Document Ra3bmGqaJN0RQwLJJbVy93ypE

A/C Pipe Producers Association Interna! Correspondence Public Affairs Committee International Affairs Com mi FROM: .vih uIcMl J. Welch, Director, Public/Affair] DATE: July 2, 1981 SUBJECT: EPA - Regulations of Interest to A/C Pipe Industry REF: JFW correspondence, same title, December 4,1980 ACTION REQUIRED: Review for information On June 30, 1981, the Regulatory Information Service Center published the Calendar of Federal Regulations which "provides a comprehensive overview of important regulations that agencies are developing and a summary of the analytical bases for them." The Calendar is an adjunct to the semi-annual Regulatory Agendas required under Executive Order 12291. The following attachments summarize Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations relevant to the A/C pipe industry: Attachment 1: Policy and Procedures for Identifying, Assessing and--------^------------ ------------------------------- -- ------------------ -------------------------W*"0> *--------------Regulating Airborne Substances Posing a Risk of Cancer (Clean Air Act, Section 112, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants). Issue: Would the policy specify a more stringent degree of source control for A/C pipe plants air emissions, based on a theory that an unreasonable "residual risk" remains after application of best available technology? Attachment 2: Rules Restricting the Commercial and Industrial Use of Asbestos Fibers (Toxic Substances Control Act). Issue: Ban or other regulatory controls, including iaoenng,.on the manufacture and use of A/C pipe. I'~------ Attachment 3: Control of Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water (Safe Drinking Water Act). Issue: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on vinyl chloride and tetrachloroethylene to be proposed in June, 1981. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. JFW/ajb Enclosure CAPCO JEN 0012793 2- - cc: A. Kahn, Esq. N. Rahn, Esq. N. Battle Special Counsel Asbestos Institute W. E. Smith, M.D. copies to: Public Affairs Committee H. Olson B. Cook I. Adams W. Perrell J. Woods J. Baker T. Dougherty D. Stinson W. McCallie B. Collier International Affairs Committee R. Dorner E. van der Rest B. Giboin C. Walters R. Hobbs A. Saoulis R. Jalan V. Pattabhi H. Hudson C. Barton S. Al-Tarkait E. Costa HEGA/1 Chrono CAP CO JEN 0012794 ATTACHMENT 1 CAP CO JEN 0012795 Federal Register / Vol.1 t, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30,1981 / Calendar of Federal Regs. 34107 compliance. Based largely bn data and FinalRuler-July 1982.' including sunlight; and some forms of analyses performed by DOE we Final RuleEffective--July 1982. severe physical irritation. Although the estimate that in the year 1990 these Regulatory Flexibility Analysis--Not uncertainties are great, estimates by the standards will result in an incremental . required., . ... . World Health Organization, other annual cost of commercial waste management of about $100 to S600 ' million (1978 dollars). It is also possible that the incremental cost will be zero. The maximum cost impact amounts to less than a 1-percent increase in ` national average electricity rates. We also estimated that the standards would cause an increase of $0.9 billion Availabje Documents prominent institutions, and individual . experts suggest that these factors may . ANPRM--41 FR 235, December 8, cause 60. to 90 percent of all human 1978. ... cancers.- / .. : "Economic Impact of40 CFR 191," Although-airborne carcinogens may available from Criteria & Standards induce cancer at a number of areas in Division (ANR-460), Office of Radiation the body, lung cancer is thought to be Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection the principal form of cancer related to Agency, Washington, DC 20460. air pollution. While cigarette smoking is to $1.7 billion (1978 dollars) over the . Agency Contact ; : ' probably the most important cause of total cost of the reference defense waste managementprogram (assuming on-site disposal of high-level waste in geological repositories as the reference ' ' program), which is estimated to cost " "" about $3.7 billion (1978 dollars). The details of our cost estimates are contained in the report "Economic : Impacts of 40 CFR191" (see Available Documents, below). Daniel Egan, Health Physicist . v Radioactive Waste Standards Branch Criteria & Standards Division (ANR- \ 460) ; V`\;: -- ; * Office of Radiation Programs Environmental Protection Agency ' 401M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 (703) 557-8610 - ________ ' A lung cancer in the United States, many scientists believe that various air > pollutants increase the risk of cancer .: from smoking and other carcinogenic insults. Available estimates also indicate that occupational exposures to chemicals are responsible fora significant portion of the incidence of lung cancer in the United States. Through preliminary examination of ' The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' (NRC) is responsible for implementing .. EPA--OANR `` . industries producing chemicals and radioactive materials; and of air '' these standards, and therefore will incur administrative costs. - ' Related Regulations and Actions : Internal: We have coordinated the part of these standards that covers norma] waste management operations with our Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations (40 CFR Part 190) to provide consistent exposure standards for all uranium fuel cycle operations.- External: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for implementing these standards. To accomplish this. NRC is currently developing regulations for Disposal of . High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories (10 CFR Part 60); NRC describes these proposed regulations in this edition of the Calendar. Policy and Procedures for Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating Airborne Substances Posing a Risk of Cancer (40 CFR Part 61) . Legal Authority The Clean Air Act, as amended. 111, 112, and 301(a). 42 U.S.C. 7411,7412, and 7601(a). - ...... Reason for Including This Entry ' The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) thinks that this policy is important because it will set a precedent in establishing how EPA will regulate airborne carcinogens under the Clean Air Act, and include risk assessment and economic analysis in the regulatory process. Statement of Problem Cancer is the second leading cause of sampling results, EPA has identified over 50 known or potential chemical carcinogens and numerous radioactive materials which may be emitted into the atmosphere. Many of these substances are synthetic organic chemicals that have been in commercial-use only since the 1930s. Because cancer induced by exposures to small amounts of airborne carcinogens may not appear for 15 to 40 years after exposure, it is still too early. to detect the full effects of these chemicals on human health. Thus, it is both prudent and, in view of the large number of people potentially affected, important to reduce or contain' emissions of known or suspected . atmospheric carcinogens in order to' prevent future problems before we actually observe them. We have, since 1971, listed five airborne carcinogens (asbestos, vinyl Active Government Collaboration death in the United States. One . chloride, benzene, radionuclides, and We established an interagericy American in four is expected to contract arsenic) as hazardous pollutants under ' working group to help us develop these some form of cancer in his or her 112, National Emission Standards for standards. The agencies represented are lifetime, and one in five is expected to Hazardous Air Pollutants, of the Clean the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the die from the disease. The most recent Air Act. As required by 112, we have, Department of Energy, and the United statistics show a continued increase in developed and are continuing to develop States Geological Survey. the total incidence of cancer, resulting , emission standards for significant Timetable * ""' principally from increases in lung cancer. , \... ' . ;.. sources of these pollutants. In addition,. we are evaluating a number of other NPRM--July 1981.- . . - Studies of human cancer rates and potentially carcinogenic substances to Regulatory Impact Analysis and ' their worldwide geographical variations, determine whether action under 112 is Environmental Impact Statement-- 'and observations'of incidence rates in appropriate. We have found our actions July 1981 (under preparation). migrant populations, have revealed that on airborne carcinogens to be hampered Public Hearings--Several public factors in the human environment are by the lack of a policy, developed with hearings will be conducted during probably responsible for a large public participation, that would guide the public comment period, at times proportion of cancers. "Environmental . our use of 112 to control airborne. and places that we will announce in factors" in the broad sense include carcinogens. .... - the Federal Register. chemical exposures from smoking, diet, Specifically, we need publicly stated, Public Comment Period--180 days - occupation, drinking water, and air legally binding policies and regulatory following publication of NPRM. pollution; various forms of radiation, . mechanisms to: (1) determine the CAPCO JEN 0012796 ` 34103 Federal Register / 'Vol.'46. No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30,1981 / Calendar pf Federal Regs. catcinoBMiietty and carcinogenic risks' fairpcfluSanis forregulatory purposes.. ^2) establish priorities for evaluating the need for and implementing additional regulatoty action, (3) specify the degree of source control required in general under TIZand indicate how we will determine that level of control in setting individual standards, and (4) provide remaining after the application of best available technology). ' At a minimum, the policy requires new and existing sources which present or would present significant cancer risks to apply best available technology (BAT) to control emissions of listed airborne carcinogens. BAT for new sources represents the most advanced more extensive public involvement in the Agency's decisionmaking on the regplalToa ofairborne carcinogens. level of control adequately ' demonstrated, considering economic,' . energy, and environmental effects. For Alternatives Under Consideration existing sources, the determination of BAT also considers the impacts and We describe a number of alternatives technological problems associated with - in the proposal document (44 FR 58642, the retrofitting of control equipment October 10,1979):' ; Controls more stringent than BAT may ' (1) approaches leading to a zero-, be imposed if the risk remaining after emission level; the application of BAT is unreasonable, (2) predetermined decision rules (e.g., or, for new sources, if EPA's criteria for specification of a fixed target (numeric) risk avoidance associated with plant carcinogenic risk or incidence level; cost-"per-life goals; best available siting cannot be met. Our proposed policy contains no technology); and. (3) special approaches for new. reporting requirements. In most cases, emission standards we sources. establish pursuant to our proposed Beyond that, the principal alternative policy will be in the form of performance is to have no formal policy. Under this standards, rather than specific design alternative, EPA would continue with a case-by-case approach for regulating standards. Design, operating, or equipment standards will be used only. airborne carcinogens under 112 of the Clean Air Act. This strategy`would allow the Agency maximum regulatory fleadbffii^; best Would not give either the when performance standards are.not practical. ', In addition, the new source-siting provisions of the policy allow a new general public or the regulated industry source owner to use an emission offset sufficient information to enable them to mechanism to locate a new source of participate fully in the rulemaking airborne carcinogens in an area where process. In addition, the alternative of other such sources exist or where the no policy would not resolve the owner has difficulty in meeting emission ; -.ulties which EPA has encountered requirements for the new source. An .* listing of airborne carcinogens. 'emission offset is an emission reduction ji.d in the subsequent development of emissions regulations. It also does not at an existing source which1 - 1 compensates for emissions from a new recognize the need for procedures to ensure that.available, resources are allocated Bx the most important or source. Summary of Benefits tractable problems on a priority basis. Sectors Affected: The general public, Under the policy, we will list under particularly people living and working 5 112 those airborne substances in densely populated urban areas and identified as high probability human areas with a nigh concentration of caEdnofpns which present a significant caimTiogpmmm'akttopiibliirlteafib as a result ofair emissions from one or more chemical manufacturing industries; EPA; and Sta'te and local regulatory authorities. categories of stationary sources. Where . Generic arid emission standards that applicable, we will propose generic'- we develop for sources of airborne standards (low-cost, good housekeeping-' carcinogens under the proposed policy , type standards for the control of fugitive . will reduce cancer risks for large emissions) for control of fugitive segments of the U.S. population exposed emissions from Industrial sources. We ' to airborne carcinogens in the ambient will submit these standards air. The greatest benefits will be to concurrently with the listing to expedite individuals who live in the immediate reduction in emissions which can be vicinity of characteristic source types. achieved through good housekeeping While low levels of potentially 1 practices in the manufacturing, handling, carcinogenic substances have been cruse ofhazardous materials. We will detected in many parts of the country', use risk assessments to determine the areas of greatest concern are priorities for further regulation of densely populated urban centers and significant source catagories and in the areas with a high concentration of evaluation of residual risk (the risk chemical manufacturing industries. In the latter case, the proposal would : benefit populations in the Gulf Coast (Louisiana and Texas), the Kanawha. Valley (West Virginia), and Northern New Jersey. The proposed policy will significantly Improve EPA's regulatory effort in . identifying and controlling airborne carcinogens. Proposing generic standards for certain categories or sources concurrent with listing under 5 112 will provide significant reduction in emissions pending development of final 112 standards. A mechanism for establishing regulatory priorities will ensure that we address the most important or tractable problems first. The policy also provides for increased public understanding of and participation in EPA's actions and allows EPA to give earlier notice of its findings and regulatory intent to State and local regulatory authorities and to industries; Summary of Costs - Sectors Affected: Source types emitting carcinogenic substances into the atmosphere, including petroleum refining and establishments which mine or manufacture minerals,inorganic chemicals, radioactivesubstances and byproducts, and synthetic organic chemicals; and users of these products. Our preliminary analyses have identified a number of source types which may emit carcinogenic substances into the atmosphere. Most of these types fall into one of the following six broad groups: (1) mining, smelting, refining, manufacture, and end-use of minerals and other inorganic chemicals; (2) combustion processes, coke ovens, incinerators, power plants, etc.; (3) petroleum refining, distribution, and storage; (4) synthetic organic chemical industries and end-use applications and waste disposal; (5) mining, processing, use, and disposal of radioactive substances and radioactive byproducts; and (6) sources of noncarcinogenic emissions which are chemically transformed into carcinogens in the atmosphere. AH emissions standards will include . capital costs, some increase in operating costs, and possibly some administrative, reporting costs or research and development costs for industry to comply with the various regulations we develop pursuant to this policy. ' We intend the proposed rule only, to guide the Agency in identifying and controlling airborne carcinogens. In its present form, we cannot assess its regulatory effects quantitatively.This policy will, however, provide a basis for i l i < i - i/ i \ I ) i \ i - ii < CAPCO JEN 0012797 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30,1981 / Calendar of Federal Regs. 34109 impact assessments in subsequent . regulatory actions that are taken in accord with its provisions. . Regulatory Impact Analysis--None.' Regulatory Flexibility Analysis-- None. Related fJegula tions and Actions Available Documents Internal: Other offices within EPA "Policy and Procedures for which are also in the process of Identifying, Assesssing, and Regulating developing carcinogen control programs Airborne Substances Posing a Risk of include the Office of Pesticides and Cancer," NPRM, October 10.1979.44 FR Toxic Substances, the Office of Water . ' 58642. and Waste Management, and the Office . "National Emission Standards for of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control Hazardous Air Pollutants--Generic A program is also underway to develop Standards," ANPRM, October 10,1979, an agencywide cancer policy. 44 FR 58862. >' External:Related external efforts : "Summary of Responses and include the development of a national - Proposals--Testimony and Written cancer policy by the member agencies of . Submissions," EPA Public Hearings on the U.S. Regulatory Council (44 FR 39858); the recent report by the Risk Regulation of Carcinogenic Air Pollutants, Washington) DC, March 23, ' Assessment Work Group of the ... 197ft. Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group '' Testimony presented at public (1RLG) on the identification of hearings in Washington, DC, Boston, carcinogens and the quantitative MA, and Houston, TX the week of assessment of risks; a staff paper by the . March 10,1980 as well as the written White House Office of Science and comments received.' . Technology Policy on the identification, Copies of written cpmments received - characterization, and control of potential human carcinogens; and a during the public comment period. These documents a? well as others report to President Carter by the referenced in the proposed policy are Interagency Toxic Substances Strategy . available in public rulemaking docket Committee ('Toxic Chemicals and . number OAQPS 79-14. The docket is Public Protection." May 1980). Other regulatory agencies that are open for public inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through involved in this area include the - Friday at: Central Docket Section, Occupational Safety and Health Gallery 3, West Tower, Waterside Mall, Administration, which published a final - 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC policy for regulating occupational .. 20460. exposure to carcinogens on January 2, ' 1980 (45 FR 5002], the Food and Drug Agency Contact Administration, and the Consumer Joseph Padgett, Director Product Safety Commission. Strategies and Air Standards Division Nongovernmental groups which have expressed interest in or made (MD12) Office of Air Quality Planning and recommendations on the control of carcinogens include the Environmental Defense Fund, the American Industrial Health Council, and the Natural Standards Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (919) 541-5504 - Resources Defense Council. Acfire GoveDKneat Collaboration EPA-OANR--Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control The Agency has presented testimony ` at the public hearings held after the.. Occupational Safety and Health ' ... Administration proposed its carcinogen policy. We have also provided- Fuels and Fuel Additives Protocols (40 CFR Part 79*) - Legal Authority- . ` information briefings for the Interagency The Clean Air Act, as amended, 211, Regulatory Liaison Group and members 42 U.S.C. 7545.' of the President's Council on Environmental Quality, the Council on , Reason for Including This Entry Wage and Price Stability, Congressional The Environmental Protection Agency staff, and interested State air pollution (EPA) thinks that this rule is important agencies. We have participated in the proposed policy regulating chemical because it may have a marked effect on the way private industry develops and carcinogens issued by the Regulatory markets fuels and fuel additives, and - Council on October 17,1979 (44 FR because of its potentially beneficial 60038). . public health effects.-While this rule Timetable may not have an annual impact of S100 million or more, the potential growth in Final Rule--December 1981. the use of synthetic fuels and fuel - additives in the future, as the Nation attempts to lessen its dependence on foreign oil, makes it a rulemaking worthy of attention. . Statement of Problem In 1977, Congress amended the Clean Air Act, adding 211(e), which requires EPA to develop regulations to test the environmental and health effects of fuels and fuel additives (including, but not limited to, the carcinogenic or mutagenic effects resulting from respiration). Section 211(e)(2) of the Act itself establishes deadlines by which the manufacturer must provide the requisite information to the EPA Administrator. Section 211(e)(3) authorizes the Administrator to: (1) exempt small businesses from the regulations, (2) provide for sharing of testing costs among manufacturers who desire, to register identical compounds, and (3) exempt businesses from duplicative testing requirements. The present registration regulation requires that manufacturers submit certain information on the chemical composition and the toxicity of fuels and fuel additives to the extent this information is known by the . manufacturer as the result of testing conducted for reasons other than fuel registration (40 CFR 79.31(c)). -. The proposed action may require the manufacturer to perform certain physical, chemical, and biological testings of fuels and fuel additives before registration. On August 29,1978, EPA published an ANPRM in the Federal Register (43 FR 38607) requesting comments on the types of health effects and emissions test methods to be used, small business' criteria, and cost sharing provisions. In response to this request, the Agency received over 22 submittals of comments from the interested public. These _ . regulations will consider all comments received from the interested individuals and organizations. - ...- /-. . ;...-..- Alternatives Under Consideration Our preferred alternative is to require health effects and emissions testing by manufacturers on a tier basis. This approach would require manufacturers to report the chemical composition of all candidate fuels and fuel additives. If, based on chemical composition, EPA can make a determination that the . environmental and health impacts are insignificant, further testing may not be required. However, if the initial and' subsequent data present a cause for concern, further testing will be required until the concern is alleviated. CAP CO JEN 0012798 ATTACHMENT 2 CAPCO JEN 0012799 34116 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 125 / Tuesday. June 30,1981 / Calendar of Federal Regs. Regulatory Analysis and proposed Economic Impact Analysis (see . between $0 and $6,400 for asserting and epa--opts - substantiating claims of confidential ... - i: "Available Documents," Proposed business information in connection with Rules Restricting the Commercial and Economic Impact and Draft Regulatory - the notice submission. . .. Industrial Use of Asbestos Fibers (40 - - Analysis of November 13,1980 (45 FR The previous estimate did not include CFR Part 763) y . . ".... .74945)),. .. confidentiality costs, although there - Summary of Benefits - .... would be some cost for confidentiality Legal Authority .. .- '' Sectors Affected: Establishments and employees in the chemical industry; importing of chemical products; the ' imposed by the statute as well as any.. % implementing regulation.- ;. ' :....- - The fiscal year 1981 EPA operating . ... Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 15 U.S.C. 2601 and 2605.'. .< "' . general public; and the environment.--The premanufacture'review process.'" 'plan fox implementing the premanufpcture notification program is -; S5.720.cibo.: > . L, will benefit public health and the '". Reason for Including This Entry - v The Environmental Protection Agency -. ! environment by preventing the Related Regulations and Actions'" (EPA) has included this action because*-' production, use, or disposal of new ' chemicals which present unreasonable - None. - ... ..jLSSit.1--*.--;-** of its potential economic impact on the - . asbestos industry. The economic cost of risks. By preventing potential hazards at Active Government Collaboration ' *' the rule may exceed $100 million. We an early stage, EPA can minimize Other Federal agencies that have been may prohibit a large portion of the- economic dislocation, especially that' - - involved in this rulemaking include the-.';' .'domestic production and importation of which would result if a chemical is in Consumer Product Safety Commission, . asbestos-containing products.into the full production and use is withdrawn: the Occupational Safety and Health United States. ' The rules will benefit manufacturers and Administration, the Food and Drug .'...- ` importers of chemical products by - Administration,.the.Department of - Statement of Problem ' l \ . """ clarifying statutory obligations for ' Transportation, and the Bureau of the' Epidemiological studies have .......... providing information. Adverse \ Census. - i i-r- . - - established that exposure to asbestos employment effects and the obsolescence of plant equipment will be 'substantially reduced by early regulation. Preventing toxic chemicals from entering the environment also will decrease lost work days and hospitalization costs that result from : worker exposure to toxic chemicals. * *- Timetable ' Final Rule--August 1981." Final Rule Effective--30 days following publication of the final rule. . -.. -.- Regulatory Flexibility Analysis--;Not ' required. ' ;: - - fibers can contribute to increased-risk of lung damage (asbestosis) and human . cancer of several kinds. EPA is concerned that in spite of past ' governmental regulation of asbestos, ' millions of Americans may be exposed to levels of asbestos that significantly ." increase the risk of contracting ; ... Summary of Costs Available Documents - - ...... asbestos-related diseases. (Past " "' .'* Sectors Affected: The chemical .. ' industry; and importing of chemical ' products. EPA is conducting an in-depth study ... of the premanufacture notification requirements to determine with a greater degree of confidence the nature . of the costs and economic effects of this rulemaking. These effects will include the effect on research and development programs; industry sales, growth, and profitability; and the structure of the chemical industry. EPA will use the results of this study in making final decisions on how to implement the premanufacture notification program. Preliminary results of this analysis,..'., . _ estimated that the notice form proposed on January 10,1979 would impose a one time cost-between S2.500 and $22,500 to complete for each submitter, in 1980 dollars. Estimates for the October 16. ' 1979 reproposed shortened form indicated that completion of the revised. form would impose a.one-time cost... Public comments. | NPRM for Premanufacture Notification Requirements and Review Procedures--44 FR 2242, January 10. . 1979 (Docket Number OTS 050002). "' Discussion of Premanufacture Testing Policy and Technical Issues--44 FR 16240, March 16,1979 (Docket Number OTS 050002). _ Interim Policy Statement--44 FR 23558, May 15,1979 (Docket Number o-ts 050002). NPRM for Proposed Processor. Requirements, Premanufacture Review N Program--45 FR-54642, August 15.1980 - - (Docket Number OTS-050002). Proposed regulations are cited below under...: - - * Related Regulations and Actions.). Currently, more than 2 million workers' are exposed to asbestos fibers (at levels higher than background) in their places . of employment. In addition, the 1.59 million Americans who live in urban areas may be exposed to asbestos fiber levels that significantly increase the risk of contracting asbestos-related diseases. EPA is concerned that asbestos fiber - emissions from the mining, milling, processing, or distribution of asbestos or from the use, misuse, or disposal of asbestos-containing products might . .' cause significant pollution of urban air. -? Economic-Impact and Draft Regulatory -. Analysis--45 FR 74945, November 13, ' "' It is difficult to estimate the number of . people who will contract asbestos-. - ,, ,.. 1980. ' - .. ` - related diseases at.current exposure' . Extension of Comment Period--^55 FR - levels. Data on mortality rates are ..j # 81615, DecemberIT, 19801 '- - . available for workers who are exposed.: ' These documents are available from to asbestos fiber levels.considerably'....... the Agency Contact listed below, ".. " higher than general population..._ .. Agency Contact *" exposures. EPA.wilt extrapolateto'4''l. predict risks for the general population..!".. between $1,155 and $8,925,in 1980 ...,' John B. Ritch, Director '' ...' ., EPA is conducting this regulatory *.. dollars. It has also been estimated that- .' Industry Assistance (TS-799) V. . program because the Agency is not approximately 400 notices would be... Environmental Protection Agency convinced that existing regulations have submitted per year. Therefore, the total 401M Street. S.W: '....... . adequately protected the public. These cost of providing the notice forms in a - - Washington. DC20460 .' " regulations have focused on limited typical year would be between $462,000' (800) 426-9065 (toll free). aspects of the asbestos exposure ! . ..... and $3,570,000, in 1980 dollars. October In Washington, DC area, call (202) . '. problem, such as worker exposures, alrl.. 16 cost estimates also included costs of . . 544-1404. ............ ... ........... emissions from manufacturing facilities. CAP CO JEN 0012800 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 125 / Tuesday. June 30.1981 / Calendar of Federsil-Regs. ' -34117 and some consumer products." Regulationi under the Toxic Substances Control Act pSCAJ would eliminate ' unreasonable human health risks from all asbestos-related activities. The - comprehensive mandate of TSCA enables EPA to reduce health risks from sources that are difficult to control > . through medium-specific or source- specific regulation authorized under. other Federal authorities. Under TSCA, . EPA is currently investigating the . cumulative effects of exposure to : . asbestos throughout its life cycle in commercial and industrial products from mining and milling through processing," product manufacturing, use, and disposal. Our preliminary studies >: Alternative C involves developing ' Conservation and Recovery Act, and other marketplace strategies, such as other laws might significantly reduce - emission fees for asbestos release, asbestos-related risks. However, the ' : performance bonding, and a bubble EPA Administrator might find that it is - policy where a plant's total asbestos in the public's interest to regulate under release would be limited. A TSCA because the limited mandate of . disadvantage of both Alternatives B and these other laws results in continued C is that since they have never been risk from asbestos. attempted before, the implementation Alternative F, taking no regulatory problems are unknown. Also, there - action, would benefit the asbestos' - would be no guarantee of eliminating - industry since it would incur no costs.'? . products that present a particularly high However, there would also be no health risk. For example, if a product ' reduction in the exposure to asbestos in with fibers that are easily released the United States. . commands a relatively high price, it might remain in the marketplace much . Summary of Benefits ' longer than if it were regulated Sectors Affected: Establishments and specifically. However, if necessary, a workers in the asbestos industry . (including asbestos mining and - asbestos product manufacturing); the general public; and establishments that manufacture asbestos substitutes. At this early stage of development of . EPA's rule, it is difficult to estimate . benefits in quantitative terms. . Regulation will decrease the incidence . of asbestosis and lung cancer in the _ - -United States, thereby decreasing the number of worker-days lost due to worker sickness, increasing space available in hospitals, and decreasing . . costs due to illness and premature death. . EPA regulation of asbestos should increase demand for substitutes such as fiberglass, ceramic fibers, polyvinylchloride, and ductile iron pipe. Therefore, manufacturers and distributors of substitutes should benefit from regulation. - Summary of Costs . will depend on-the seriousness of the implemented under other laws, risks and the identification of the major - particularly the Occupational Safety and sources of exposure. EPA suspects that Health Act (OSH Act). Although the much of the asbestos to which the public Occupational Safety and Health is exposed comes, form emissions ; Administration (OSHA) has announced caBsed! by isSsang. milling, and its intention to lower its workplace processing asbestos fibers; emissions - standard to 0.1 fiber per cubic . resulting from the use of asbestos- centimeter, OSHA lacks the legislative, containing products may not be as ; " mandate to address the problem of significant. In that case, EPA would asbestos exposure outside of the want to reduce risks from mining, workplace. EPA action to restrict milling, and processing as much as production and importation of products possible (Alternative A). A ' .- - containing asbestos may be necessary disadvantage of Alternative A would be. to complement the OSHA workplace that both the affected industry and EPA standard for airborne asbestos. would be involved in extensive' . Any action by the Consumer Product exemption proceedings. Safety Commission (CPSC) would not - At this time it is not clear that the - -affect production of industrial asbestos- economic impact of a quota approach. ' containing products, arid these (Alternative B) would be any less than production processes may cause Alternative A. The major advantage of significant fiber emissions. Alternative B over Alternative A is that A combination of EPA action's under the marketplace would decide which the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, uses of asbestos should continue. Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Sectors Affected: Establishments and workers in the asbestos industry (including asbestos mining and asbestos product manufacturers) and - their suppliers; importers of asbestos and asbestos products; and users of asbestos products. - Because EPA has not completed its analysis of economic effects, cost estimates are not available. Although costs to industry clearly depend on the option chosen, and that ' has not been determined at this time, costs may exceed $100 million annually. Asbestos mines and asbestos processors may be forced to reduce production, and many processors maybe forced out of the asbestos business. EPA plans to - ' regulate in a manner that will allow v asbestosjirocessors time to convert to substitutes. Small businesses may seek aid from the Small Business Administration to obtain capital to ' ' convert. It is too early to predict the effect of regulation on'employment. EPA hopes that jobs lost from the asbestos CAPCO JEN 0012801  34118 Federal Register / Vol. 18, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30,1981-7 Calendar of Federal Regs. . industry will be offset by jobs gained in This action is in response to a Agency Contact . the substitutes industries. Substitute products generally cost more than asbestos-containing products, and these costs will be passed on to consumers. Related Regulations' and Actions Internal: EPA has established National Emission Standards for .. Hazardous Air Pollutants for several recommendation in April 1980 by the joint National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSHJ-OSHA. ` Asbestos Work Group that "a new . occupational standard be promulgated which is designed.to eliminate . nonessential asbestos exposures, and which requires the substitution of less hazardous and suitable alternatives Albert Colli. Chief " .' Minerals Croup (TS-794) 'Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Environmental Protection Agency 401M Street. S.W. Washington, DC 20460. (202)755-1150 ` asbestos sources under the Clean Air - where they exist."... Act. 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. EPA is Asbestos regulations promulgated in ' EPA-OPTS developing effluent guidelines regulating - the past by other agencies are as wastewater discharges of asbestos . follows: - under the Federal Water Pollution CPSC--16 CFR Paris 1145,1304, and . Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 4 Test Rules (40 CFR Part 7.73) Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq as amended in 1972 and 1977. It is also considering additional regulation of "' asbestos in drinking water under the : 7 Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 1305: OSHA--29 CFR Part 1910; FDA-- - Legal Authority - 21 CFR Parts 121,128,133, and 191; - - Toxic Substances Control Act, 4 DOT--49 CFR Parts 170-189: MSHA--30 and 26,15 U.S.C. 2603 and 2625. ' - CFR Parts 55,57, and 71. ;. .- . Reason for Including This Entry . - 3006etseq. .Active Government Collaboration The Agency is developing a rule to .; To maximize the effectiveness of this . require surveys to determine whether proposed rule, EPA is coordinating . asbestos hazards are present in public `. schools because of deteriorating insulation. EPA Is also considering requiring appropriate corrective measures where it finds hazards (see 44 FR 54676. September 20.1979). Other existing asbestos sources that the Agency may control in the future include public buildings where asbestos was - used as an insulation or decorative material and merchant ships where . asbestos is widely used as insulation. * EPA regulations directed specifically either directly or through the Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group (IRLG) with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the . Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Food and Drug .Administration (FDA), the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and the Department of Transportation. .. ., .. (dot). . .............. In July I960, EPA and tKe Consumer . ' Product Safety Commission cooperated. -to asbestos are found in 40 CFR Part 61 : in sponsoring and organizing a 3-day (air) and Parts 129 and 427 (water). External: EPA and CPSC both' workshop on substitutes for various .. uses of asbestos in commercial and - The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) thinks these rules are important because we need data to assess the risk of injury to human health and the * environment caused by exposure to .. chemicals in commercial production and use. ' Statement of Problem .77 " * Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gives the Environmental-Protection Agency the - authority to require that manufacturers and/or processors of chemicals test -> these chemicals for possible adverse . - effects on human health or the .> environment. To implement 4, we are in the process of developing, proposing, published ANPRMs on October 17,1979 industrial products. About 500 persons and promulgating test standards and in the Federal Register (44 FR 60053). attended the workshop, which was - test rules. A test standard is a - .These ANPRMs were prefaced by a designed to increase industry's - description of the scientific methodology Joint Statement of Cooperation signed awareness of substitutes for asbestos . and analysis to be used' in testing for an . by the EPA Administrator and the CPSC and to expand EPA's and CPSC's data effect. A test rule is a regulation Chairman. The statement indicated how base. EPA was the lead agency in requiring manufacturers and processors the two agencies will cooperate and coordinating the workshop. ... of specific chemicals to test these : direct their regulatory efforts to minimize reporting requirements and otherburdens on industry, and to . improve overall public health. EPA is ' planning to promulgate a rule under 8(a) of TSCA to require manufacturers and processors of asbestos fibers to Timetable ' , NPRM--Spring 1982.'. . Regulatory Impact Analysis--Draft. Regulatory Impact Analysis, spring . 1982; final version, spring 1983. Public Hearing--Summer 1982,. , substances for certain effects according to appropriate test standards. The : . - Agency established a reasonable timetable in which industry must - complete the development of the test.... .- data.. :-:%j ... .. .. Section 4(e) of TSCA established an. submit economic and exposure Washington, DC. - Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) to information. EPA has proposed a rule ' Public Comment Period--Spring 1982. make recommendations to the EPA ' under 8(d) of TSCA requiring industry Final Rule--Spring 1983. ' Administrator, in the form of a list, to submit unpublished health and safety Final Rule Effective--Summer 1983.' ' regarding chemical substances that - studies relating to asbestos. CPSC is .. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis--To should receive priority consideration in planning to issue a general order be determined. the Agency's development of test rules.*-'- requiring manufacturers and private labelers of some categories of consumer Available Documents For the most part, chemicals to be- included in.test rules come from the products to submit information on the ANPRM for Asbestos-Containing semiannual recommendations made by use of asbestos in those products. CPSC Materials in School Buildings--44 FR the ITC. The Committee's eight members will not require the submission of 54676. September 20.1979. . _ represent the Council on Environmental information already submitted to EPA. ANPRM for Commercial and * Quality, the Department of Commerce, OSHA plans to lower its workplace Industrial Use of Asbestos Fibers--44 the Environmental Protection Agency, standard for asbestos exposure (8-hour FR 60056, October 17.1979. the National Science Foundation, the time-weighted average) from 2 f/cc Comment period extended-^34 FR National Institute of Environmental " (fibers per cubic centimeter) to 0.1 f/cc. 73127, December 17,1979. . . -* .. Health Sciences, the National Institute CAPCO JEN 0012802 ATTACHMENT 3 CAPCO JEN 0012803 } Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30,1981 / Calendar of Federal Regs. 34121 and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for all test rules available at. proposal. Available Documents. / Chloromethane and Chlorinated Benzenes Proposed Test Rule. Proposed Health Effects Standards Amended, 45 FR 48524, July 18.1980. . Acrylamide: Response to the Interagency Testing Committee, 45 FR 48510, July 18,1980. Exemptions from Test Rules: Proposed Statement of Policy and Procedures, 45 FR 48512, July 18,1980. Proposed Health Effects Test' Standards for Toxic Substances Control Act Test Rules: Proposed Good Laboratory Practice Standards for ' -' Health Effects, 44 FR 44054, July 28.1979. Proposed Health Effects Test Standards for Toxic Substances Control Act Test Rules. 44 FR 27334, May 9,1979. The Interagency Testing Committee established under TSCA has issued six reports making.recommendations on chemicals to be covered by TSCA testing rules: First Report--42 FR 55026, October 12. 1977. ' Second Report--43 FR 16884, April 19, ' 1978. OTS Docket 040004. Third Report--43 FR 50630, October 30, 1978. OTS Docket 04005. . Fourth Report--44 FR 31886, June 1, 1979. OTS Docket 41001. Fifth Report--44 FR 70664, December 7, 1979. OTS Docket 41001. Sixth Report--45 FR 35897, May 28.1980. OPTS Docket 41002A. ' . Seventh Rule--46 FR 12317, November 25,1980. Public comments on the first test rule received during the comment period, which ended October 31,1980, are available for inspection in the OPTS Reading Room (Room 407 East Tower, 401M Street, S.W., Washington, DC ' 20460) between the hours of 8:00 a.m.". and 4:00 p.m. on working days. Transcripts of public meetings held oh October 15, October 21, October 24, October 30, and October 31,1980, are ' also available for inspection in the OPTS Reading Room. ' ". The following Proposed Support . Documents are also available in the OPTS Reading Room: 1) Chloromethane' Support Document, 2) Chlorinated Benzenes Support Document, 3) Exposure Support Document, and 4) Economic Analysis Support Document. Agency Contact Gary Timm, Environmental Scientist Test Rules Development Branch Office of Toxic Substances (TS-788) Environmental Protection Agency cis-1.2-Dichloroethylene 401M Street, S.W. trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene . Washington, DC 20460 1,1-Dichloroethylene (703)557-5771 . " Methylene chloride. Vinyl chloride ' EPA--Offlee of Water and Waste Management t Benzene. Chlorobenzene Dichlorobenzene Control of Organic Chemicals in Trichlorobenzene " ' . Drinking Water (40 CFR Part 141) Legal Authority If EPA takes no action with regard to the above chemicals, a possible health risk to the public will continue to exist The Safe Drinking Water Act, as . and the overall quality ofdrinking water amended, 412,42 U.S.C. 300(f) eiseq. will be suspect in those ground water Reason for Including This Entry areas. As a class, most of these chemicals are suspected carcinogens - The Environmental Protection Agency based upon animal tests while certain of (EPA) includes this regulation because it them are considered mutagens and/or could impose compliance costs of over teratogens. S100 million. Alternatives Under Consideration Statement of Problem Specific options are being developed Recent technological developments in and alternatives will be separately sophisticated analytical measurement evaluated for each contaminant. MCLs techniques have resulted in the identification of numerous organic will be proposed only after careful evaluation of the best available ' - contaminants in drinking water, evidence in the areas of epidemiology, particularly in some ground water toxicology, analytical methods, quality' supplies that have been contaminated by improper waste disposal practices, assurance, monitoring requirements, feasibility, and efficiency of competing that may pose a health risk to treatment methods and economic consumers. For example, choloroform, a impacts. suspected human carcinogen, is only .one of many synthetic organic chemicals Summary of Benefits known to be present in drinking water. Sectors Affected: The general public Chloroform is representative of a class in locations with contaminated ground of chemicals known as trihalomethanes water supplies: municipally and , (THMs), whose presence in drinking . privately owned public water supply water were controlled by rules finalized systems: and consulting sanitary at 44 FR 68624 on November 29,1979. engineers, analytical chemists, and Future measures to control organic equipment manufacturers and chemicals in drinking water are suppliers. . - - proceeding through an approach involving control of volatile organics in drinking water, which we will describe in an ANPRM in June 1981. The ANPRM will set forth current considerations in the development of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for certain volatile organic chemicals in the Revised Primary Drinking Water Regulations, which EPA is developing to apply to all public water systems in the United States. At this time, contamination of drinking water by volatile organics has most often been found in ground waters in urbanized and industrial areas. The levels of occurence, coupled with the suspected carcinogenicity and toxicity of several identified compounds, appear to support the setting of MCLs for some of the following compounds: In general, these MCLs will have their greatest impact on small water supply systems which currently employ little or no treatment. Of a total of 61,500 public ` water systems, approximately 45,000 use ground water exclusively as their source of supply. The vast majority of these systems are considered small water systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. Preliminary data suggest that 1 to 5 percent of these supplies may have contaminated sources of water and thereby be impacted by these regulations. The public served by such ` systems will, in particular, realize the benefits of this proposal. Consulting ` sanitary engineers, analytical chemists, and suppliers and manufacturers of anti pollution equipment will benefit from increased business. It is impossible at this time to assign Trichloroethylene direct monetary values to the benefits to Carbon tetrachloride be realized under this proposal. Such Tetrachloroethylene benefits include a lessening of public 1,2-Dichloroethane exposure to toxic substances including 1,1,1-Trichloroetharie carcinogens in drinking water and a . CAPCO JEN 0012804 34122 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30,1981 / Calendar of Federal Regs. consequential safeguarding of public Available Documents ". existing treatment, storage, and . health. . ..... Summary of Costs-' '/ ~ :*- "National Organics Reconnaissance Survey." EPA, Municipal Environmental treatment facilities and administrative - . non-technical standards for use in Research Laboratory, 1975.' issuing permits. Sectors Affected: The general public. "National Organics Monitoring ' The Phase II regulations providing the State and local governments, and " . Survey," EPA, Office of Drinking Water. . technical standards for use in issuing public water systems [both privately . "Interim Treatment Guide for.-...I- permits to hazardous waste . . and publicly owned)... Controlling Organic Contaminants in management facilities (as well as - The public in general will be the . principal group affected by this -^ proposal, since the users will undoubtedly bear the costs of any necessary modifications to their water supply systems. This will particularly be true of small water supply systems that. currently employ little or no treatment -7' Impact upon State and local '' governments will be in the ^ administrative aspects of implementing' the regulation.'! . No estimates of the economic impact are available at this time. r.y<____: Drinking Water Using Granular. .. .... Activated Carbon." EPA, Municipal ' ; Environmental Research Laboratory. : . January. 1978.::- v- Agency Contact " T' Joseph Cotruvo, Ph.D., Director v. '* Criteria and Standards Division . .Office of Drinking Water (WH-SSO) .. Environmental Protection Agency V Washington, DC 20460 . (202)472-5016 epa-owwm t :7'v:.' - companion requirements pertaining to ; permit applications) were partially promulgated on January 12,1981 (46 FR/o. 2802). That promulgation included ' " ' additional general facility standards and v standards for closure and postclosure ' and financial responsibility of facilities; permitting of storage of hazardous -. .. wastes in containers; permitting of . * - j storage and treatment in tanks, surface . impoundments, and waste piles: and . ; permitting of incinerators. Missing from the promulgation were standards for land disposal facilities--surface.-, impoundments and waste piles in which - Related Regulations and Actions' - 1. Internal: All EPA regulations that.--. affect control of chemical contaminants of water are directly related, including: Effluent Guidelines, National Pollution . Discharge Elimination System, Water Quality Criteria, Hazardous Waste Disposal Controls, and Underground'"' - Injection Control...... External: State programs would be expected to deal with decisions on ' variances and exemptions from the regulations and to provide technical assistance to public water systems . making changes in their treatment - processes. ' "-y-. Hazardous Waste Regulations: Phase II--C Regulations Applicable to Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities (40 CFR Parts 260,264, and 122*) Legal Authority .'. .V .' Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 3004 and 3005,42 U.S.C. 6924 and 6925. Reason for Including This Entry These regulations are important because they initiate, for the first time' on a national level, management of the disposal on land of hazardous waste. . The Environmental Protection Agency hazardous wastes are disposed in lieu of or in addition to their storage or ... treatment; land treatment facilities; - ` landfills; underground injection . - facilities; and underground seepage . facilities. EPA is not ready to promulgate theseTand disposal' standards (Phase II--C) and instead is . reproposing them. -' - At least 27 million wet metric tons per '.. year of hazardous wastes are currently - sent to land disposal facilities where . they are intended to remain forever.' This prevailing method for disposal of hazardous waste presents two major problems: (1) the waste and its . hazardous constituents may remain Active Government Collaboration . (EPA) includes them in the Calendar to _ hazardous for a long period of time and -- Supporting documentation for the health basis ofany regulations requires information-sharing with the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Food and Drug Administration. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Drinking WaferAdvisory Council will be.- consulted during the development of - . MCLs.. . v "... .,,. O:'. Timetable " '' inform the general public of EPA's :; ' in some cases forever, and (2) the waste continuing actions to implement a or its constituents and byproducts may comprehensive national program to. migrate from the confines of the land manage hazardous wastes from ; . disposal facility into the broader generation through transportation, environment storage, and treatment to final disposal. There are data and theoretical In addition, this qualifies as a "major' . evidence that in most cases, hazardous . rule" in accordance with Executive ... constituents placed in land disposal Order 12291. EPA projects that ... : ? facilities, even with the application of . associated costs to industries that best available technology, will . generate waste could.be $100 million or eventually migrate beyond the facility..' ' moreperyear. , Natural water from precipitation or ; .'. ''. Statement of Problem V "j"" groundwater, or liquids in the wastes, ' V ' will inevitably infiltrate the land ; ANPRM--June 1981. . Public Technical Seminar (to be . . announced)--Summer 1981. NPRM--Late fall 1981. * Final Rule--Fall 1982. ' Public Hearings--To be determined. , Because of the enormity and........... complexity of the regulatory task. EPA elected to issue its hazardous waste regulations in phases. The Phase I - regulations became effective November 19,1980. These regulations identify ' hazardous was'tes; establish standards disposal facility and generate leachate which, in tum, leaks out into the underlying soils and groundwater. - Watertight containment systems (impermeable liner and cover) and . leachate collection systems to interrupt migration are limited in the length of - Public Comment Period--Will be 90 for generators and transporters of time they can operate effectively.'. days following ANPRM publication. hazardous wastes; govern the issuance However, many hazardous wastes ' Regulatory Impact Analysis--To be of facility permits by EPA and the States placed in hazardous waste facilities, determined. ' " *' and authorization of States to implement such as toxic heavy metals or organic - Regulatory Flexibility Analysis--To a hazardous waste program; and set.. constituents, do not degrade or will do be determined. ", - both interim status standards for . so only very slowly, or leave toxic CAPCO JEN 0012805