 |
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 Although the information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now outdated.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 Although the information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now outdated.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
Winter / Spring 1997 EPA-745-N-97-001
Highlights
9 National Pollution Prevention Progress Report
10 Guidelines for selecting environmentally preferable cleaning products
23 TSCA Biotechnology Paper Available
1995 TRI Data Released
On May 20, 1997 EPA announced the most recent data on toxic chemical
releases from industrial and federal facilities. The data, submitted to the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) under EPA's Right-to-Know program for
reporting year 1995, cover 643 toxic chemicals, including the 286 chemicals
added to the TRI list in 1994.
EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner said, "Arming the public with basic
information about toxic chemicals in their communities is among the most
effective, common-sense steps to protect the health of families and
children from the threats posed by pollution. Since the inception of the
Community Right-to-Know program, reported releases of pollution into
communities have declined by 46 percent. That is why the Clinton
Administration has consistently expanded the type and amount of information
available to the public under the Right-to-Know program."
The new chemicals account for 238 million pounds - or 10 percent - of all
reported releases of toxic chemicals into air, land or water. Ninety-four
percent of the 286 newly added chemicals have demonstrated chronic health
hazards and/or environmental effects, including cancer or reproductive
disorders. Also, one of the newly added chemicals - nitrate compounds -
alone was responsible for nearly 65 percent of all reported water releases.
Primary sources of nitrate compounds are manufacturers of fertilizers.
For the core chemicals reported for 1995, releases decreased by 4.9
percent, from 1.75 billion pounds in 1994 to 1.66 billion pounds in 1995.
Reported air emissions were down by 88.8 million pounds, or 7 percent;
reported discharges to surface water were down 4.1 million pounds, or 10
percent. Releases to land were down by 17 million pounds, or 6 percent.
Only underground injection releases increased, by 24.5 million pounds, a
19.5 percent increase.
The top 10 chemicals released into the environment - methanol, ammonia,
toluene, nitrate compounds, xylene (mixed isomers) zinc compounds,
hydrochloric acid, carbon disulfide, n-hexane, and methyl ethyl ketone -
accounted for 1.2 billion pounds, or over half the total amount of 2.2
billion pounds of TRI chemicals released. The chemical manufacturing
industry continued to rank first in terms of the amount of chemicals
released (36% of total releases), followed by the primary metals industry
(15%), paper (11%), and plastics (5%).
As required under the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, companies report
pollution prevention activities to the TRI. Of the 21,951 facilities
reporting to TRI for 1995, nearly 29% reported having undertaken at least
one source reduction activity. Most commonly reported were "good operating
practices" followed by process modifications, and spill and leak
prevention.
Although releases of chemical pollution continue to decline, the
right-to-know data also show that generation of toxic chemical wastes by
American manufacturers continues to increase. In 1995, the volume of toxic
waste containing all TRI chemicals, including the new chemicals, was over
35 billion pounds. Since 1991, when EPA first began collecting TRI waste
data, there has been a 7 percent increase in waste generation.
[In April, an expansion of the TRI list to include seven new industrial
sectors was signed. See p. 20 for the full story.]
Information on TRI is available in public libraries or online at
www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri or by calling the Hotline number at
1-800-424-9346.
OPPT FY96 Annual Report Available
The Fiscal Year 1996 Annual Report of the Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT) is available through the TSCA Hotline (tel: 202-554-1404,
fax: 202-554-5603, e-mail: tsca-hotline@epamail.epa.gov). The report
describes OPPT's activities in four mission areas. (This Bulletin is
similarly organized along the same lines.) The four components of OPPT's
mission are:
* Pollution Prevention: Promote pollution prevention as a principle of
first choice to encourage society to care for and think about the
environment in a more protective manner, preventing harm before it occurs.
* Safer Chemicals: Promote the design, development, and application of
less toxic chemicals, processes and technologies in the industrial sector
of the economy.
* Risk Reduction: Promote the reduction of risks, particularly due to
exposure, and encourage responsible risk management practices throughout
the life cycle of major chemicals of concern.
* Public Understanding of Risks: Promote public understanding of the risks
of chemicals and public involvement in environmental decision-making
through the development and dissemination of information on toxic
chemicals.
202-260-1203 OPPT's Mission Statement (4 components)
Design for the Environment: Flexography Project Evaluates Three Ink
Technologies
Flexographic printing is used in printing some of the most common household
packaging, including the plastic bags that hold foods such as bread, potato
chips, and frozen vegetables. Three different ink technologies are
currently used to print these products: solvent-based, water-based, and
ultraviolet (UV)-curable. Many of the more traditionally used inks present
environmental challenges. Some represent a printer's primary source of
emissions of VOCs (volatile organic compounds), others present hazardous
waste problems.
To reduce these environmental impacts, printers can change the way they
handle their inks, or try switching to different ink technologies. To do
so, however, printers must have good information on (1) how much inks cost,
(2) how well they perform on various substrates, and (3) what risks they
might pose to the environment and worker health.
Despite industry efforts to test the different options, there is little
information that compares the three ink types systematically across all
three of these factors. This led to a partnership under the Design for the
Environment (DfE) program of representatives from the flexography industry
and EPA in the DfE Flexography Project. Together, a technical committee of
experienced flexographers, trade association leaders, industry consultants,
academic experts, and EPA personnel assembled the methodology which is
being used to evaluate the inks for their performance, cost, and health and
environmental risks.
Two types of evaluations have been performed under the partnership: (1) a
series of field demonstrations at 11 volunteer printing facilities across
the United States and in Europe, and (2) testing in a controlled laboratory
setting at the Printing Pilot Plant of Western Michigan University (WMU).
The inks printed in the field and lab runs are currently being tested for
performance at WMU. Twenty different performance tests are being conducted
to show how the inks will hold up under the real-life stresses to which
flexible packaging is subjected.
The costs of using each of the inks will be evaluated, using data collected
from the field and a cost methodology developed by the technical committee.
The cost analysis is broader than determining the purchase price of the
inks. It will ask, for example: "How much energy is consumed in printing
and drying? Do the inks have a high or low 'mileage'? How many labor hours
are required to produce the finished image?" Finally, an EPA workgroup
will be examining the possible environmental and health risks associated
with the inks. Do the inks contain hazardous materials, such as VOCs? If
so, what risks do they pose to printers, or to the community and
environment outside a printing shop?
Findings will be compiled in a full technical report, Flexographic Inks:
Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment (CTSA). The most pertinent and
helpful information from the CTSA will then be distilled into shorter
outreach documents that can be used by printers and press operators to make
educated decisions and real process improvements.
A fact sheet and two case studies are currently available from the DfE
Flexography Project. To obtain these documents, other DfE products, or for
more information about the Flexography Project, contact the Pollution
Prevention Information Clearinghouse, tel: 202-260-1023, fax: 202-260-4659,
e-mail: ppic@epamail.epa.gov.
DfE Printed Wiring Board Update: Alternative Technologies Look Like Winners
The Design for the Environment (DfE) Printed Wiring Board (PWB) Project has
completed its first major technical study - a Cleaner Technologies
Substitutes Assessment (CTSA) of one of the steps of PWB manufacturing. The
results of the CTSA are expected to be published in draft form in June
1997.
The CTSA examined the step of "making holes conductive" (MHC). The study
was developed by the University of Tennessee's Center for Clean Products
and Clean Technologies under a grant from EPA, in collaboration with the
PWB industry and other stakeholders. In the study, the health and
environmental risks, performance, and costs of seven existing and emerging
MHC technologies were evaluated.
The results of the CTSA indicate that when compared to the baseline of
electroless copper technology, the alternative technologies: (1) appear to
pose less risk to human health and the environment (through the elimination
and reduction in use of toxic chemicals, including formaldehyde); (2)
perform as well, when operated properly; (3) present substantial cost
savings; and (4) require the use of much less water and energy.
Project participants, including representatives from industry, academic and
research institutions, an environmental organization, and the DfE Program,
recently presented the CTSA results at the Institute for Interconnecting
and Packaging Electronic Circuits' Printed Circuits Expo 1997, in San Jose,
CA. (The results were also presented in Orlando, and will be presented in
Minneapolis, Chicago, Boston, and Phoenix in 1997.)
The PWB Project recently published a document designed to assist PWB
manufacturers to implement the cleaner MHC technologies: Implementing
Cleaner Technologies in the PWB Industry: Making Holes Conductive (EPA
744-R-97-001; February 1997). This document contains first-hand information
about manufacturers' experiences in using the MHC alternatives, gathered
through a survey of 27 PWB manufacturers and vendors.
Other PWB Activities
The PWB Project is now beginning another CTSA that will evaluate the risk,
performance, and cost of lead-free alternatives to the standard hot air
solder leveling process. A new electronics project will be started this
year, working with the flat panel display industry to conduct a life-cycle
assessment of four flat panel display technologies, as possible
replacements for cathode ray tube displays.
A recently-published pollution prevention case study (Case Study 5: A
Continuous-Flow System for Reusing Microetchant; EPA 744-F-96-024)
highlights the waste reduction and cost savings experienced by a PWB
company when it implemented a continuous-flow system for reusing sulfuric
acid-potassium persulfate microetchant.
All DfE PWB Project documents are available from the Pollution Prevention
Information Clearinghouse, at 202-260-1023.
The Design for the Environment (DfE) Printed Wiring Board (PWB) Project is
a voluntary, non-regulatory initiative that encourages companies to
implement cleaner technologies, in order to improve environmental
performance and industrial competitiveness. For further information, please
visit our website at http://www.ipc.org/html/ehstypes.htm#design, or
contact Kathy Hart at 202-260-1707.
Promoting Prevention at the State Level
Pollution prevention has moved from being the responsibility of a small
group of state technical assistance programs to becoming the approach of
choice for single-media state regulatory programs seeking new and
innovative ways to address their mandates. OPPT is helping to promote
cross-media pollution prevention approaches to environmental protection at
the state level through two relatively new organizations. The first, the
Media Association P2 Forum, convenes quarterly with up to three board
members of each of the major single-media associations. OPPT has also
initiated a Pollution Prevention Project within OPPT's Forum on State and
Tribal Toxic Action (FOSTTA). Both these efforts represent an opportunity
to begin more structured dialogue between EPA and the states on pollution
prevention.
Media Association P2 Forum
The Media Association P2 Forum is a group of senior state program directors
that OPPT brings together periodically to examine opportunities for
incorporating pollution prevention in a multimedia fashion into
environmental management practices. Participants are the leading state
environmental associations, including the Environmental Commissioners of
the States (ECOS), the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials (ASTSWMO), the Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), the State and Territorial
Air Pollution Control Administrators (STAPPA), the Association of Local Air
Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO), the National Pollution Prevention
Roundtable, and FOSTTA. The forum is the Agency's only group that brings
together these associations; organizing it around pollution prevention
represents an exciting opportunity for encouraging better integration
within state environmental programs. The latest meeting of the group was
held on July 23-24 in Washington, D.C.
FOSTTA P2 Project
The purpose of the Pollution Prevention Project within FOSTTA is to secure
the counsel of senior state and tribal officials with an interest in, and
knowledge of, pollution prevention issues and programs to help guide P2
activities in EPA.
OPPT intends to structure each meeting so that major cross-cutting P2
policy issues for the Agency are described and discussed, with an
opportunity for EPA program managers to hear the advice of the group on
current P2 issues and developments. It is also expected that members of the
project will raise issues of concern to them and other state organizations.
The participants will serve on the P2 Project as individual experts rather
than as representatives of their states or of states in general.
With the changing relationship between EPA and the states, in part due to
the National Environmental Performance Partnership System and Performance
Partnership Grants and Agreements, there are new opportunities for
integrating pollution prevention into core state media programs. Through
the Forum and the FOSTTA P2 Project, EPA is trying to capitalize on changes
in the delivery of environmental protection and to work cooperatively with
the states in crafting programs and policies to promote pollution
prevention. For more information, contact Lena Ferris at 202-260-2237.
Getting a Handle on Environmental Costs: New Resources from the
Environmental Accounting Project
This winter the Pollution Prevention Division's Environmental Accounting
Project added two items to its inventory of environmental managerial
accounting products: a report on valuing potential environmental
liabilities and P2/FINANCE Version 3.0, a total cost assessment software
spreadsheet application.
Valuing Potential Environmental Liabilities for Managerial Decision-Making:
A Review of Available Techniques describes approaches and tools for
estimating the monetary value of future, preventable environmental
liabilities. Environmental liabilities include compliance obligations,
remediation costs, fines and penalties, compensation obligations, punitive
damages, and natural resource damages payment obligations. A potential
pay-off of pollution prevention investments is the avoidance of such
environmental liabilities, and, if this benefit is overlooked,
environmental investments may appear less attractive than they truly are.
Unfortunately, business managers often feel that they cannot estimate these
costs with a sufficient degree of accuracy to merit inclusion in
decision-making calculations. This report was developed in order to assist
managers to more easily include potential environmental liabilities in
everyday planning processes.
The report includes a discussion of the categories of environmental
liabilities that firms might face, an overview of the techniques identified
in EPA's research, an annotated bibliography with information on 32
different techniques, and detailed profiles of 24 of those techniques. The
report was reviewed by over 70 professionals from industry, accounting
organizations, EPA, and other federal agencies.
P2/FINANCE Version 3.0, developed by the Tellus Institute, is a financial
evaluation software application that prompts users to consider the
environmental costs associated with current and proposed investments and
uses time horizons and profitability indicators that capture the long-term
savings typical of P2 investments. An earlier version, P2/FINANCE Version
2.0, has been made available to government agencies for three years.
Version 3.0 features new capabilities and increased user-friendliness.
Additionally, EPA has a new license agreement that authorizes all
government agencies to distribute P2/FINANCE Version 3.0 to any interested
party. The system is available for use with both Microsoft Excel for
Windows and Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS. The User's Guide includes step-by-step
instructions on data entry and two case studies of P2/FINANCE applications.
Both the report and P2/FINANCE are available free-of-charge from EPA's
Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse at 202-260-1023, fax:
202-260-4659, or e-mail: ppic@epamail.epa.gov. If ordering P2/FINANCE,
please specify whether you prefer the Excel for Windows or Lotus for DOS
formats and whether you would like to receive a User's Guide. Both products
are also available via the Environmental Accounting Project's website:
www.epa.gov/opptintr/acctg.
For further information, please contact Susan McLaughlin at 202-260-3844,
fax: 202-260-0178, or e-mail: mclaughlin.susan@epamail.epa.gov.
Kodak-EPA Project Yields Technology Transfer Lessons
A pilot project involving OPPT and the Eastman Kodak Company is yielding
positive results regarding the potential for achieving pollution prevention
through technology transfer. The project had two basic goals: first, to
determine if OPPT's analytical methods could be successfully transferred to
others; and second, to learn if the information generated by use of these
methods could affect decision-making on the part of chemical companies,
among others.
To test the first goal, OPPT shared with Kodak some of the analytical
methods used by EPA to evaluate the environmental and human health risks of
chemicals. These methods include computer modeling techniques, quantitative
structure activity relationships, and automated exposure assessment
methods. Both EPA and Kodak used the methods to evaluate the same set of
chemicals. The results of the independent Kodak and OPPT analyses were
remarkably close. We concluded that our first goal had been met: OPPT could
successfully transfer assessment techniques to others.
Kodak then began to apply the methodologies in its day-to-day operations.
The company enthusiastically reported that the techniques enabled Kodak to
identify and eliminate problematic chemicals early in the development
stage, thereby saving significant time and money. Kodak officials commented
on the effort:
"... these methods, if applied early enough in a chemical or product
development cycle, can have an immediate and positive impact on programs to
reduce the potential hazards from chemical manufacturing operations."
"The methodologies supplied by the Agency allowed those chemicals with the
greatest potential hazard to be eliminated from further consideration at a
point in time when the economic impact of the decision was minimal. By
applying the methods early in the development cycle, we were able to avoid
unnecessary expenditures on product formulations for which appropriate
alternatives were available or could be developed."
The project vividly demonstrated that the concept of pollution prevention
is not merely a lofty goal, but one that can contribute to a cleaner
environment and yield substantial economic benefits to a company. The
project demonstrated that OPPT methodologies could be consistently and
independently used by others outside EPA to advance pollution prevention
objectives.
What's Ahead: Pollution Prevention Assessment Framework
The Kodak project also helped OPPT recognize that we need to "package"
analytic tools in an integrated, user-friendly manner. Typically, companies
have questions that call for a variety of analytic methods. For example:
"An effluent from a manufacturing facility receives primary treatment
on-site and then is discharged to a publicly owned water treatment plant
(POTW). The POTW discharges to a river that is the primary drinking water
source for a community 25 miles down stream. Does the chemical pose a
hazard to aquatic organisms, and what is the concentration of the chemical
at the downstream drinking water intake?"
Based on lessons learned during the pilot project with Kodak, OPPT is
taking steps to better explain how individual methodologies can be used to
answer specific questions, and how methods can be applied in an integrated
manner to answer more complicated risk-related questions, such as the one
above. Our goal is to prepare an integrated Pollution Prevention Assessment
Framework that will explain and document individual methodologies and
include a series of case studies showing how methods can be integrated to
answer complicated questions.
September Workshop in EPA Region 9
OPPT and EPA Region 9 will jointly host a workshop to evaluate the utility
of the Pollution Prevention Assessment Framework developed in the Kodak
project. The workshop, scheduled for September 1997 at Region 9
headquarters in San Francisco, will include representatives from chemical
companies, the electronics and aerospace sectors, state environmental
organizations, and nongovernmental organizations. At the workshop we hope
to learn if the P2 Framework can help others independently evaluate
chemical hazards and identify safer chemicals and processes. Based on the
response of workshop participants, OPPT will update and enhance the P2
Framework to better reflect the needs of the user community. Our goal for
1998 would be to broadly disseminate the P2 Framework to EPA Regions,
interested states, companies, nonprofits, and other interested
organizations.
For additional information, contact Don Rodier at 202-260-1276, Bill Waugh
at 202-260-3489, or John Katz at 415-744-2150.
1997 National Pollution Prevention Report
OPPT's Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance Divisions have
been working for the past year on a national report on pollution prevention
progress. The report, Pollution Prevention 1997: A National Progress
Report, updates the first national report published six years ago. In this
report, EPA examines successes and challenges in pollution prevention at
EPA and other federal agencies, in industry, among states and tribes,
educational institutions, communities, and the non-profit sector. The
report contains a chapter on progress in measuring pollution prevention and
a final chapter that ponders the future of pollution prevention. More than
twenty outside authors provide guest commentaries on prevention issues,
including Warren Muir, president of Hampshire Research Associates; David L.
Thomas, Director of the Illinois Department of Natural Resource's Waste
Management and Research Center; Harry Freeman, Executive Director of the
Louisiana Environmental Leadership Pollution Prevention Program at the
University of New Orleans; Joanna Underwood, president of INFORM, Inc.; and
Gerald Kotas, co-director of the National Climate Wise Program and senior
environmental scientist with the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy of the Department of Energy.
For information on obtaining the report, contact EPA's Pollution Prevention
Information Clearinghouse at 202-260-1023.
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing: Cleaning Products Pilot Project
Now, federal buildings can be both green and clean! Government buyers have
a new tool for comparing cleaning products on the basis of their
environmental attributes. A matrix developed as part of a joint General
Services Administration (GSA) project with EPA makes it easy to select a
cleaning product based on local environmental needs.
The Cleaning Products Pilot Project is the first of many environmentally
preferable purchasing (EPP) pilot projects being developed by EPA to
demonstrate how environmental considerations can be successfully
incorporated into purchasing decisions. Cleaning products were selected as
the first EPP pilot project because they are used throughout the federal
government. The project consisted of three phases:
* A field test to examine the performance, health and safety, and
environmental impacts of several alternative cleaning products
* A screening-level risk assessment conducted by EPA
* Development of a list of environmentally preferable cleaning product
attributes.
After considering several methods for promoting the preferred environmental
attributes, the GSA/EPA team developed a matrix. The matrix allows
purchasers to identify and compare commercial cleaning products based on
the environmental attributes most critical for their geographic region and
intended use. The matrix was first published in GSA's February 1996
Commercial Cleaning Supplies catalog, which was distributed to 15,000
federal government buyers. The catalog included a 13-page section listing
48 commercially available biodegradable cleaners and degreasers from 30
suppliers. Additional information on seven environmental attributes for 28
of the 48 products was voluntarily provided by the manufacturers and
suppliers.
Following publication of the matrix, more than 70 companies requested
information on joining the program. Manufacturers provided environmental
attribute information for three additional cleaning products, which will be
included in the next GSA catalog, to be published in June 1997. GSA also
expanded the matrix to include all of the cleaning products that meet the
acute toxicity and biodegradability criteria detailed in the Federal Supply
Schedule Contract for Biodegradable Cleaners/Degreasers (solicitation
number FTC-92-MT-7906B).
Environmental Attribute Matrix
The matrix lists the seven environmental attributes selected by the GSA/EPA
team across the top and provides information for each of the cleaning
products underneath. None of the attributes is considered more important
than any other. Government buyers are encouraged to select the most
relevant attribute(s) for their needs and balance the available
environmental information, along with traditional factors such as price and
performance, when making purchasing decisions.
Following is a brief description of the seven attributes.
1. Skin Irritation
Some cleaning products can cause skin redness or swelling. Products with a
lower skin irritation potential are more preferable than those with a
higher irritation potential.
2. Food Chain Exposure
Some cleaning products contain chemicals that can enter the food chain when
consumed by aquatic plants and animals. Chemical concentrations can
increase throughout the food chain as these plants and animals are consumed
by larger animals. Products that contain ingredients that are less likely
to accumulate in this manner are preferable.
3. Air Pollution Potential
Some cleaning products contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that can
escape during product use. VOCs have been linked with smog formation, which
has been shown to cause eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation and cause
asthma attacks. As a result, many state and local authorities have
restrictions on the use of VOCs. The lower the VOC percentage, the more
preferable the product.
4. Fragrances
Fragrances are added to some cleaning products to improve their odor or
mask offensive odors. A basic principle of pollution prevention is to avoid
additives that are unnecessary, which might suggest avoiding products with
fragrance additives. Some people, however, consider fragrances necessary
for aesthetic reasons or to distinguish among cleaning products. It is up
to the individual government purchaser to determine if fragrances are a
necessary ingredient.
5. Dyes
Like fragrances, some cleaning products contain dyes to change or enhance
the aesthetics of a product. While the addition of dyes contributes little
to the cleaning value of the product, it may be important for safety
reasons like differentiating between products and other liquids such as
water. Again, a basic principle of pollution prevention is to avoid
unnecessary additives and it is up to the individual government purchaser
to determine if dyes are a necessary ingredient.
6. Packaging
A product's packaging can account for a significant portion of the
product's contribution to the solid waste stream. EPA's recommended
approach to managing solid waste is to reduce product packaging and use
recycled materials when packaging is necessary. Products with reduced
packaging or recycled content packaging are preferable. Reduced packaging,
however, often results in a product being shipped as a concentrate, which
can create additional human health and safety or environmental risks. As a
result, the final attribute is related to product packaging.
7. Exposure to Concentrate
Although packaging a product in concentrated form may result in reduced
packaging, it raises the potential that the end users of the product will
be exposed to the concentrate. Exposure to the concentrate may place the
end user at greater health risk than exposure to the ready-to-use product.
It is preferable that products shipped as concentrates are provided in
packaging that minimizes concentrate exposure.
Alternative Methods for Identifying EPPs
The environmental attribute matrix was not the only method considered to
promote the purchase of environmentally preferable cleaning products. The
GSA/EPA team also considered establishing thresholds for individual
environmental attributes. Products that met the thresholds would be placed
on a list of "green" cleaning products or be identified by a "green dot."
Proponents of this method suggested that it would be the most convenient
for government buyers. Others felt that if minimum environmental
performance criteria were established, manufacturers would have no
incentive to exceed the minimum criteria. They also suggested that,
although a "green dot" would make it easier for buyers, it might also
obscure vital environmental information including which environmental
attribute(s) warranted the "green dot." Such information is important
because government purchasers buy cleaning products for a variety of
situations - from remote forest service outposts to entire military bases -
each of which has unique environmental and performance needs.
Additional EPP projects are being developed and implemented by federal,
state, and local government agencies, as well as in the private sector. The
Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC) has several EPP
documents available, including Executive Order 12873 on Federal
Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention; EPA's Guidance on Acquisition
of Environmentally Preferable Products and Services (60 FR 50722); and the
Cleaning Products Pilot Project Case Study (EPA742-R-97-002), which
documents the history of and lessons learned from the pilot project.
For copies or additional information, contact PPIC at tel: 202-260-1023 or
fax: 202-260-4659.
Defining EPP
Environmentally preferable products are "products and services [that] have
a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when
compared to other products and services that serve the same purpose."
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) promotes federal government use
of products and services that have reduced impacts on human health and the
environment. Such purchases are required by Executive Order 12873, Federal
Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention. The Executive Order also
directed EPA to develop guidance to help federal agencies incorporate
environmental preferability into their purchasing procedures.
EPA's EPP Guidance
EPA identified seven guiding principles to help federal agencies
incorporate environmental preferability into their procurement practices.
These principles were proposed in EPA's Guidance on Acquisition of
Environmentally Preferable Products and Services (60 FR 50722):
* Consideration of environmental preferability should begin early in the
acquisition process and be rooted in the ethic of pollution prevention,
which strives to eliminate or reduce, up front, potential risks to human
health and the environment.
* A product or service's environmental preferability is a function of
multiple attributes.
* Environmental preferability should reflect life-cycle considerations of
products and services to the extent feasible.
* Environmental preferability should consider the scale (global versus
local) and temporal reversibility aspects of the impact.
* Environmental preferability should be tailored to local conditions where
appropriate.
* Environmental objectives of products or services should be a factor or
subfactor in competition among vendors, when appropriate.
* Agencies need to examine product attribute claims carefully.
Advisory Committee Meets on Endocrine Disruptors
The Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC)
held its third meeting in Baltimore, MD on April 29-30. The major focus of
discussion was a Framework Concepts document developed by the Principles
Workgroup. The Framework Concepts will provide guidance to the Screening
and Testing and Priority Setting Workgroups and help coordinate their
efforts. The framework document describes a process for sorting,
prioritizing, screening and testing chemicals and pesticides for their
potential to disrupt the endocrine system in humans and wildlife. It
describes a multistage process beginning with sorting and prioritizing
existing information. This is followed by a first tier of screening level
assays and a second tier of confirmatory testing.
The Prioritization Workgroup is developing criteria for determining when
chemicals and pesticides should proceed to screening, when they should go
directly to the testing phase, when there are adequate data to begin hazard
assessment, and when there are adequate data to determine that no
additional testing is necessary. The Screening and Testing Workgroup is
developing a matrix of methodologies that have been evaluated at several
workshops sponsored jointly by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, EPA,
and the World Wildlife Fund. Both workgroups were to report on the progress
of their deliberations and identify cross-cutting issues at the July 15-16
EDSTAC meeting in Chicago.
Streamlined Regulations Announced for Screening Biotech Products
On March 28, 1997, EPA issued new regulations that establish a streamlined
process for the screening of certain microbial biotechnology products to
ensure that they are safely developed for commercial use in a broad range
of industrial and environmental applications.
"Today's action achieves the Clinton Administration's objective to protect
human health and the environment, while providing flexibility for the
development of our nation's emerging biotechnology industry," said EPA
Administrator Carol M. Browner. "Our goal is to help the nation safely
realize the widespread benefits of biotechnology in a number of markets,
from pollution prevention to environmental cleanup."
The regulations, issued under authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) cover microbial biotechnology products developed for industrial
applications. Other federal authorities regulate the development and
introduction of biological pesticides, drugs and food additives.
Under these regulations, companies that manufacture or researchers who
develop microbial biotechnology products are required to notify and obtain
EPA review prior to the use of their products in commerce or testing in the
environment. Specifically the new regulations:
* Tailor pre-existing screening requirements for new chemicals and
establish a distinct program for microbial biotechnology products under
Section 5 of TSCA. EPA has been reviewing microbial biotechnology products
for 10 years under the authority of a policy statement issued in 1986 and
under TSCAregulations originally written for new chemicals. Today's action
supersedes these pre-existing policies and regulations.
* Continue to focus the Agency's regulatory attention on microorganisms
that are likely to display new traits or to exhibit less predictable
behavior in the environment.
* Provide full or partial exemptions from the notification and screening
requirements for certain categories of new microorganisms introduced for
commercial use or testing in the environment and for which EPA has acquired
substantial assessment experience. A process for seeking additional
exemptions also is provided.
The final rule was published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1997. The
text of the final rule and certain supporting documents are also available
electronically through OPPT's Biotechnology Program home page at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/biotech/ or at gopher.epa.gov.
Note: New Biotechnology Paper Available (see page 23).
EPA Updates the Master Testing List, Seeks Increased Industry Testing
As part of EPA's ongoing efforts to facilitate environmental stewardship in
the chemical industry, OPPT has updated the Master Testing List (MTL) (see
61 FR 65939, Dec. 13, 1996). Almost all of the chemicals identified on the
MTL are domestically produced in high volumes (i.e., more than 1 million
pounds/year). The revisions add more than 300 individual chemicals and four
chemical categories and remove more than 75 chemicals for which testing is
complete. The 1996 MTL now contains over 500 individual chemicals and 13
chemical categories and represents EPA's TSCA Chemical Testing Program
priorities for 1996-1998.
While testing is underway on almost 300 chemicals, over 200 other chemicals
need testing actions to begin. The identification of these testing needs
provides an opportunity for chemical companies to demonstrate their
corporate responsibility by initiating activities to develop the needed
data. EPA strongly encourages the chemical industry to fulfill its
commitment to environmental stewardship, specifically, by conducting the
appropriate testing to fill the priority data needs identified.
Although EPA has the authority under Section 4 of TSCA to issue formal
rules requiring chemical manufacturers, importers and processors to test
chemicals listed on the MTL, the Agency has developed programs that provide
industry greater flexibility in developing needed data. EPA seeks to obtain
test data more efficiently, effectively and cooperatively via Enforceable
Consent Agreements and Voluntary Testing Agreements which provide the
flexibility to consider pollution prevention and other types of
risk-reducing product stewardship actions by the chemical industry as a
possible substitute for or adjunct to the needed testing.
EPA believes that chemical companies with product stewardship programs will
recognize the importance of promptly filling the data needs identified via
the MTL. Testing is needed to provide the public, industry, and government
with the information necessary to understand the hazards and risks posed by
chemicals used in consumer and other products and/or released to the
environment.
The 1996 MTL also has a new format and is publicly available in hard copy
form and online at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/main/ctibhome.htm. For
further information about the MTL or EPA's TSCA Chemical Testing Program,
contact Charles Auer at 202-260-3749.
TSCA Interagency Testing Committee Proposes More Efficient Use of TSCA
Section 8 Resources
In its 40th Report to the EPA Administrator delivered on April 28, 1997,
the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) proposed procedures for
promoting more efficient use of TSCA Section 8 resources by: 1) refining
Section 8 data needs; 2) encouraging electronic data submissions; and 3)
providing incentives for manufacturers, importers, processors and users of
chemicals recommended by the ITC to voluntarily submit Section 8
information in a form that is rapidly reviewed by the ITC.
The ITC notes in its report that it has had some success in obtaining
voluntary exposure, use and toxicity data from manufacturers, importers,
processors and users of chemicals that have been recommended and added to
the Priority Testing List and in establishing partnerships with the
relevant chemical trade associations. For example, a partnership with the
Propylene Glycol Ethers Panel of the Chemical Manufacturers Association
(CMA) provided data needed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission that
resulted in removal of all propylene glycol ethers from the Priority
Testing List (60 FR 42982, August 17, 1995). A partnership with the
Silicones Environmental Health and Safety Council provided data needed by
the Food and Drug Administration, produced an electronic database of TSCA
Section 8(d) studies in a compatible format, and resulted in removal of 43
of 56 siloxanes from the Priority Testing List (61 FR 4188, February 2,
1996). The ITC wants to pursue these voluntary approaches to data sharing.
The ITC encourages manufacturers, importers, processors or users of
chemicals recommended by the ITC to develop databases compatible with the
TSCA Test Submissions (TSCATS) database, and to submit electronic
information in a form that is rapidly and easily reviewed by the ITC, e.g.,
the TSCA Electronic Cover Sheet developed by the EPA and the CMA. TSCATS
can be searched on the Right-to-Know web site (www.rtk.net), where in the
future it will be possible to retrieve the TSCA Electronic Cover Sheet.
For those that establish partnerships with the ITC and provide
easy-to-review (electronic) submissions, the ITC offers the potential to
eliminate promulgation of TSCA Section 8(a) Preliminary Assessment
Information Reporting and Section 8(d) Health and Safety Data rules.
For more information, contact John D. Walker, fax: 202-260-7895, e-mail:
walker.johnd@epamail.epa.gov.
Chicago Cumulative Risk Initiative
On February 23, 1996, EPA received a Section 21 petition from the Chicago
Legal Clinic, representing 11 Community Advocacy Groups. The petition
requested that EPA issue a TSCA Section 6 rule 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 data collection on cumulative effects, focusing on risks posed by
these chemicals. Under Section 21 of TSCA, EPA had 90 days from receipt of
the petition to prepare and issue a response.
A workgroup was assembled to evaluate the petition and generate a response.
After analyzing information collected during the investigation, the
workgroup determined that insufficient information existed to support the
initiation of Section 6 activity. The workgroup also determined that due to
the uncertain status of the planned incinerators targeted by the petition,
committing to Section 4 activity was not the most appropriate course of
action. The workgroup did, however, conclude that several significant
issues were raised during the petition investigatory process. Those issues
included: cumulative effects; loading; and risks posed by incinerators and
other point, area, and mobile sources. In the workgroup's response (dated
May 23, 1996), EPA denied the petition and proposed that the petitioners
work with the Agency to plan and implement a community-based effort to
investigate the cumulative issues (but covering a wider range of toxics
and sources) faced by residents of the two counties.
At a June 1996 meeting in Chicago, stakeholders requested that the EPA
workgroup develop an outline of the proposed project. The workgroup
assembled the requested material and presented it at an August meeting.
Stakeholders reacted favorably and discussed modifications to the project,
proposed deliverables, and the nature of stakeholder participation. The new
project, entitled the Chicago Cumulative Risk Initiative (CCRI), has
developed into a four phase activity:
Phase I: Generating a cumulative environmental loading profile.
This profile will be a complete catalogue of the source and nature of
toxics emissions into various media (e.g., air, water) in the two county
study area. The environmental loading profile will establish a list of
toxics to which cumulative exposure will be estimated. The report
presenting the environmental loading profile will serve as a vital
reference on Chicago-area emissions for stakeholders and other interested
parties.
Phase II: Convening a facilitated workshop to discuss CCRI-relevant issues.
This phase was scheduled to be completed in June 1997. The workshop will
involve the stakeholders, EPA Headquarters and Region V, state and local
officials in Illinois and Indiana, and other non-governmental organizations
in discussing and reaching accords on the environmental loading profile,
the cumulative risk assessment, and customer service issues. The workshop
will be held in Chicago.
Phase III: Applying the Cumulative Risk Matrix.
Because the scope of a comprehensive, cumulative risk analysis is
potentially enormous, the workgroup intends to conduct a focused assessment
that will address:
* the most significant environmental hazards;
* their sources and exposure pathways;
* risks of various health effects from multiple exposure sources and
pathways; and
* locations and other characteristics defining sensitive populations.
The assessment will focus on a small number of contaminants made
significant by their toxicity or carcinogenicity in combination with (1)
the volume released, (2) their potential synergistic effects with other
contaminants in the area, (3) their tendency to bioaccumulate, (4) their
potential for relatively high exposures or the exposures of particularly
sensitive populations (e.g., children), or (5) their possible contribution
to high incidence health effects in the Chicago-area population.
Phase IV: Initiating Pollution Prevention/Remediation Activity.
Phase IV, the risk management or pollution prevention/remediation phase of
CCRI, relies on the preceding three phases and is currently in the initial
planning stages.
For more information, contact James Boles at 202- 260-3969.
Acrylamide Grout Rule Nearing Completion
Acrylamide grouts are primarily used to seal leaks in manholes and sewers
without requiring excavation. Motivation for sealing sewer leaks arises
from the need to prevent infiltration of groundwater into sewer systems, in
order to preserve the effective capacity of water treatment works.
Acrylamide is a human neurotoxicant and has been classified by EPA as a
probable human carcinogen. The population at risk consists of approximately
1,000 workers who are engaged in sewer grouting. N-methylolacrylamide (NMA)
grouts are used for the same purpose, and use the same equipment and
methodology, as acrylamide grouts. NMA was developed as a less hazardous
substitute for acrylamide grouts. Although NMA produces the same cancer and
neurotoxic effects as acrylamide, it is about an order of magnitude less
potent.
In 1991, EPA proposed a rule that would have banned all uses of acrylamide
grouts immediately, and banned all uses of NMA grouts three years following
promulgation. In the course of drafting the final rule, however, the
provision regarding NMA was dropped - based in part upon the perceived lack
of an effective substitute for both acrylamide and NMA. In late 1995, the
draft final rule, with NMA deleted, was sent to OMB for pre-promulgation
review. Following that review, the rulemaking record was reopened for 30
days. Based upon responses received to that reopening, questionnaires were
subsequently sent to the producers of grouts and grouting equipment in
order to determine whether a third grout may now have become an acceptable
substitute for both acrylamide and NMA grouts. Responses to the
questionnaires have now been received. Based upon an analysis of those
responses, the draft final rule will be revised and resubmitted to OMB for
review in the summer.
EPA Considers Amendments to TSCA Asbestos Regulations
In 1994, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended
its Construction Standard for Asbestos and EPA issued interim final
amendments to the Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan. Shortly thereafter,
EPA and OSHA began receiving questions and comments from the regulated
community and other stakeholders. It soon became apparent that there were
several inconsistencies between the Model Accreditation Plan and the OSHA
standard. Employers with projects covered by more than one regulation were
unclear as to the proper way to comply with the various rules. In response,
EPA and OSHA formed an inter-agency workgroup to identify inconsistencies
and develop potential solutions. The workgroup delivered its
recommendations in the summer of 1996. To implement these recommendations,
EPA has tentatively agreed to pursue amendments to the AHERA regulations
and the asbestos Model Accreditation Plan.
EPA has also received other comments and suggestions from stakeholders on
changes that should be made to the Model Accreditation Plan and the AHERA
regulations. Some of these ideas include incorporation of modular training
principles, reducing the recordkeeping requirements for local educational
agencies, lengthening the reinspection period for schools from 3 to 5
years, and requiring refresher training for accredited persons on a
biennial, rather than annual, basis.
A notice describing the recommendations of the EPA/OSHA workgroup and
soliciting comments specifically on modular training issues is being
prepared and is expected to be published within the next 60 days. This
notice will be followed in early 1998 by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
For more information, contact Cindy Fournier at 202-260-1537.
Background on Asbestos Regulations
Asbestos abatement projects in schools, public, commercial, and industrial
buildings are covered by a number of regulations. These include:
* the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA, TSCA Title II)
regulations for schools, which require building inspections and management
plans for in-place asbestos-containing building materials.
* the Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan under TSCA, which prescribes
training and accreditation requirements for asbestos inspectors, management
planners, project designers, workers and contractor/supervisors.
* the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants under the
Clean Air Act, which contain work practice and notification requirements
for building demolition and renovation activities involving asbestos.
* the OSHA Construction Standard for Asbestos, which contains requirements
for work practices, training, monitoring, and personal protection
equipment.
Revising the TSCA Inventory Update Rule
OPPT plans to propose amendments to the TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) in
late 1997. The amendments will accomplish several goals: providing raw data
for input to Agency risk screening tools, enabling the Agency to better
develop risk-based priorities; providing linkages between the Chemical
Update System database and other EPA databases; and giving the Agency a
more comprehensive data set to support its risk screening and management
programs.
The IUR provides a "snapshot" of mostly organic chemical manufacturing by
collecting production information on a subset of the chemicals listed on
the TSCA Inventory. The IUR requires facilities manufacturing or importing
more than 10,000 pounds per year of a TSCA chemical to report to EPA every
four years. Information currently reported includes company name and
facility identification, chemical name, production or import volume, and
whether the substance is site-limited. Data have been collected three times
since 1985. The next reporting period, beginning in August 1998, will
collect information for 1997.
The changes under consideration for the IUR Amendments relate to certain
administrative aspects of the rule, types of information to be reported,
chemicals and production levels exempt from reporting, and confidential
business information claims. These changes would be implemented after the
1997 collection.
The administrative changes EPA is considering include requiring reporting
by calendar year instead of by a reporter's fiscal year, altering the
frequency of reporting from the current every four years, and reporting
additional facility and company identification information, including an
EPA identification number.
EPA is considering increasing the reported information requirements, adding
a requirement to submit limited chemical-specific, exposure-related
information. The exposure-related information may include the number of
workers potentially exposed, the number of use and processing sites, the
chemical functions, and SIC codes of use sites. A variety of reporting
thresholds are under consideration, including basing the type of
information reported on the production or import volume.
EPA is also considering several changes to the categories of substances
exempted from reporting. First, inorganic chemicals, generally currently
exempt, would be required to report. Second, some subset of petroleum
chemicals would become exempt. Third, a low-risk exemption is being
considered for chemicals the Agency has already reviewed.
CBI changes under consideration include requiring upfront documentation for
facility identification claims. Currently, upfront documentation is
required for chemical identity claims only. EPA is also considering
requiring some form of reassertion of past CBI claims.
For more information on this project, contact Susan Krueger at 202-260-1713
or e-mail: krueger.susan@epamail.epa.gov.
TRI Industry Sector Expansion Signed on Earth Day
On April 22, 1997, EPA finalized the expansion of the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) to include an additional seven industry sectors that are
now required to report releases of toxic chemicals under Section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). The
expansion will strengthen community right-to-know by providing information
on toxic chemical releases and waste management for approximately 6,100
more facilities.
The seven industry groups added are as follows:
* Metal Mining (SIC code 10 except SIC codes 1011, 1081, and 1094)
* Coal Mining (SIC code 12 except SIC code 1241)
* Electric Utilities (SIC codes 4911, 4931, 4939)
* Commercial Hazardous Waste Treatment (SIC code 4953)
* Chemicals and Allied Products-Wholesale (SIC code 5169)
* Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants (SIC code 5171)
* Solvent Recovery Services (SIC code 7389).
Facilities operating in these industry segments that meet reporting
thresholds under EPCRA Section 313 must report related chemical release and
management information beginning with activities that occur during 1998,
with some exceptions. Of the electric generating facilities operating in
SIC codes 4911, 4931, and 4939, only those that use coal and/or oil to
produce energy for distribution in commerce are required to consider their
activities for potential TRI reporting. Likewise, of the commercial waste
treatment facilities operating in SIC code 4953, only those facilities
regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle
C program are covered by this action. As proposed, EPA is exempting coal
extraction activities because operations related to coal extraction are
extremely unlikely to result in TRI reporting.
This final action also amends the definition of the activity threshold
known as "otherwise use." Under the amended definition, activities
considered as "otherwise used" include the treatment, stabilization, and
disposal of toxic chemicals received from off-site for waste management
purposes or generated during the waste management of materials received
from off-site. This will require covered facilities to consider amounts
managed in these processes toward reporting thresholds. The amendment will
provide additional information on waste management activities at currently
reporting facilities, and on amounts managed by commercial hazardous waste
treatment and disposal facilities.
EPA has considered expanding the TRI to include additional facility sectors
for several years. In 1994, EPA expanded TRI to include an additional 286
chemicals and chemical categories, renewed its commitment to continue
expanding TRI, and announced that it would begin consideration of a third
phase of TRI expansion - the collection of chemical use information in
TRI. On August 8, 1995, the President directed EPA to expedite the
industry expansion rulemaking and the consideration of collecting chemical
use information. This final rule fulfills the first order of that
directive. The proposed rule for industry expansion was published in the
Federal Register on June 27, 1996; the final rule was published on May 1,
1997.
For more information, contact Maria Doa at 202-260-9592 or Tim Crawford at
202-260-1715.
Update of TSCA Section 8(e) Triage Database
The 8(e) Triage Database is a PC-based database of significant health risk
studies submitted to EPA under Section 8(e) of TSCA. It provides users with
information about these studies and serves as a pointer system to the
complete studies. The database breaks down the 8(e) studies into high,
medium, and low levels of toxicological concern and gives a short statement
describing why they were categorized as such. Abstracts are provided for
studies considered to be of high concern and high production level. Version
2.0, released in December 1994, contains information from about 10,000 of
the approximately 14,000 studies submitted under Section 8(e). The database
is available on diskettes through the TSCA Hotline (202-554-1404) and on
EPA's Web site (www.epa.gov) and gopher servers. An updated version is
currently being prepared and is expected to be available for distribution
by Fall 1997.
For more information, contact Linda Goodman at 202-260-1521.
CLI Report Provides Preliminary Answers to Labeling Questions
The Consumer Labeling Initiative (CLI) is a voluntary, cooperative effort
to foster pollution prevention, empower consumer choice, and improve
understanding by presenting clear, consistent, and useful safe use,
environmental, and health information on household consumer product labels.
Government, industry, and other groups are working together in the CLI to
make it easier for consumers to find, read, and understand label
information, enabling consumers to compare products and safely use the ones
they select.
The CLI project has several phases. In 1996, EPA went directly to
individual consumers to learn what they thought about existing labels on
indoor insecticides, outdoor house and garden pesticides, and household
hard surface cleaners, including ant and roach products, weedkillers, and
floor and basin, tub, and tile cleaners. EPA also invited individuals and
groups to give their ideas about label problems and solutions, and looked
for research already conducted by others. All of that preliminary work is
summarized in the Consumer Labeling Initiative Phase I Report (which can be
downloaded from the CLI website [http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/labeling], or
obtained in hard copy from PPIC, tel: 202-260-1023, fax: 202-260-1023,
email: ppic@epamail.epa.gov).
In the coming months, some of the companies that make these consumer
products will help EPA to learn more from customers about how to make label
information more understandable and useful. EPA will also make some of the
language on pesticide product labels simpler and more direct. To address
some of the more difficult issues, such as how to present useful
information on chemical ingredients and their health effects simply and
without overloading the label, EPA will sponsor a series of seminars and
roundtables where alternatives can be explored. Project status reports and
information on upcoming events will appear on the project website. For more
information, contact Mary Dominiak at 202-260-7768 or email the project
team at consumer.label@epamail.epa.gov.
TSCA Biotechnology Paper Available
The EPA has prepared a draft document entitled "Points to Consider in the
Preparation of TSCA Biotechnology Submissions for Microorganisms" that
explains how submitters can most effectively meet the information
requirements for submissions for microbial products of biotechnology
pursuant to the Agency's final biotechnology rule under TSCA. The final
rule went into effect on June 10, 1997.
The types of submissions addressed in the Points to Consider document are:
Microbial Commercial Activity Notices (MCAN's); TSCA Experimental Releases
Applications (TERA's); Test Marketing Exemptions (TME's); Tier II exemption
requests, petitions for addition of a microorganism to the lists of exempt
microorganisms under 40 §725.420; and bona fide submissions.
Recognizing the evolution of scientific knowledge, EPA will continue to
update the Points to Consider document as needed to provide appropriate
guidance. Interested parties are invited to submit comments or requests for
clarification of the draft document to the Agency. Written comments should
be forwarded to: Document Processing Center, Mail Code 7407, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Room G99,
401 M St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Documents should bear the docket
control number OPPTS-00049C. Comments can also be submitted via e-mail at:
oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov.
A copy of the draft Points to Consider document has been placed into the
public docket for the TSCA biotechnology rule, Docket No. OPPTS-00049C. The
docket is available for public viewing Monday through Friday from noon to
4:00 p.m. at the EPA headquarters building at 401 M Street S.W., Northeast
Mall Room B607, Washington, D.C. 20460; tel: (202) 260-7099. Electronic
copies of the document will also be available at the TSCA Biotechnology
Program home page at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/biotech/. A limited number
of paper copies of the document are available by calling the TSCA Hotline
at (202) 554-0515.
For more information, contact David Giamporcaro at (202) 260-6362; e-mail:
giamporcaro.david@epamail.epa.gov; or Dr. Phil Sayre, (202) 260-9570;
e-mail: sayre.phil@epamail.epa.gov