effects of toxic
chemicals.
For more information about the OPPTS strategy, please contact
Christine Augustyniak, Deputy Director of the Environmental
Assistance Division, at (202) 260-1024.
OPPT Community Based Partnership Project Unfolding
The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is
continuing its efforts to engage in a community-based
environmental justice pilot project to better understand how
OPPT's tools and resources can be used to meet the needs of
disadvantaged communities. OPPT's goals are to assist a community
with environmental justice concerns by facilitating understanding
and problem solving; to build the capacity of the community to
address environmental issues; to use the project to develop a
case study to benefit other communities engaged in similar
activity; and, to find more effective ways to support
community-based efforts.
A framework for the Community Based Environmental Justice
Partnership was developed in May 1996, and the South Baltimore
area was selected as the first partnership. All sectors of the
community will be involved in the partnership, including
residents and community leaders, non-profit organizations,
schools, churches, government, businesses, and other
organizations. EPA's tasks in the partnership are as follows:
* Developing and sharing an environmental profile to
provide a thorough understanding of the environment;
* Setting up an environmental action agenda leading to a
consensus approach to addressing the priorities in the
agenda; and
* Implementing agreed upon solutions, using the consensus
approach model, to make definable and concrete improvements
in the local South Baltimore community.
The project's true success will be seen through the long-term
potential for building the ability of the community to address
local environmental concerns.
In May 1996, participants met with the mayor of Baltimore to
discuss the project concept and feasibility, and received his
acknowledgement of the project's importance. A public meeting was
held in July 1996, with plans to get underway in the Fall.
OPPT staff hope this project will serve as a model for other
communities, headquarters offices, regional offices, and states
to replicate and learn from. The project is expected to generate
a description of methods used to identify community environmental
concerns, a compilation of environmental education materials, and
a guide for community priority setting and for developing
implementation plans.
For further information, please contact Hank Topper, (202)
260-6750.
EPA and Dow Corning Sign Formal Agreement Covering Six Siloxanes
On April 9, 1996, OPPT Director William Sanders and Deputy
Director Joe Carra signed a formal Product Stewardship Program
"Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU) with the Dow Corning
Corporation covering six siloxanes. The six chemicals are
representative of a broad class of siloxanes which have
widespread use in a variety of industrial and consumer
applications.
Under the Siloxane MOU, Dow Corning will voluntarily undertake
various activities important to OPPT's goals, such as chemical
testing, pollution prevention, waste minimization, exposure
reduction, and hazard/risk information communication. The MOU
also contains provisions for comprehensive animal toxicity
testing and exposure monitoring. The cost of the animal toxicity
testing program alone is estimated at about $30 million and will
be completed over the next several years.
The Siloxane MOU reflects OPPT's continuing efforts to use the
TSCA Chemical Testing Program to achieve documentable progress in
important mission-related areas. The Siloxane MOU also affirms
Dow Corning's stated commitment to develop and implement its
Siloxane Product Stewardship Program so as to help "ensure
protection of health and the environment for people, regardless
of race, ethnic background, or socioeconomic status."
For more information, contact Dave Williams at EPA, (202)
260-3468.
Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment: Lithographic Blanket
Washes
By James Rea and Karen Seeh, DfE Program
In the lithographic printing industry, chemical formulations used
to clean blanket cylinders on printing presses, or "blanket
washes," can pose a threat to both workers and the environment.
Replacing a potentially hazardous blanket wash with a less
hazardous alternative can be an effective way to improve a
facility's environmental performance, worker safety, and cost
efficiency. Most smaller lithographic printing facilities,
however, do not have the time or resources to research
alternative blanket washes.
Recognizing this problem, EPA and members of the lithographic
printing industry joined forces to form the Design for the
Environment (DfE) Lithography Project. Project partners developed
a systematic methodology to evaluate 37 different commercially
available blanket washes according to their environmental and
human health risk, performance, and cost considerations. The
combined results of these evaluations are compiled in the
project's draft report, Cleaner Technologies Substitutes
Assessment (CTSA): Lithographic Blanket Washes.
The CTSA lists the chemicals used in various blanket washes and
their properties; hazardous chemicals are noted, as are relevant
federal environmental and safety regulations. Performance
information included in the CTSA was gathered through laboratory
tests and field demonstrations. The laboratory tests, conducted
by the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation, focus on both the
physical properties and the effectiveness of each blanket wash.
Only those blanket washes which met minimum performance standards
were used in the field demonstrations. Volunteer facilities
tested these blanket washes in their shops for one week. During
this time, press operators were asked to record the amount of
product used, the length of time needed to clean the press, and
their opinion of how well the product worked each time they used
it, compared to a commonly-used blanket wash.
Cost analyses of each blanket wash in the CTSA consider purchase
price of the blanket wash, costs related to other materials
needed, and labor hours required to use the blanket wash. Waste
disposal, a potentially costly factor, is also considered. In
addition, energy consumed in the use of each blanket wash is
examined.
The information presented in the CTSA can help lithographers make
more effective choices as they seek to reduce risks to human
health and the environment. The DfE Lithography Project is
currently developing shorter outreach documents based on the
CTSA. These simple, action-oriented bulletins are tailored to the
information needs of printers.
To obtain a copy of the CTSA or other DfE products, or for more
information about the Lithography Project, contact the Pollution
Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC), tel: (202) 260-1023,
fax: (202) 260-0178, E-mail: ppic@epamail.epa.gov
1996 Pollution Prevention Trade Association Meeting
For a day and a half in June, 144 attendees converged on the
headquarters of the Chemical Manufacturer's Association (CMA) in
Arlington, VA for the 1996 Pollution Prevention Trade Association
Symposium. Co-sponsored by CMA and EPA, the conference was
coordinated by the Pollution Prevention Trade Association
Workgroup, a group of about 30 trade association staff who are
committed to helping trade associations promote pollution
prevention. The focus of the meeting was on pollution prevention
models that trade associations could take back to their members.
Dr. Lynn Goldman, Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, opened the meeting
with a talk on moving toward a performance-based system of
environmental protection based on pollution prevention. Topics
intended to help trade associations justify pollution prevention
initiatives included a panel on making pollution prevention cost
effective, and a case study on "selling" pollution prevention
partnerships.
Attendees represented over 50 different trade associations and
several individual companies, as well as federal agencies, state
governments, EPA Regional offices, press, and even a foreign
government. An information fair was held in conjunction with the
symposium, where participants could meet each other and learn
about various trade association and federal pollution prevention
programs.
The Pollution Prevention Trade Association Workgroup has produced
an evolving document which details the pollution prevention
resources available from trade associations, and a monthly
informational forum known as the "Breakfast Club." The next
Symposium will be held in the Spring of 1997, with a tentative
focus on technology transfer _ spotlighting the pollution
prevention resources available to trade associations and helping
them learn how they can serve as a technology center for their
members.
For more information, contact Leah Yasenchak at (202) 260-7854 or
at "Yasenchak.Leah@ epamail.gov".
EPA Moves to Ensure Certified Help for Home Hazards from
Lead-Based Paint
On August 27, 1996, EPA announced new requirements to ensure that
the American public has access to well-trained and qualified
professionals who can identify and address lead-based paint
hazards in homes.
The 1992 Residential Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (Title
X) created a national approach addressing lead-based paint
hazards in housing. Approximately three-quarters of the nation's
housing built before 1978 (approximately 64 million homes)
contains some lead-based paint. When properly maintained and
managed, this paint poses little risk. If improperly maintained,
however, lead from paint in poor condition, contaminated
household dust from cracking, peeling paint, and
lead-contaminated soil can create significant health hazards,
especially to children under the age of six. Over time, low-level
exposure to lead from paint, dust, and soil can cause a range of
health problems including permanent damage to the brain, nervous
system and kidneys. Because of its effects on fetal development,
lead exposure can also be harmful to pregnant women and women of
child-bearing age.
Recent data show that approximately 1.7 million children have
elevated blood levels, due primarily to exposure to lead-based
paint hazards. Most of these children are in lower income,
minority, urban areas where lead-based paint tends to be in
poorer condition.
The new requirements will ensure that professionals in four
related fields receive training in lead-based paint
identification and abatement methods, that training programs
become accredited, and that lead professionals are certified. The
regulations also establish work practice standards for lead-based
paint activities and a process by which states, Native American
tribes and U.S. territories may seek approval from EPA to
administer programs.
The new rule applies to individuals or firms offering
professional services in the following disciplines:
* Inspectors who examine homes for the presence of
lead-based paint;
* Risk assessors who evaluate homes for lead-based paint
hazards;
* Workers and supervisors who perform abatements to
permanently eliminate lead-based paint from homes; and
* Project designers who plan abatement activities.
The rule requires these professionals to be trained by accredited
training providers and to be certified by the state or the
federal government to perform these activities. Work practice
standards are also being established to ensure that lead-based
paint inspection, risk assessments, and abatements are performed
safely, reliably and effectively. The program does not, however,
require homeowners to have their homes inspected or abated.
States, Native American tribes, and U.S. territories will have
two years to apply to EPA for program approval. If they do not,
EPA will administer the remaining programs. EPA will continue to
work cooperatively with states, tribes, and territories in
developing their programs. The Agency has awarded $37 million in
grants over the past three years to aid states, tribes, and
territories for the purposes of assessing lead-based paint
problems and to develop the necessary infrastructure to manage
this program. Since 1991, EPA has provided funds to six regional
lead training centers to train contractors to conduct lead-based
paint activities safely, reliably and effectively.
EPA's certification and accreditation program was developed with
input from states already administering this type of program, as
well as from states and tribes seeking approval from EPA. These
requirements strengthen the national infrastructure for the
development of a trained workforce and provide protection to
consumers who seek to obtain these services.
Preventing Lead-Based Paint Hazard Exposure Starts with Informed
Families
In a press conference on March 6, 1996, EPA Administrator Carol
Browner and HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros announced the joint
release of the Lead-Based Paint Notification and Disclosure Rule.
Joined at the podium by Art Godi, the President of the National
Association of Realtors, and Margaret Souser, a prominent
lead-poisoning prevention advocate, the two Agency heads praised
the new program for empowering parents with important lead
poisoning prevention information. Browner noted: "Today's action
is an important step forward in two areas of critical concern to
the Clinton Administration: protecting the public from serious
health threats, and arming the public with the information they
need to protect themselves. The public has a right to know about
toxic hazards in the community."
The new disclosure rule is one of several EPA regulatory mandates
under Title X of the 1992 Housing and Community Development Act
that develop the nation's infrastructure for managing lead-based
paint hazards. Under the rule, home sellers and landlords must
disclose known lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards
before sale or lease of older (pre-1978) housing. Sellers and
landlords must also provide the buyer or renter with a government
pamphlet on lead exposure prevention and any available reports on
lead in hazards in the home. Homebuyers are also entitled to a
10-day opportunity to have the home tested for lead. Under the
law, agents share responsibility for ensuring compliance with the
disclosure requirements. The new requirements take effect on
September 1 for owners of five or more dwelling units, and on
December 1 for owners of four or fewer units.
Most transactions to sell or lease public or private housing
built before 1978 are covered by the new program. Excepted
housing includes dwellings with no bedrooms, housing reserved for
the elderly, and housing reserved for the handicapped over 6
years of age. The rule further exempts the following
transactions: (1) rentals in housing that is "lead-based paint
free," as determined by a state-certified inspector, (2)
short-term rentals (rentals limited to 100-days or less), (3)
foreclosure sales, and (4) lease renewals where disclosure has
already occurred.
At the press conference, Secretary Cisneros emphasized that the
rule took a common-sense approach to giving families needed
information without interfering with housing industry practice or
the availability of affordable homes. The rule does not require
any testing or hazard reduction efforts, leaving all hazard
management decisions to the informed owners or occupants of the
housing. Further, the negotiating parties have considerable
flexibility as to how to work disclosure into the flow of the
sales or rental transaction.
Release of the final rule follows a 14-month effort to analyze
and address over 200 comments on the proposed rule which was
published on November 2, 1994. Commenters included states,
localities, real estate groups, banking groups, environmental and
public interest groups, and other interested parties. Based on
their input, EPA and HUD made numerous revisions to the rule,
building in flexibility for states with existing or planned
disclosure programs. States can now seek approval of their state
materials as substitutes for the federal program. State
disclosure forms that contain the necessary disclosure elements
can also be used to meet federal requirements.
The March 6 announcement marks the beginning of a concerted
outreach effort by the two agencies to raise public awareness
about the importance of lead-based paint disclosure, lead-based
paint exposure prevention, and safe and effective lead-based
paint hazard management. Announcement of the rule was covered in
most major newspapers, and many local papers and broadcast media
outlets. EPA is conducting mailouts to key leaders in state and
local government, industry, and non-profit organizations.
For More Information
Copies of the rule, pamphlet, and supporting documents are
available through a variety of sources:
* For a copy of Protect Your Family from Lead in Your
Home, the sample disclosure forms, or the rule, call the
National Lead Information Clearinghouse (NLIC) at (800)
424_LEAD, or TDD (800) 526_5456 for the hearing impaired.
You may also send your request by fax to (202) 659_1192 or
by Internet E-mail to ehc@cais.com. Visit the NLIC on the
Internet at http://www.nsc.org/nsc/ehc/ehc.html.
* Bulk copies of the pamphlet are available ($26.50 for
50 copies) from the Government Printing Office (GPO) at
(202) 512_1800. Refer to the complete title or GPO stock
number #055_000_00507_9. You may reproduce the pamphlet, for
use or distribution, if the text and graphics are reproduced
in full. Camera-ready copies of the pamphlet are available
from the National Lead Information Clearinghouse.
* For specific questions about lead-based paint and
lead-based paint hazards, call the National Lead Information
Clearinghouse.
* The EPA pamphlet and rule are available electronically
and may be accessed through the Internet as follows:
Gopher: gopher.epa.gov:70/11/Offices/PestPreventToxic/
Toxic/lead_pm
WWW: http://www.epa.gov/docs/lead_pm http://www.hud.gov
Dial up: (919) 558_0335
FTP: ftp.epa.gov (To login, type "anonymous." Your
password is your Internet E-mail address.)
Lead Environmental Justice Initiative: Graduation Day for Pilot
Training Class
This past Spring, a milestone was achieved in a pilot program to
train unemployed people in lead abatement techniques. The origin
of the program came in November 1993, when EPA's Administrator
met with the Secretaries of the Departments of Health and Human
Services and Housing and Urban Development to discuss various
projects that could reduce or eliminate lead exposures to the
public. Over the following two years, staff from EPA, HUD, and
HHS cooperated in the planning of one of those efforts: a pilot
program entitled the Lead Environmental Justice Initiative:
Community-Based Lead Abatement Demonstration Project. The project
offered state, local, or tribal governments the opportunity to
enter into partnerships with non-profit, community-based
organizations through federal grant assistance. The partnerships
would be responsible for planning and implementing
community-based lead education/outreach, environmental lead
monitoring, lead abatement technical training, and job creation
activities.
One of the six pilot program grants was awarded to Philadelphia
in September 1994. On March 1, 1996, the first class of
Philadelphia trainees _ made up of unemployed or under-employed
residents of a Germantown neighborhood _ graduated in a ceremony
at LaSalle University. The highly motivated trainees (eleven men
and four women) were the recipients of an intensive, eleven week
technical lead abatement training and "life-skills" course
administered by the Philadelphia Opportunities Industrialization
Center. Nearly all of those selected for the training made it
through the course. All of the trainees who completed the course
passed the difficult certification test provided by the State of
New Jersey (in comparison, only about 60% of test takers from the
general population pass similar testing) and one of the trainees
received a perfect score.
The licensed trainees are now performing a limited number of lead
abatement activities in their neighborhood. They will also be
enlisted in community demonstrations to show parents how they can
take a few simple measures to prevent lead poisoning in their
children.
PCB Rules Revised to Allow Import for Disposal
EPA has issued a final rule under Section 6(e)(1) of TSCA to
allow the import of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at
concentrations of 50 ppm or greater for disposal. The rule makes
the PCB import regulations more consistent with the regulation of
hazardous waste imports under international agreements and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The rule was published in
the Federal Register on March 18, 1996 (61 FR 11096), and went
into effect the same day.
Section 6(e)(1) allows EPA to regulate the disposal of PCBs,
including those imported for disposal. Since May 1, 1980, U.S.
borders have been closed to the import of PCBs at concentrations
of 50 ppm or greater for disposal. In a December 6, 1994 proposal
on the PCB Disposal Amendments, EPA solicited comment on allowing
imports to occur (59 FR 62816-62817). This year's final rule
amended the PCB regulations at 40 CFR Part 761, adding a new
Subpart F which allows imports.
This rule allows the import of PCB waste for disposal at
concentrations of 50 ppm or greater with 45-day advance
notification to EPA. Importers must identify the parties
involved, the types of waste, the source and movement of the
waste, and disposal plans. The importer must accept all financial
liability for the waste. Importers must re-notify EPA annually,
or before conducting activities that deviate from the notice.
All existing TSCA regulations apply to imported PCB waste; i.e,
manifesting, packaging, storage, disposal, and record-keeping.
All imported PCBs must be disposed of in facilities approved by
EPA for the destruction of PCBs. PCB waste imports will also be
subject to all applicable federal and state requirements and
international agreements.
The new rule also allows the following imports of PCBs for
disposal without prior notification: (1) import of limited
quantities of PCB waste samples for analysis and disposal
research and (2) "import" from U.S. territories outside U.S.
customs territory. EPA retains the existing provisions that allow
the import and export of PCBs for disposal at concentrations less
than 50 ppm without restriction.
The rule will benefit the United States by encouraging the safe
removal of PCBs from areas near U.S. borders as well as other
areas, without increasing the risk of injury to health or the
environment in the United States.
Copies of the final rule may be obtained by calling the TSCA
Hotline at (202) 554-1404.
Resources
Register of Lists
The Register of Lists (RoL) is an information system that tracks
chemicals regulated by EPA. Useful both to EPA regulatory staff
and those subject to EPA regulations, the RoL provides
information on which chemicals are included on each list, which
lists contain a given chemical, statutory/regulatory citations
for listings, and program office contacts for more information.
The RoL is updated semi-annually; currently it contains 33 EPA
lists with over 3,500 chemicals (and over 10,700 associated
synonyms). For additional information, contact Linda Goodman, the
RoL Systems Manager, at (202) 260-1521.
OPPT Annual Report
The first Annual Report of the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics is now publicly available. The report highlights OPPT
activities during FY 1995 and may be obtained by calling the TSCA
Hotline at (202) 554-1404 or by faxing a request to 202-554-5603.
For correspondence and subscriptions:
Chemicals in Progress Bulletin
U.S. EPA (7407), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
Mike McDonell, Co-Editor
Maureen Eichelberger, Co-Editor