[The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations]
[Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Plan]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
Administrator's Preamble to the Regulatory Plan
Over the nearly 25 years since its formation, the Environmental 
Protection Agency has overseen a remarkably successful effort to rid 
our Nation of the most unsightly and obvious effects of pollution. Many 
of America's rivers and streams are now restored to healthful 
recreational uses, and on any given day the air most Americans breathe 
is pure enough for all but the most vulnerable populations. We have 
made a good start in cleaning up the most threatening incidences of 
abandoned hazardous waste, and we have in place a ``cradle-to-grave'' 
network to control the indiscriminate disposal of new waste.
Undeniably, we have made a great deal of progress in a very short time. 
Not only have we committed ourselves to the cleanup of pollution, we 
have formed the national will to prevent its recurrence by thoughtful 
management and prevention.
The Job Ahead
As good as this record is, it does not tell the whole story. In some 
areas population growth and its accompanying environmental stresses 
have outpaced our efforts. In others, even as we have dealt 
successfully with many of the largest and most palpable sources of 
pollutants, we have uncovered evidence of other, more subtle dangers 
that continue to threaten our health and well-being. For example:

 Thirty years after Rachel Carson warned us in her book, 
            ``Silent Spring,'' to reduce our dependence on pesticides, 
            we have doubled our use of pesticides.
 Twenty-five years after the garbage-filled Cuyahoga River 
            spontaneously caught fire, 40 percent of our rivers and 
            lakes are not suitable for fishing or swimming.
 In 1993, residents of major U.S. cities--Milwaukee, New York, 
            and Washington, DC--were ordered to boil their water. In 
            Milwaukee, thousands got sick from contaminated water; some 
            died.
 Twenty years after passage of the Clean Air Act, one in four 
            Americans lives in an area where air quality does not meet 
            Federal standards. Meanwhile, asthma--a condition 
            aggravated by this remaining pollution--is on the rise.
 Fourteen years after Love Canal, one in four Americans lives 
            within four miles of a toxic dumpsite.
So, despite our success to date, much remains to be done.
Following the President's Lead
As one of the principal regulatory agencies in the Federal Government, 
EPA is acutely aware of its responsibility to protect public health and 
the environment in a flexible manner that does not place undue burden 
on the economy. The President has pointed out that the long-term 
strength of our economy is inextricably linked to the health of the 
environment, and vice-versa. Nevertheless, the current costs of our 
environmental investments are substantial, and the decision to pay 
those costs is often a difficult one. Therefore, EPA subscribes to the 
principles the President laid out in Executive Order 12866 to ensure 
that regulatory agencies exercise their authority prudently.
EPA seeks nonregulatory solutions whenever they can assuredly achieve 
environmental goals. When regulation is required by either law or 
circumstance, the Agency seeks to produce rules that forthrightly 
implement the law, protect public health and our Nation's ecosystems, 
and--when legally allowable--specifically account for the costs imposed 
on society. In setting environmental priorities and levels of control, 
EPA routinely analyzes the risks of pollution when legal and 
appropriate. In addition, the Agency continues to increase its outreach 
to partners in State and local government, as well as to 
environmentalists, industry, and other affected parties, to make sure 
environmental decisions reflect the best information available about 
both the problem at hand and appropriate, affordable solutions.
EPA's Common Sense Initiative
One of the specific ways in which EPA is addressing the President's 
directives is through the Common Sense Initiative, in which the Agency 
and outside groups will undertake a cooperative investigation of 
cheaper ways to provide cleaner outcomes. One consequence of EPA's 
historical approach to regulation is that any given regulated entity 
may find itself bound by a number of environmental requirements that 
are not coordinated to achieve efficiency at the point of compliance. A 
firm may find itself responding to air, water, land, and toxic-
substance controls that appear duplicative or unnecessarily burdensome. 
As a result of the regulatory burden, however, these firms are 
discouraged from making investments that might very well protect the 
environment better at a lower overall cost. While there are good 
reasons to impose multiple requirements from the perspective of 
national program management, EPA is looking for solutions to problems 
that make sense not only nationally, but also locally, where real 
people make real investments to protect the environment.
EPA's Common Sense Initiative will do something about this. The Agency 
is reaching out to several sectors of industry to examine the real 
impacts of multiple requirements at the industry/local level. For this 
initial round of discussions EPA has selected the following industries: 
auto manufacture, electronics, iron and steel, metal finishing, 
petroleum refining, and printing. Agency staff and managers intend to 
listen to industry, environmentalists, State and local governments, and 
others to learn just how multiple environmental requirements are 
working at their points of intersection.
When this process turns up ways to improve the environmental 
performance of these industries by providing cheaper, more flexible 
ways to comply with our requirements, EPA will work to bring about this 
``cheaper'' solution. In return, the Agency will look to these 
industries to identify even more effective strategies to control 
pollution in their plants and communities, so that the public benefits 
from a ``cleaner'' solution as well. By pursuing this ``cheaper, 
cleaner'' strategy with these initial industries, EPA hopes to learn 
how to better effect national environmental controls that also make 
sense locally.
Some of the areas the Common Sense Initiative will explore are: 
pollution prevention, alternative compliance mechanisms, reform of data 
management and recordkeeping (especially introduction of electronic 
reporting), review and reform of existing regulations, coordinating 
multiple new rulemakings across program lines, multimedia permitting, 
and the introduction of improved environmental technology.
Strategic Themes
In laying out its agenda under the Clinton Administration, EPA has been 
guided by several major concepts that will revolutionize not only the 
Agency, but also the way all participants think about the design and 
delivery of environmental protection. Even when a statute directs EPA 
to undertake rulemaking that will, by all outward signs, produce a 
traditional command-and-control regulation, Agency managers are using 
these concepts to guide our definition of the problem, our outreach to 
the public, and our regulatory determinations. To one extent or 
another, all of the regulations highlighted in this first Regulatory 
Plan reflect the central strategic themes described below.
A New Generation of Environmental Protection
The Vice President has challenged all of us to join him on a bold new 
path to revolutionize the Federal Government by making it more 
efficient and responsive to its customers, the American people. EPA has 
eagerly joined him in this undertaking in numerous ways. Perhaps most 
indicative of EPA's new direction is its willingness to attempt more 
flexible methods to achieve desirable results for the environment. All 
of EPA's policy actions will benefit from these new attitudes and 
approaches.
Ecosystem Protection
EPA's mission has always been to protect public health and the 
environment from the effects of environmental pollution. However, for a 
variety of reasons, EPA has concentrated a preponderance of its effort 
on health protection over the past 20 years. Today the Agency is moving 
to restore the balance between public health and ecological protection, 
because a natural environment that will not sustain abundant life in 
all its forms cannot long sustain life for the human species. In this 
plan there are regulatory actions resulting from EPA's work with 
States, localities, other Federal agencies, and such private interests 
as the agricultural community to protect and restore vital ecosystems 
to nurturing health. Actions emphasizing this theme are those affecting 
the San Francisco Bay Delta, Great Lakes Water Quality, and Endangered 
Species.
Environmental Justice
Social inequity is a fact of life in the United States, as it is 
throughout the world. When it takes the form of inordinate 
environmental risk imposed upon those who are poor or otherwise 
powerless, EPA must engage itself in reversing that injustice. 
America's young, especially poor and minority children, are frequently 
at the mercy of a world ordered primarily for the convenience of 
adults. They are particularly susceptible to long-term damage from 
exposure to lead--damage in the form of lung disorders, learning 
disabilities, and more. In this Regulatory Plan, EPA proposes to expand 
our regulation of lead contamination by identifying lead-based hazards 
in paint, soil, and dust. While such action will support improved 
protection for all population groups, a principal beneficiary will be 
the children of the poor, all too many of whom are unsuspectingly 
exposed to this insidious hazard.
Pollution Prevention
In recent years EPA has emphasized the prevention of pollution as the 
most efficient alternative to cleaning up after the damage has been 
done. The Clinton Administration is committed to maintaining this 
eminently sensible direction. If there were ever a prescription for 
cheaper, cleaner environmental protection, it surely involves pollution 
prevention at its core. In this Regulatory Plan there are a number of 
actions that promote pollution prevention as a major emphasis. For 
instance, EPA is preparing regulations to guide Risk Management 
Planning for the prevention of accidental chemical releases. This rule 
will not only assist industry in adopting appropriate safeguards for 
prevention of accidents, it will also provide further incentive for the 
minimization of hazardous chemicals in the community.
EPA's plan to expand the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), which will 
require reporting of more chemicals by more types of facilities, will 
strengthen one of the most significant tools for pollution prevention 
yet devised. Since the inception of TRI several years ago, firms using 
risky chemicals have voluntarily and very creatively reduced their 
inventories and use of these chemicals. Such firms are thereby 
improving the safety of their own processes, while affording greater 
protection to the citizens of their communities. Linked to this rule is 
a possible small-source exemption that will provide some measure of 
relief to the reporting community. This exemption will allow facilities 
releasing small amounts of listed chemicals to be exempt from full TRI 
reporting requirements. EPA's planned Chemical Use Inventory Rule under 
TSCA will fill a long-standing gap in our understanding of how 
chemicals are actually used by both consumers and industry. Such 
information will assist the Agency and the public to prevent pollution 
by substituting safer chemicals for more toxic substances now employed 
in high-risk uses.
EPA's Draft Strategy on Waste Minimization and Combustion includes a 
major initiative to encourage a reduction in the amount of hazardous 
waste generated in the country and to further ensure the safety and 
reliability of hazardous waste combustion in incinerators and 
industrial furnaces. The Draft Strategy is the focal point for a 
national dialogue both on needed actions to reduce the amount of 
hazardous wastes generated and on regulatory change to tighten controls 
on hazardous waste combustors. To ensure the success of the Strategy, 
the Agency is involving environmental groups, waste-producing 
industries, waste-management industries, States, municipalities, and 
all other interested parties in this dialogue.
Better Science and Data
 Prudent environmental management requires good information about not 
only what we know, but also what we must acknowledge as uncertain. 
While EPA will continue to respond to public concern about the 
environment, success in finding cleaner, cheaper environmental 
interventions depends on the expansion of clear, well-characterized 
information about the problems and their potential solutions. While all 
the regulatory actions in this Plan depend on such knowledge for their 
success, two are particularly illustrative of this theme. In one 
instance EPA proposes to update its methods for testing automobiles for 
fuel efficiency and emissions under actual road conditions. The closer 
we can simulate the real-world conditions under which automobiles 
actually operate, the more likely we are to meet our environmental 
goals without imposing unnecessary costs on either industry or the 
individual motorist. In another case EPA will reassess pesticide 
tolerance levels, which will refine controls on the concentration and 
toxicity of pesticides to be applied in the future. Of particular 
importance is EPA's intention to consider measurement of tolerances not 
only in the field, where they are now set, but also in the marketplace, 
where they would better reflect actual human exposure.
Environmental Partnerships
While EPA is the Federal Government's chief regulatory arm for 
environmental protection, we are by no means alone in commitment to 
this national goal. There are several Federal agencies besides EPA with 
major environmental responsibilities. States are critical components of 
our national system for environmental protection, as they issue, 
inspect, and enforce the vast majority of the permits that lie at the 
root of our system's effectiveness. Municipalities are playing an 
increasingly important role, and are bearing a great deal of the cost, 
serving the public's need for a safe, clean environment. And, to a 
marked extent, individual citizens are studying the facts and playing 
out key roles in defining what measures of protection are appropriate 
and necessary in community and home situations. EPA views all these 
authorities as partners in an increasingly effective national system of 
environmental protection.
In many of its regulatory actions, EPA is joining forces with such 
partners to determine the best environmental course to follow. The 
action to set Radiation Site Cleanup Standards will involve several 
national agencies in the design of rules to restore polluted Federal 
facilities to meet public health goals. EPA's response to a petition by 
the Northeast Ozone Transport Commission will engage the Agency in 
dialogue with several States on the possibility of imposing additional 
performance standards on motor vehicles operating in those States. Our 
redesign of the New Source Review program under the Clean Air Act will 
make the program simpler and more logical for States to administer. And 
our revision of RCRA permit procedures will open that program up to far 
more comprehensive public participation. Finally, the plan cited above 
to expand the number and type of businesses reporting toxic chemicals, 
and the number and type of chemicals to be reported, will empower 
individual citizens to participate in environmental management in their 
own communities.
Enforcement Accountability
EPA has traditionally emphasized the need for firm, assured enforcement 
of environmental requirements. In this Regulatory Plan EPA describes a 
rule to carry out the mandate of the Clean Air Act for Enhanced 
Monitoring of air sources. This action will promote fairness and 
improve air quality by requiring that stationary sources monitor and 
certify continuous compliance with applicable emissions standards. 
There is substantial flexibility built into the rule regarding the 
method of monitoring to support certification. In recognition that most 
Americans, both corporate and private, fully recognize their duty to 
obey environmental laws, EPA is complementing its zeal for enforcement 
with a commitment to support positive efforts to uphold environmental 
standards throughout society. In a recent reorganization EPA has 
complemented its vigorous effort to seek out and punish violators by 
creating a unit to provide compliance assistance to those actively 
seeking responsible, creative ways to carry out their environmental 
duties under the law.
Seeking Regulatory Alternatives
Wherever possible in its regulatory activities, EPA is pursuing the 
President's and the Administrator's emphasis on environmental quality 
at an affordable cost. Even though several of our statutes do not admit 
of cost as a factor in decisions protecting public health, where legal 
and appropriate, the Agency is exploring market-based means to achieve 
important environmental ends. Here are some examples:
Acid Rain: EPA's acid rain program uses a market-based approach to 
reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from electric utilities. Utilities are 
allowed to choose the least-cost method of control, whether installing 
pollution control devices, switching to cleaner fuels, or buying 
allowances from other utilities. This reduces overall costs while 
ensuring the desired reductions of pollutants that cause acid rain.
Stratospheric Ozone: In order to phase out ozone-depleting 
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in an orderly, cost-efficient manner, EPA's 
regulation is based on a system of allowances that encourages 
marketable permits. This system allows producers, importers, and 
exporters to trade in situations where cost can be substantially 
reduced.
MACT Standards: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must issue Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards that require sources of 
air pollution to achieve a relatively stringent minimum level of 
emissions control. This requirement prohibits the use of certain 
market-based regulatory strategies. However, provisions to allow 
``emissions averaging'' have been and will continue to be incorporated 
into various MACT rules as appropriate (for example, in the cases of 
hazardous organics, petroleum refining, and wood furniture). Emissions 
averaging allows facilities some flexibility to choose which emissions 
points to control (presumably those for which control measures are 
cheaper) in order to achieve the overall reductions required for the 
facility.
Consumer Products: EPA is exploring the use of economic incentives in 
regulations to reduce volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) from consumer 
and commercial products. The Agency will include its findings from 
these explorations in a forthcoming report to Congress. The first of 
these products to be regulated is likely to be coatings for 
architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM), which has been the 
topic of a regulatory negotiation. In the course of this negotiation, 
the committee has devised a flexible regulatory structure that might 
encompass a proposal to allow manufacturers to exceed VOC content 
thresholds in exchange for a fee based on a graduated schedule. Fee 
revenues would then be used to promote additional VOC reductions 
through recognition awards or research grants.
State Programs: EPA's Air program has worked in close partnership with 
States to promote the design and adoption of State-level economic 
incentive programs. In March EPA issued the Economic Incentive Program 
rule which establishes the framework for these programs and, in certain 
instances of nonattainment, requires them. EPA continues to provide 
technical and financial support to States to explore market incentives, 
such as emissions trading and vehicle scrappage programs.
Local Financial Assurance: Current EPA regulations require localities 
to demonstrate financial capability to properly close existing 
municipal solid waste landfills. In a forthcoming rule, the Agency will 
allow localities meeting certain criteria to ``self-insure'' for this 
purpose. The Agency estimates this new flexibility will save local 
governments $138 million or more per year.
Universal Wastes: In managing the RCRA Hazardous Waste Program, EPA has 
become aware of substantial difficulties in treating, storing, 
transporting, and disposing of certain wastes that are hazardous but 
nearly ubiquitous in our society. Examples include nickel-cadmium and 
mercuric oxide batteries and mercury-based thermometers. Since the full 
RCRA Title C hazardous waste requirements have removed the incentive to 
recycle such wastes, EPA has proposed different standards that will 
ensure responsible but more generally affordable management of these 
wastes, while providing the flexibility needed to promote recycling.
Traditional Actions
Not every action selected for emphasis in this Regulatory Plan fits 
neatly into the theme categories the Clinton Administration is 
stressing for EPA. The Agency continues to regulate environmental 
problems as prescribed by law, and a number of these actions reflect 
the fundamental ``end-of-pipe'' philosophy on which so much of our 
environmental progress to date has been built. Even these 
``traditional'' ways of doing business, however, benefit from EPA's 
``cleaner, cheaper'' philosophy. For example, in March EPA issued a 
policy under which EPA will regulate various forms of combustion under 
a coordinated plan. The rule to revise certain Technical Standards for 
Incineration under the Combustion Strategy, as well as actions to 
control Municipal Waste Combustion and Medical Waste Incineration, are 
good examples in point. EPA will construct these rules around the best 
science and data that can be assembled, broad public involvement, and 
an awareness of the effects of dioxin and other minute contaminants on 
unsuspecting consumers. And the Agency will prepare these actions in 
the knowledge that tough, coordinated control of hazardous waste 
incineration will inevitably lead to minimization of waste and the 
prevention of further pollution.
EPA will continue to make sense of the complicated structure of rules 
governing the management of hazardous waste. In one case that will mean 
adding to the list of controls, as the Agency completes its design of 
Land Disposal Restrictions. In two other related rules, the Hazardous 
Waste Identification Rules for Contaminated Media and Wastes, EPA will 
be simplifying the system by removing certain low-risk substances from 
the universe of wastes required to be treated as hazardous.
In the same spirit, EPA's imposition of controls on mobile sources of 
air toxics will benefit from new and more productive ways of carrying 
out our traditional business. For instance we will prepare a rule to 
control emissions from small-engine, off-road devices such as 
lawnmowers. Because we know the effects of this rule will reach into 
virtually every backyard in America, we plan to conduct extra 
consultation to learn how we can make it effective, practical, and well 
understood. To do this, we will initiate a Regulatory Negotiation that 
will involve representatives of all interests affected in the design of 
our regulatory proposal.
The Challenge of Safe Drinking Water
The Safe Drinking Water Act poses a special challenge to an Agency 
providing aggressive protection for public health while seeking 
creative solutions that citizens can afford. The current statute 
requires that EPA select and regulate 25 contaminants every 3 years, 
and it provides little flexibility to either the Agency or local water 
systems in responding to the Act's mandates. This plan presents in some 
detail four upcoming actions under the Safe Drinking Water Act: 
Management Standards for Class V Injection Wells, and National Primary 
Drinking Water Regulations for (1) Groundwater Disinfection, (2) the 
Phase VIB List of Organic, and (3) Inorganic Contaminants, and 
Radionuclides. Undoubtedly, the cost of these rules will be 
substantial. The Agency is currently working on still other broadly 
applicable rules under the Safe Drinking Water Act, although the next 
scheduled actions will not fall within this planning period (October 
1994 - October 1995). Most notably, these include controls on 
disinfectants and disinfection byproducts, enhanced surface-water 
filtration, and arsenic contamination.
EPA is concerned, as are all Americans, that the services and 
protection that Government provides be necessary, effective, efficient, 
and equitable. Where possible, the Agency invites broad public 
involvement and exercises judgment to ensure such a result. For 
example, the rules referenced above that will cover disinfectants and 
disinfection byproducts and enhanced surface-water filtration have been 
the subject of detailed regulatory negotiation involving a broad cross-
section of the affected public; their design and costs will reflect the 
product of that broad consensus. In many cases, however, public concern 
has been growing about the affordability of some of the rules the Safe 
Drinking Water Act will continue to mandate both now and in the future.
In response to this concern the Clinton Administration is working with 
the Congress on amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act that will 
help communities afford needed protection and allow the Agency more 
room to exercise expert judgment in the public interest. Among the most 
important features of the Administration's proposal are:

 Creation of a multibillion dollar State Revolving Fund to 
            support local drinking-water protection efforts;
 Elimination of the current requirement that EPA issue 25 new 
            standards every 3 years, and replacing it with a risk-based 
            priority-setting process that includes consultation with 
            States and scientific experts;
 Incentives and assistance to small systems for improved 
            management and consolidation of effort;
 Reduced monitoring and treatment requirements for communities 
            that prevent drinking-water contamination; and
 Upgrading of operator training and certification requirements.
EPA believes that these changes will accelerate progress toward the 
Nation's goal of providing safe, abundant drinking water at an 
affordable cost to all our citizens. The Administration is committed to 
work with the Congress to bring them about.
Conclusion
The Clinton Administration is determined to reinvent the way Government 
does business. As a member of the President's team, Administrator 
Browner is committed to involve the public fully in the public's 
business and to carry out EPA's environmental protection agenda in a 
spirit of genuine openness. The Agency is constantly reexamining how it 
conducts the public's business, and it actively solicits new ideas from 
both citizens and State and local partners. While EPA is totally 
dedicated to the achievement of its environmental goals through 
appropriate rules and aggressive enforcement, the Agency is also eager 
to find more flexible, common-sense ways to do its work without 
compromising its essential responsibilities. This is the new spirit of 
EPA, and evidence of this commitment may be found throughout this first 
annual Regulatory Plan.
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
            ___________________________________________________________
PRERULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
140. PESTICIDES; TOLERANCE PROGRAM REVISIONS
Legal Authority:


 21 USC 346 to 346(a); 21 USC 348


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 177; 40 CFR 180; 40 CFR 185; 40 CFR 186


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA is reassessing the pesticide tolerance-setting process with the 
goal of improving public health protection provided by the tolerance 
process, increasing public confidence in the safety of the food supply, 
clarifying and simplifying the process for all affected parties, and 
utilizing the most cost-efficient methods for implementation and 
compliance.


Statement of Need:


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registers pesticides for use 
in the United States under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 
(FFDCA), if a pesticide is intended to be used in a manner that will 
result in pesticide residues in food or animal feed, EPA must establish 
a maximum allowable level of pesticide residue (tolerance) or an 
exemption from the tolerance requirement, before the pesticide may be 
registered for that use under FIFRA.


FFDCA section 408 requires the establishment of tolerances for raw 
agricultural commodities, and section 409 requires the establishment of 
a food additive regulation (often called a 409 tolerance) whenever a 
pesticide comes into direct contact with a processed food or when 
processing may result in residues which are concentrated to a higher 
level in the processed form than the level allowed by the raw 
tolerance.


EPA believes that the current tolerance-setting system, which has been 
in place essentially unchanged for a number of years, does not create a 
clear and comprehensible framework for public understanding of the 
safety of the food supply. As a result, the tolerance-setting system 
lacks credibility as a means of ensuring food safety. A clear, 
consistent, and informative program is needed to explain how and why 
the EPA makes decisions about the levels of pesticide residues that may 
legally remain in the Nation's food supply.


EPA is therefore evaluating its current process for establishing 
tolerances for pesticide residues in food and feed, and intends to 
explore changes in the framework of the tolerance system, particularly 
the manner in which it evaluates dietary exposures.


Objectives. One objective of the evaluation is that the tolerance 
assessment use sound science, including more realistic and visible 
assumptions about dietary exposure. A second goal of the new approach 
is to ensure that food safety standards are more clearly ``health-
based,'' with particular attention paid to making them protective of 
children and other highly exposed subgroups.


Changes being considered address the point in the food distribution 
chain at which tolerances are established, the food forms for which 
tolerances will be established, the types and amounts of residue 
information needed to support expanded coverage of tolerances, and the 
manner in which EPA uses the data to estimate exposure.


Alternatives:


Alternatives have not been fully explored, but include expanding the 
coverage of tolerances to additional foods at additional levels in the 
distribution chain, and various changes in the way the Agency reviews 
and assesses residue data to improve its usefulness as a measure of 
dietary exposure.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


No analyses have been done to date. When specific regulatory objectives 
and alternatives are identified, costs and benefits will be evaluated.


Risks:


The tolerance-setting system is the mechanism by which the safety of 
the American food supply is protected. Fundamental improvements in this 
system can contribute to reduced pesticide use, and a better public 
understanding of the way in which tolerances function to protect the 
public health. While risk reduction may result, the principal objective 
of the reassessment is to improve the infrastructure of the system.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                                                          02/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3430.


Agency Contact:
Chris Gillis
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
7501C
Washington DC 20460
703 305-7102
RIN: 2070-AC74
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
141. TSCA CHEMICAL USE INVENTORY RULE
Legal Authority:


 15 USC 2607(a)


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 710


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action will amend the TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) promulgated 
in 1986 to require chemical manufacturers to report to EPA the 
industrial and consumer end uses of chemicals they produce. Currently, 
the IUR requires chemical manufacturers to report to EPA the names of 
the chemicals they produce, as well as the locations of manufacturing 
facilities and the quantities produced. About 4,000 facilities reported 
data on about 8,000 unique chemicals during the last reporting cycle. 
Data obtained by the amended IUR will be used by EPA and others to:

 Better understand the potential for chemical exposures and 
            then screen the chemicals now in commerce and identify 
            those of highest concern;
 Establish priorities and goals for their chemical assessment, 
            risk management and prevention programs and monitor their 
            progress;
 Encourage pollution prevention by identifying potentially 
            safer substitute chemicals for uses of potential concern; 
            and
 Enhance the effectiveness of chemical risk communication 
            efforts.


EPA has held meetings with representatives of the chemical industry, 
environmental groups, environmental justice leaders, labor groups, 
State governments and other Federal agencies to insure public 
involvement in the development of the Chemical Use Inventory project. 
In order to ensure that end use reporting is effective and minimizes 
reporting burdens, EPA plans to engage the regulated community and 
other stakeholders in a regulatory negotiation to generate a proposed 
rule.


Statement of Need:


There are approximately 70,000 chemicals in commerce and listed on the 
updated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory. EPA faces the 
challenge of sorting through these chemicals to identify the ones of 
most concern and then taking action to mitigate potential risks. The 
current TSCA Inventory Update Rule collects some of the key data, such 
as production volumes, that help to identify chemicals of concern, but 
information on how chemicals are used commercially, which is essential 
to determining possible exposure routes and scenarios and potential 
safer substitute chemicals, is not covered by IUR. This action will 
propose to modify the inventory update process so that data essential 
to an effective TSCA Inventory screening program are available to EPA.


In addition to the specifics of the kind and format of the desired end 
use data reporting, EPA would like to engage the regulatory negotiation 
participants on a number of other reforms of the IUR:

 How to include inorganic chemicals, which have been exempted 
            from reporting in the past, so that risks from these 
            chemicals can be better assessed and managed;
 How to ease the linkage of amended IUR data to other 
            environmental data sources like the Toxic Release Inventory 
            to enhance its usefulness; and
 How to change IUR reporting so that the frequency of submitter 
            confidentiality claims is reduced so that the public can 
            have better access to relevant data on toxics.


A national report will make data collected via the amended IUR publicly 
available. This report will not contain any information claimed to be 
confidential.


Alternatives:


Several alternate approaches to securing the desired chemical use data 
have been evaluated. One of the alternatives considered was whether to 
add materials accounting and other data elements to the Toxic Release 
Inventory. EPA plans to evaluate this approach in a separate project.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Total costs of this action depend on the amendments to IUR agreed on 
during the regulatory negotiation. The amended IUR will assist EPA in 
screening chemicals not in commerce and identify those of highest 
concern; establishing priorities and goals for its chemical assessment, 
risk management and prevention programs and monitor their progress; 
identifying potentially safer substitute chemicals for uses of 
potential concern; and enhancing the effectiveness of chemical risk 
communication efforts.


Risks:


This action will secure data on chemicals in commerce which describes 
how they are used which is essential to determining possible exposure 
routes and scenarios. The involvement of diverse interest groups in a 
regulatory negotiation to develop the proposed rule will insure a high 
quality project outcome. EPA's toxics program will be able to better 
focus on chemical risks of most concern.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3301.


Agency Contact:
Ward Penberthy
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
(7406)
Washington, DC 20460
202 260-1664
RIN: 2070-AC61
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
142. LEAD HAZARD STANDARDS
Legal Authority:


 15 USC 2683


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 745


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, April 28, 1994.


Abstract:


The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 requires 
EPA to promulgate regulations which identify lead-based paint hazards, 
lead-contaminated soil, and lead-contaminated dust. EPA is to identify 
the paint conditions and lead levels in dust and soil that would result 
in adverse human health effects. On July 14, 1994, EPA issued guidance 
on this topic to provide information while a proposal is being 
developed.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is required by the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X), which amended TSCA by adding a new 
Title IV. Section 403 of TSCA requires the Agency to promulgate 
regulations that define lead-based paint hazards, lead-contaminated 
dust, and lead-contaminated soil. Paint conditions and lead levels in 
dust and soil which would result in adverse health effects are to be 
identified.


This activity is needed both to reduce uncertainty in determining if a 
given situation is hazardous to children, and also to make the most 
efficient use of the Nation's resources by prioritizing actions to 
reduce lead contamination. It will allow the general public, States, 
localities, landlords, housing authorities, and others to distinguish 
hazardous situations based on the condition of the lead-based paint and 
on the lead levels of dust and soil. This will then allow them to take 
appropriate action to reduce risks to children.


Alternatives:


Alternatives to be considered include various target levels of soil and 
dust, and whether a tiered approach is preferable.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Undetermined at this time, although based on previous analyses by the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the benefits (including 
unquantified benefits) are expected to outweigh the costs.


Risks:


The reduction of childhood lead poisoning is a priority for the 
Administrator. Fetuses and young children are particularly susceptible 
to lead. Considerable data suggest a correlation between elevated blood 
lead (EBL) and delays in early neurological and physical development, 
cognitive and behavioral alterations, alterations in red blood cell 
metabolism and vitamin D synthesis, kidney impairment, anemia, and in 
extreme cases, mental retardation and death.


This action is crucial to establishing those circumstances in which 
lead exposure presents a risk to children. This is essential in making 
the Nation's housing stock lead-safe, as opposed to lead-free. Thus, 
this action will not only aid in significantly reducing risk, but it 
will also help to optimize where resources are expended.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           09/00/95
Final Action                                                   09/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3243.


Previously listed under RIN 2070-AC53.


Agency Contact:
Doreen Cantor
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
SE.
Washington DC 20460
202 260-1777
RIN: 2070-AC63
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
143. RADIATION SITE CLEANUP
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 2201/AEA 161; 42 USC 2021/AEA 274; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 
1970


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 196


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Agency is developing regulations that will set forth requirements 
for cleanup levels for sites contaminated with radionuclides. The 
regulations will be designed to protect human health and the 
environment from exposure to ionizing radioactive material subject to 
the Atomic Energy Act and to sites covered under the authority of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(i.e., Superfund sites), including but not limited to Federal 
facilities.


Statement of Need:


The proposed regulation will set standards for the remediation of soil, 
groundwater, surface water, and structures at Federal facility sites 
contaminated with radioactive material that will allow these sites to 
be released for public use. As part of the Agency's fostering of 
environmental partnerships, this regulation is being developed in 
coordination with all the relevant Federal agencies.


The number of sites in the U.S. contaminated with radioactive material 
is estimated to be in the thousands. Contaminated sites range from 
large Federal facilities (e.g., Department of Energy and Defense sites) 
to small research laboratories. The estimated cost to clean up these 
sites is $100-400 billion. Progress in cleaning up sites contaminated 
with radioactive materials has been limited and slow. These delays have 
been caused by several factors. Uncertainty about the nature and extent 
of contamination is partly to blame, but the lack of specific, 
enforceable radiation site cleanup standards has been a major 
impediment to site cleanup activities. Currently, differences in site-
specific risk assessment methods and uncertainty regarding the cleanup 
level to be achieved can result in differing levels of cleanup for the 
same radioactive contaminant found at different sites. To address these 
inconsistencies, a cleanup standard is needed to guide decisions on the 
type and level of cleanup to be completed at contaminated facilities. 
The use of a consistent radiation cleanup standard at all sites ensures 
that all ethnic, socioeconomic, and racial groups located near sites 
undergoing cleanup will be equally protected.


Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act, EPA has the 
responsibility to protect people and the environment from the harmful 
effects of ionizing radiation. In addition, Reorganization Plan No. 3 
of 1970 provides EPA with the authority to establish standards for the 
protection of people and the environment from the effects of all 
radioactive materials.


Alternatives:


EPA is considering four regulatory approaches for the radiation site 
cleanup regulation: (1) Establishing a dose or risk limit, (2) 
requiring the use of a ``lookup table'' of radionuclide- and medium-
specific concentrations that would specify cleanup standards applicable 
to all sites, (3) requiring the use of a ``lookup table'' and a pathway 
model to calculate cleanup levels site by site in response to site-
specific conditions, and (4) recommending specific technologies to be 
employed in radiation site cleanups.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Agency is currently developing a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) 
to estimate the anticipated economic effects of the draft radiation 
site cleanup rule. The RIA, however, is not typical of most Agency 
RIAs. Unique aspects associated with the cleanup of radiation-
contaminated sites require a customized approach to the RIA. Instead of 
comparing costs and benefits to set a cleanup standard, EPA will 
concentrate on maximizing protectiveness to society.


By specifying a uniform cleanup standard to be achieved at radiation 
site cleanups, the rule will lead to cost savings associated with (1) 
streamlined site assessments, (2) reduced legal costs associated with 
selecting a cleanup risk level, and (3) reduction of market barriers 
that inhibit the use of existing waste minimization technologies.


There are five major components of total cost associated with the 
cleanup of radioactively contaminated sites that will be addressed 
quantitatively: (1) the cost of precleanup activities, which includes 
initial site characterizations and legal costs; (2) the cost of 
cleanup; (3) the cost of transporting, by rail and truck, the 
contaminated soil excavated from a site to a disposal facility; (4) the 
cost of disposing of contaminated materials; and (5) the cost of 
verifying that a site cleanup has been successful and the target risk 
level has been achieved. A sixth major cost component, environmental 
degradation, will be addressed qualitatively in the RIA.


Risks:


The Agency is currently performing a number of risk analyses to 
determine a protective cleanup level for the rule. EPA is assessing net 
health impacts at various cleanup levels and under various cleanup 
scenarios. Population risk and risks to cleanup workers will also be 
evaluated. EPA is using computerized models to assess the potential 
radiation doses and associated risks to the public from all significant 
exposure scenarios, media, and exposure pathways. The risk analyses are 
focused on estimating (1) the change in risk to an individual under 
reasonable maximum exposure conditions, and (2) the number of cancers 
per year in the exposed population. The methodology is consistent with 
that described in the Agency's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund 
for Baseline Risk Assessments. The results of this analysis should help 
clarify which types of the thousands of potentially affected sites pose 
the greatest risk and the timeframes over which this risk exists.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           58 FR 54474                                    10/21/93
NPRM                                                           04/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2073.


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: Undetermined.


Agency Contact:
Barbara A. Hostage
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
(6603J)
Washington, DC 20460
202 233-9237
RIN: 2060-AB31
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
144. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS: GROUNDWATER 
DISINFECTION
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 300/SDWA 1412


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, August 30, 1995. Final, Statutory, June 18, 1989. 
Final, Judicial, August 30, 1997.


Abstract:


EPA will propose that all public water systems using groundwater use 
disinfection treatment processes, unless they have a natural 
disinfection or meet specified variance criteria. This rule will reduce 
microbial contamination risk from public water systems relying on 
groundwater as their drinking water source. The sources of microbial 
contamination are ubiquitous, and contamination can cause diarrhea, 
other gastrointestinal illness, hepatitis, and a variety of other 
illnesses. The approximately 180,000 public water systems that use 
groundwater not under direct influence of surface water will be 
affected by this regulation. Known treatment technologies include 
disinfection (through use of chlorine, chloroamines, ozone, chlorine 
dioxide, or ultraviolet); source protection; well construction codes; 
and backflow prevention programs.


Statement of Need:


Section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to establish 
disinfection requirements, including variance criteria, for all public 
water systems. This rule will meet that statutory requirement and 
reduce microbial contamination risk from public water systems relying 
on groundwater as their drinking water source. Under the regulation, 
systems would be required to disinfect the source water from each of 
their wells unless they met the natural disinfection criteria 
established under the rule, or qualified for a variance under Section 
1415 of the Safe Drinking Water Act.


Alternatives:


In order to obtain broad and timely input, two early drafts of the rule 
have already been shared with the public, the first in 1991 and the 
second in 1992. The regulation is in an early stage of development so 
the alternatives are not yet developed. One alternative which was 
considered in the strawman rule issued in 1992 is natural disinfection 
criteria which would enable a public water system to avoid chemical 
disinfection. The concept of natural disinfection is innovative. Its 
implementation poses technical problems but the intent is to avoid 
incurring cost when there would be no public health benefit. States, 
tribes, and local government officials will be invited to help the 
Agency work through these issues.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Not yet available.


Risks:


The rule is intended to reduce the risk of microbial contamination from 
groundwater drinking water sources. Almost 90 million people are served 
by 180,000 public water systems relying on groundwater as their 
drinking water source. More disease outbreaks have occurred in 
groundwater drinking water sources than surface-water drinking water 
sources.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           08/00/95
Final Action                                                   08/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2340.


Agency Contact:
Jan Auerbach
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
(4603)
Washington, DC 20460
202 260-7575
RIN: 2040-AA97
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
145. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS: 25 CONTAMINANTS FROM 
DRINKING WATER PRIORITY LIST (PHASE VI-B)--ORGANIC AND INORGANIC 
CONTAMINANTS
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 300/SDWA 1412


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Statutory, January 1, 1990. NPRM, Judicial, February 28, 1995. 
Final, Statutory, January 1, 1991. Final, Judicial, February 28, 1997.


Abstract:


EPA is scheduled to propose MCLGs and NPDWRs for 25 contaminants from 
the 1991 Drinking Water Priority List, as required by the SDWA of 1986. 
The SDWA requires regulation of at least 25 contaminants from the 
Drinking Water Priority List, which are known or anticipated to occur 
in public water systems, every 3 years starting in 1991. The SDWA 
directs EPA to promulgate MCLGs at a level at which, in the 
Administrator's judgment, ``no known or anticipated adverse effects 
occur and which allows for an adequate margin of safety.'' MCLs are 
federally enforceable standards and are set as close to the MCLGs as is 
feasible, taking costs into consideration. The 25 contaminants will be 
addressed in two rulemakings: Disinfection Byproducts (Phase VI-A) and 
Organic and Inorganic Contaminants (Phase VI-B). The Phase VI-B rule is 
intended to reduce cancer risk and other chronic toxicity exposures. 
(See separate entry for Phase VI-A.)


As required by SDWA Section 1412(b)(3), EPA plans to propose 
regulations for 19 organic and inorganic contaminants (including a 
number of pesticides) and to eventually set standards for approximately 
12 of the 19 contaminants. These contaminants can cause a variety of 
health effects such as cancer, developmental effects, nervous system 
dysfunction, and liver and kidney toxicity. An estimated 7,700 to 9,500 
water systems would be affected by the regulations. Known treatment 
technologies vary by contaminants, but include packed tower aeration, 
conventional granular activated carbon, reverse osmosis, ion exchange, 
and lime softening.


Statement of Need:


The SDWA requires regulation of at least 25 contaminants from the 
Drinking Water Priority List, which are known or anticipated to occur 
in public water systems, every 3 years starting in 1991. The SDWA 
directs EPA to promulgate maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) at a 
level at which, in the Administrator's judgment, ``no known or 
anticipated adverse effects occur and which allows for an adequate 
margin of safety.'' Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are federally 
enforceable standards and are set as close to the MCLGs as is feasible, 
taking costs into consideration. The regulations also specify 
analytical methods, treatment technology which can be used to meet the 
standard, and monitoring/reporting/recordkeeping requirements.


The 25 contaminants are being addressed in three separate rules. The 
disinfectant/disinfection byproduct (D/DBP) rule, proposed July 29, 
1994, contained 12 contaminants for regulation. An additional 
contaminant was proposed in the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, 
also proposed on July 29, 1994. Nineteen organic and inorganic 
contaminants are scheduled to be proposed in the VI-B rule. The 
nineteen are: acifluorfen, acrylonitrile, boron, bromomethane, 
cyanazine, dicamba, 2,4/2,6-dinitrotoluene, ethylene thiourea (ETU), 
hexachlorobutadiene, manganese, methomyl, metolachlor, metribuzin, 
molybdenum, 1,1,1,2-trichloroethylene, 1,2,3-trichloropropane, telone, 
trifluralin, and zinc. By proposing 32 contaminants, the Agency 
believes it will be able to meet the requirement to promulgate 
standards for at least 25 contaminants.


By requiring public water systems to meet MCLs, the rule will reduce 
exposure of the public to contaminants which are thought to be 
carcinogens or pose other chronic health effect risks.


Alternatives:


Alternative MCL levels were considered in the analysis, depending on 
different exposure scenarios. The Agency will also be requesting 
comment on the selection criteria used to identify these contaminants 
for regulation. These criteria may be revised based on pending 
legislative amendments. The Agency is developing mechanisms for 
involving States, tribes, and local government officials more closely 
in the development of this rule, the selection criteria, the 
application of the criteria to the 19 contaminants, and alternative 
compliance opportunities which present cost savings opportunities.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary benefits are that about 13 million people would have 
reduced exposure to the contaminants in the rule. The annual cost would 
be about $600 million. The annual cost reflects amortization (over a 
20-year period at a 7 percent interest rate) of $12.7 billion in 
capital costs.


Risks:


The risks posed by the contaminants being regulated include cancer and 
other chronic toxicity endpoints such as kidney and thyroid effects. 
Occurrence data were not available for several of the carcinogens to 
develop an estimate of cancer cases avoided. As stated above, for the 
noncarcinogens, the Agency estimates that about 13 million people would 
have reduced exposure as a result of the rule's implementation.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           02/00/95
Final Action                                                   02/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3509.


Agency Contact:
David Huber
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
(4603)
Washington, DC 20460
202 260-9566
RIN: 2040-AC22
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
146. MANAGEMENT OF CLASS V INJECTION WELLS UNDER PART C OF THE SAFE 
DRINKING WATER ACT
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 300f/SDWA 1421 to 1425


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 144; 40 CFR 145; 40 CFR 146


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The SDWA requires EPA to develop regulations for the protection of 
underground sources of drinking water from contamination by injection 
wells. Previously promulgated regulations specified minimum standards 
and technical requirements for Class I-IV wells. Class V wells, 
including certain septic systems and a variety of drainage wells, are 
the subject of this action. EPA intends to establish a regulatory 
framework for the management of these wells that will protect against 
contamination of groundwater while recognizing the difficulties of this 
diverse well class. Development of any regulatory program will focus on 
providing maximum flexibility to State, sub-State, and local entities. 
EPA will characterize risks associated with various Class V injection 
wells since data are unavailable for risk assessments on an individual 
subcategory basis.


Statement of Need:


The SDWA requires EPA to protect current and future underground sources 
of drinking water (USDWs) from endangerment by injection wells. One 
group of injection wells, Class V, is, as yet, not covered by specific 
technical requirements. These wells vary from simple dry wells to 
complex geothermal wells; injected fluids range from storm-water runoff 
to industrial wastewaters. EPA's 1987 Report to Congress on Class V 
Injection Wells determined that for some Class V wells, current 
regulations do not adequately protect USDWs.


In making a determination of the need for regulation of certain Class V 
wells, EPA considers how current State programs manage these wells. In 
general, additional Federal standards will not be prescribed for those 
that are adequately regulated. This comprehensive and flexible approach 
will help ensure that mandates are met, costs and burdens to affected 
entities are minimized, and effective partnerships with implementing 
States are maintained. States administering the program will 
incorporate regulations as stringent as the proposed Federal approach 
and adopt guidance as part of their comprehensive State groundwater 
protection plans.


Alternatives:


The Agency uses the risk posed by injected fluids as the primary 
criterion to determine whether specific regulatory requirements or 
guidance would be the best way to meet SDWA standards for a particular 
Class V well. Since the potential risks posed by the different types of 
wells vary, regulatory requirements would be imposed only on those 
wells judged to be endangering USDWs. Industrial and commercial wastes 
disposed of in shallow drywells and ``misused'' septic systems that 
release fluids in strata above USDWs present the greatest danger to 
public health and the environment. Cesspools, which inject untreated 
sanitary wastes, also have a high potential to endanger USDWs. The 
Agency's preferred approach would likely place specific requirements on 
certain types of Class V wells. For example, limitations would be 
placed on those that inject industrial contaminants, a ban on the 
injection of sanitary waste in cesspools serving 20 or more people 
might be imposed, and Class V wells that dispose of radioactive wastes 
below the lowermost USDW would be reclassified as Class I wells. 
Beneficial Class V wells would most likely continue to be authorized by 
rule.


For the high-risk industrial disposal wells, six alternatives were 
already analyzed, ranging from no action to limitations on the injected 
fluid and requirements for remediation. The Agency's preferred option 
would limit the injected fluid to drinking water standards at the point 
of injection, or, conversely, the well's owner/operator could 
demonstrate that injected fluids will not endanger USDWs. It would also 
require that where well closure is chosen, owners/operators must also 
test the soil for hazardous contamination and remove or manage all 
soils that meet the RCRA definition of a hazardous waste. Current 
Agency analysis indicates that this strategy achieves the highest level 
of protection of human health and the environment, allows for the 
maximum flexibility to the regulated community and State programs, and 
demonstrates a commonsense approach to an environmental risk by 
preventing pollution.


For the other wells covered by this approach, the Agency's 
investigations over the past years revealed that either such wells no 
longer exist (e.g., community cesspools) or that the wells are located 
in a State with regulations at least as strict as the proposed rule 
(e.g., low-level radioactive disposal wells in Texas). The preferred 
approach would codify these approaches.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits are 
based on the impacts associated with approximately 117,500 Class V 
industrial waste disposal operations. Annualized costs of this option 
are estimated to range from $0.9 billion to $1.2 billion. The indirect 
costs of alternative waste management practices vary from $509 to $856 
million. This range of magnitude is primarily a function of the number 
of estimated facilities, rather than high compliance costs for each 
facility. The average annualized cost per facility is estimated to 
range from about $7,774 to $10,600. The range does, however, reflect 
uncertainty about the number of affected facilities, the unit 
compliance costs estimates, and the responses of the affected 
facilities to the regulatory requirements.


Available information on which to conduct the benefits assessment was 
extremely limited. The benefits associated with each alternative were 
assessed based on the detrimental effects that these wells can have on 
the quality of USDWs, public health and the environment. What 
information is available in this area comes from case studies of 
pollution incidents caused by Class V wells. The Agency believes that 
the preferred approach would ensure a high degree of protection while 
not placing unnecessary burdens on Class V well owners/operators.


Risks:


The estimated 117,500 Class V industrial wells are believed to dispose 
of more than 4 million pounds of industrial waste annually either into 
or directly above USDWs. Additionally, an estimated 50 percent of these 
industrial wells are ``misused'' septic systems designed to treat 
sanitary waste only. These industrial contaminants impede the primary 
function of the sanitary waste treatment system, resulting in the 
release of both improperly treated domestic and industrial waste into 
the accessible environment.


Because the most likely preferred regulatory option to be proposed 
targets only this small, industrial subset of Class V wells that 
presents the highest risk to USDWs, implementation of the rule should 
result in a large reduction of risk to public health and the 
environment. Implementation of the rule will encourage owners/operators 
of Class V wells to use best management practices to reduce the amount 
of wastes generated, helping to prevent pollution and level the 
environmental compliance costs with responsible competitors that do not 
have the unfair economic advantage of Class V well disposal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           03/00/95
Final Action                                                   11/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2778.


Agency Contact:
Lee Whitehurst
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
(9602)
Washington, DC 20460
202 260-5532
RIN: 2040-AB83
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
147. IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES: HAZARDOUS WASTE 
IDENTIFICATION RULE (HWIR); WASTE
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6926


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 260; 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 262; 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 268


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, October 31, 1994.


Abstract:


This action will make modifications to the ``mixture'' and ``derived 
from'' rules. These two rules address when hazardous wastes that are 
mixed with other wastes, media, or are otherwise managed after 
generation can be determined to be no longer hazardous.


Statement of Need:


EPA is proposing to amend its regulations under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for hazardous waste 
identification. The amendment would establish exemption criteria for 
low-risk listed hazardous wastes, wastes mixtures, and derivatives.


Under the amendment, low-risk listed hazardous wastes, wastes mixtures, 
and derivatives meeting the exemption criteria would no longer be 
subject to some of the hazardous waste management requirements under 
Subtitle C of RCRA.


The provisions of this proposal will reflect a balancing of the 
Agency's informational needs for oversight and enforcement with the 
practical resource considerations of the generator. This proposal would 
reduce the demand on scarce Subtitle C landfill capacity and would not 
increase risk to humans or the environment because the exempt waste 
would be low risk and not warrant management under Subtitle C. This 
proposal will also promote pollution prevention, waste minimization, 
and development of innovative waste treatment technology.


This notice will also contain the Agency's tentative response to a 
petition for rulemaking submitted by the Chemical Manufacturers 
Association.


Alternatives:


A variety of alternatives for establishing the exemption criteria and 
the implementation requirements are currently being identified by a 
FACA committee co-chaired by EPA and the States. EPA is forging a 
strong partnership with the States in the interest of our co-regulator, 
co-implementor roles. No decisions have been made as to what the 
proposal will include.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Cost and benefit estimates are not yet available.


Risks:


This proposal would maintain current levels of risk protection.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            57 FR 21450                                    05/20/92
NPRM Withdrawn  57 FR 49280                                    10/30/92
NPRM Reproposal                                                09/00/95
Final Action                                                   03/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3328.


Agency Contact:
William A. Collins, Jr.
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(5304)
Washington, DC 20460
202 260-4791
RIN: 2050-AE07
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
148. REVISED TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTION 
FACILITIES
Legal Authority:


 42 USC /RCRA 3004(a)(q); RCRA 3005(a), CAAA section 112


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 266


Legal Deadline:


None


EPA has signed a settlement agreement to promulgate revised rules for 
industrial furnaces and incinerators by December 1996 and boilers by 
December 1999.


Abstract:


The Draft Strategy for Combustion of Hazardous Waste and a settlement 
agreement commit EPA to upgrade its technical standards for burning 
hazardous waste in incinerators, boilers and industrial furnaces. These 
standards would be applicable during the construction and operation of 
these combustion facilities.


Statement of Need:


Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, EPA is required to 
establish National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAPs) for most HWCs (i.e., incinerators, cement kilns, boilers, and 
some types of smelting furnaces). In addition, under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act, EPA is required to establish standards 
for all HWCs as necessary to ensure protection of human health and the 
environment. EPA is concerned that its current RCRA standards for HWCs 
may not be adequately protective given that there are no emission 
standards for chlorinated dioxins and furans and that there have been 
advances both in risk assessment and control technologies since 
promulgation of the current standards.


Consequently, the Agency plans to establish new emissions standards for 
HWCs under joint CAA and RCRA authority. This will avoid duplicative 
Agency effort and piecemeal regulation of the waste management 
industry.


Alternatives:


Under provisions of the CAA, the Agency plans to consider the cost-
effectiveness of emission limits more stringent than the minimum limits 
mandated by the statute. Further, the Agency plans to evaluate 
approaches to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants by improving 
good operating practices (e.g., controlling the way in which 
problematic materials such as toxic metals are introduced into the 
combustor).


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Because the rulemaking has just recently been initiated, cost and 
benefit analyses have not yet been conducted.


Risks:


Because the rulemaking has just recently been initiated, risk analyses 
have not yet been conducted.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM industrial furnaces and incinerators                      09/00/95
Final Action                                                   12/00/96
NPRM boilers                                                   09/00/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3333.


Agency Contact:
Robert Holloway
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5302W
Washington, DC 20460
703 308-8604
RIN: 2050-AE01
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
149. IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES; HAZARDOUS WASTE 
IDENTIFICATION RULE (HWIR): CONTAMINATED MEDIA
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 6912(a)/RCRA 3001; 42 USC 6905; 42 USC 6921; 42 USC 6922; 42 
USC 6926


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 260; 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 262; 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 268


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The overall goal of this regulation is to better connect the risks 
posed by media that are contaminated with hazardous wastes to the 
regulations that apply to them. Problem areas involved in the 
remediation of contaminated media will also be addressed. Certain 
current regulations that apply to all contaminated media wastes 
regardless of the concentrations and the mobility of toxicants in the 
media will be modified. The modifications will establish exemption 
standards for certain low-risk contaminated media so that they will not 
necessarily be subject to all hazardous waste management requirements.


Statement of Need:


Since 1980, EPA has promulgated comprehensive regulations under 
Subtitle C of RCRA governing the treatment, storage, disposal and 
transportation of hazardous wastes. These regulations have been 
designed primarily to discourage waste generation and disposal, and for 
those wastes generated, to prevent future environmental contamination. 
In contrast, the primary objective of the cleanup program is to achieve 
environmental improvement as quickly and effectively as possible, which 
is not always possible when there are Subtitle C requirements.


In 1993, EPA, States, and representatives from industry, environmental 
groups, and the hazardous waste treatment industry (comprising a 
Federal Advisory Committee (FACA)) reached a tentative agreement on a 
``harmonized approach'' to address this issue. This approach 
distinguishes between ``higher'' and ``lower'' level (bright line) 
contaminated media based on assessment of potential human health and 
environmental risks. The bright line would be set at a relatively high 
risk level to allow States and EPA to identify hot spots that would be 
subject to Subtitle C requirements (land-disposal regulations and MTR). 
Media above bright-line concentrations would be subject to specific 
national treatment requirements; media below the bright line would be 
exempt from Subtitle C if subject to enforceable site-specific 
management by the overseeing agency.


Among the issues that must be addressed before this rule can be 
proposed are: types of media that should be covered; types of sites 
that should be eligible; the relationship to the existing regulatory 
framework; and the risk level at which the bright line will be set.


Alternatives:


Alternative regulatory approaches for this rule will be analyzed.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Analyses of costs and benefits will be conducted as part of the 
economic analysis for this rule required under Executive Order 12866.


Risks:


One of the primary objectives of this rule is to establish requirements 
for management of contaminated media that more accurately reflect the 
risks posed by such wastes. Thus, the rule is expected to result in 
cleanups that achieve the Agency's risk reduction objectives in a more 
efficient and expeditious manner. More quantitative analysis of the 
risks associated with this rule will be included in the economic 
analysis.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            57 FR 21450                                    05/20/92
NPRM Withdrawal 57 FR 49280                                    10/30/92
Reproposal                                                     07/00/95
Final Action                                                   07/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2982.


A description of a related regulatory action appears in Regulatory Plan 
entry 2050-AE07 in Part II of this issue.


Agency Contact:
Carolyn Loomis
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(5303W)
Washington, DC 20460
703 308-8626
RIN: 2050-AE22
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
150. LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS--PHASE III: STANDARDS FOR 
DECHARACTERIZED WASTES AND TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEWLY LISTED 
CARBAMATE, ORGANOBROMINE WASTES, AND SPENT ALUMINUM POTLINERS
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 6901/RCRA 3004(m)


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 268


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Judicial, January 1996.


Abstract:


EPA will be proposing rules addressing a rule pursuant to the September 
25, 1992, decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chemical Waste 
Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d (D.C. Cir. 1992). The underlying rule at 
issue was signed on May 8, 1990, and published on June 1, 1990 (55 FR 
22520). The Phase III proposal will establish treatment standards for 
formerly characteristic wastes primarily managed in land-based 
wastewater treatment systems whose ultimate discharge is regulated 
under the Clean Water Act. Treatment standards will also be established 
for newly listed carbamates and organobromine wastes. The Phase IV 
proposal will address whether land-based wastewater systems provide 
treatment that is equivalent to that conducted under the RCRA LDR 
program. Treatment standards will also be established for wood 
preserving and mineral processing wastes.


Statement of Need:


In the Phase III rulemaking, EPA will address certain remanded issues 
pursuant to the September 25, 1992, decision of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals in Chemical Management vs. EPA, 976 F 2d (D.C. Cir. 1992). The 
proposed rule would establish treatment standards for characteristic 
wastes primarily managed in land-based wastewater treatment systems 
whose ultimate discharge is regulated under the Clean Water Act and 
which is disposed in Class I injection wells under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. These wastes include spent aluminum potliners, carbamates, 
and organobromines. The proposal will include a discussion of whether 
to define and prohibit characteristic wastes not amendable to 
biological treatment from being placed in biological surface 
impoundments (``nonamenable wastes'') and changes to the LDR program 
which were given advance notice in the Phase II LDR proposed rulemaking 
(September 14, 1994; 58 FR 48092).


In the Phase IV rulemaking, EPA will address the remaining remanded 
issues pursuant to the September 25, 1992, decision, as well as 
establish treatment standards for certain mineral processing wastes, 
wood preserving wastes, and toxicity characteristic metals. The 
remaining remanded issues include whether Clean Water Act (CWA) 
wastewater treatment systems provide treatment that is equivalent to 
that conducted under the RCRA LDR program, specifically, the 
probability that waste constituents may merely be transferred from the 
CWA treatment surface impoundment to air, sludge, or groundwater, 
rather than actually being treated so they are removed, destroyed or 
immobilized as under the LDR program.


Alternatives:


LDR treatment standards are based upon the efficiencies of best 
demonstrated available technologies (BDAT). Section 3004(m) requires 
that the treatment standards ensure substantial reductions in wastes' 
toxicity and/or mobility, such that threats to human health and the 
environment arising from subsequent land disposal are minimized.


Case-by-case exemptions to these treatment requirements can be granted 
if a petitioner successfully demonstrates to EPA that there will be no 
migration of hazardous constituents from a disposal unit for as long as 
the waste remains hazardous. Applicants for a no-migration petition 
will be required to demonstrate to a reasonable degree of certainty 
that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the 
disposal unit for as long as the waste remains hazardous.


EPA will also conduct national capacity assessments for each set of 
regulations to determine if effective dates for prohibitions should be 
extended nationally for eight individual wastes for up to 2 years. A 1-
year extension, renewable once, may be granted on a case-by-case basis 
if it can be shown for specific wastes that insufficient treatment 
capacity exists and binding contractual commitments exist to construct 
or obtain alternative treatment capacity.


EPA has also instituted petition procedures for obtaining variances, 
referred to as treatability variances or equivalent method variances, 
that may be requested when the waste cannot be treated to the specified 
level by the model treatment technology, or when the specified 
treatment technology is not appropriate for the waste. For treatability 
variances, the generator or treatment properties of the waste differ 
significantly from wastes analyzed. In developing the treatment 
standards, the waste cannot be treated to the specified levels or by 
the specified methods. Two types of treatability variances may be 
obtained. The first is a variance granted through rulemaking procedures 
that establishes a new treatability group and treatment standards for 
that waste and all similar wastes nationwide. The second is granted 
through administrative procedures, and is granted on a site-specific 
basis. For equivalent method variances, the generator or treatment 
facility must demonstrate that a technology that is different from the 
one specified in the regulations achieves an equivalent degree of 
treatment.


Finally, EPA is committed to continue to identify ways to simplify the 
LDR program. In the recent Phase II final rulemaking (signed July 29, 
1994), the Agency established a single set of ``universal'' treatment 
standards to apply to most hazardous wastes. The Agency also simplified 
notification requirements and reduced paperwork. EPA will explore 
additional opportunities for such streamlining in the Phase III and 
Phase IV rulemakings.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Because these rules involve a universe of affected entities that have 
not been affected by the LDR program before, the methodology for 
estimating the volumes and costs is still being developed. The first 
estimates of volumes for the Phase III rule are expected to be ready by 
late July 1995, with the estimates of costs ready by early August. The 
first estimates of volumes and costs for the Phase IV rule should be 
ready by the end of 1995 or early 1996.


Risks:


These rulemakings will reduce risks to human health and the environment 
to the same extent as other Agency actions.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           56 FR 55160                                    10/24/91
NPRM                                                           01/00/95
Final Action                                                   01/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3365.


This entry includes RINs 2050-AA30, 2050-AD36, 2050-AD37, and 2050-
AE05.


Agency Contact:
Peggy Vyas
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5302W
Washington, DC 20460
703 308-8594
RIN: 2050-AD38
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
151. NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM
Legal Authority:


 Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, title I


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 51.160 to 51.166; 40 CFR 51, app S; 40 CFR 52.21; 40 CFR 52.24


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The purpose of this action is to amend EPA's existing new source review 
regulations, including prevention of significant deterioration, to 
reduce the level of program complexity. In addition, certain other 
revisions will be made to improve the clarity of the existing 
regulatory language. This rulemaking will satisfy obligations under 
Exhibit B of the settlement agreement in Chemical Manufacturers vs. 
EPA, No. 79-112 (D.C. Cir.). The regulations contain procedures for 
reviewing, permitting, and specifying controls for the construction and 
modification of major air pollution sources in attainment and 
nonattainment areas. Several new source review regulations will be 
affected, including the State implementation requirements for the 
review of new sources and modifications (40 CFR 51.160-166 and Appendix 
S), the Federal prevention of significant deterioration program (40 CFR 
52.21), and Federal restrictions on new source construction (40 CFR 
52.24).


Statement of Need:


In August 1992, EPA voluntarily initiated a comprehensive effort to 
reform the NSR process. This effort was initiated to examine complaints 
from the regulated community that the current regulatory scheme is too 
complex, needlessly delays projects, and unduly restricts source 
flexibility. Currently there are no applicable statutory or judicial 
deadlines for the NSR reform rulemaking effort. The goal of this effort 
is to address industries' concerns without sacrificing the 
environmental benefits embodied in the present approach; that is, 
protecting and improving local air quality, and stimulating pollution 
prevention and advances in control technologies.


In August 1992 and March 1993, public workshops were held to obtain 
ideas and comments and discuss options for reforming NSR, but not to 
attempt to reach consensus with the group. In July 1993, the New Source 
Review (NSR) Reform Subcommittee was formed under the auspices of the 
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. The Subcommittee's purpose is to 
provide independent advice and counsel to EPA on policy and technical 
issues associated with reforming the NSR rules.


The Subcommittee is composed of representatives from industry, State/
local air pollution control agencies, environmental organizations, EPA 
headquarters and regions, and other Federal agencies (Federal Land 
Managers (National Park Service and Forest Service), Department of 
Energy, OMB). Subcommittee meetings have been held on July 21-22, 1993; 
November 8-9, 1993; January 20-21, 1994; and March 16-17, 1994. A 
Subcommittee meeting is tentatively scheduled for July 19-20, 1994, in 
Durham, N.C.


At the July 1993 meeting six subgroups were formed to address Class I 
area and control technology issues identified by the Subcommittee. 
Another two subgroups were formed at the November 1993 meeting, one to 
address NSR applicability issues and the other to address the impact of 
existing sources on Class I areas.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


There are no applicable statutory or judicial deadlines for the NSR 
reform rulemaking effort. However, the rule will address two 
outstanding settlement agreements: CMA Exhibit B and Top-down BACT. The 
pending settlement on WEPCO may impose a judicial deadline on the 
rulemaking.


Alternatives:


The Subcommittee discussed numerous options for implementing NSR 
reform. However, EPA's primary focus will be to consider the specific 
recommendations developed by the Subcommittee and, where appropriate, 
use them in this rulemaking effort.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated costs and benefits resulting from this rulemaking will 
be part of the Agency's regulatory impact analysis of this rule. The 
Agency has just begun this analysis, thus, the anticipated costs and 
benefits are not available at this time.


Risks:


This is a procedural rule applicable to a wide variety of source 
categories. Moreover, it applies to criteria pollutants for which NAAQS 
have been established. Any potential risks are considered in the NAAQS 
rulemaking from a national perspective.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/95
Final Action                                                   01/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3259.


Agency Contact:
Larry Elmoren
New Source Review Section
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-15
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919 541-5433
RIN: 2060-AE11
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
152. NAAQS: OZONE (REVIEW)
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7408 section 108 Clean Air Act; 42 USC 7409 Section 109 Clean 
Air Act


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 50.9


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, December 31, 1980.


Review at 5-year intervals thereafter.


Abstract:


The EPA is reviewing and updating the air quality criteria for ozone to 
incorporate new scientific and technical information. Based on the 
revised criteria, the EPA will determine whether revisions to the 
standards are appropriate.


Statement of Need:


In March 1993, the EPA concluded that revision of the NAAQS was 
inappropriate, based on the existing air quality criteria for ozone, 
but decided to expedite the next review of the ozone criteria and NAAQS 
in light of potentially significant new information. On February 3, 
1994, the EPA announced an accelerated schedule for completing the new 
review. In litigation challenging the March 1993 decision, the EPA 
subsequently sought and received a voluntary remand of the decision so 
it could be reconsidered in light of the new information. The EPA 
intends to complete the remand proceedings on the schedule announced in 
February. Consistent with that schedule, a draft Criteria Document was 
sent to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and made 
available for public review during February and March of 1994. The 
CASAC met in July 1994 to review the criteria document and provided 
oral and written comments, which are being considered by EPA in 
revising the draft document. Subsequent CASAC meetings will be held to 
review the revised draft criteria document and drafts of the staff 
paper.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated costs and benefits resulting from this rulemaking will 
be part of the Agency's regulatory impact analysis of this rule. The 
Agency has just begun this analysis; therefore, the anticipated costs 
and benefits are not available at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/00/96
Final Action                                                   06/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3353.


Agency Contact:
John Haines
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919 541-5533
RIN: 2060-AE57
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
153.  OZONE TRANSPORT COMMISSION; EMISSION VEHICLE PROGRAM FOR 
THE NORTHEAST OZONE TRANSPORT REGION
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7511(c)/CAA 184; 42 USC 7506/CAA 176(a); 42 USC 7525/CAA 110; 
42 USC 7521/CAA 307(a); 42 USC 7410/CAA 301; 42 USC 7607(d); 42 USC 
7601


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 85


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, November 10, 1994.


Abstract:


On February 10, 1994, the Northeast Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 
submitted a recommendation to EPA under section 184 of the Clean Air 
Act, for additional control measures to be applied throughout the 
Northeast Ozone Transport Region (OTR). Specifically, the OTC 
recommended that EPA require all State members of the OTC to adopt an 
Ozone Transport Commission Low Emission Vehicle (OTC LEV or LEV) 
program. Under section 184, EPA is to review the OTC's recommendation 
to determine whether the additional control measures are necessary to 
bring any area in the OTR into attainment by the dates specified in the 
Act, and are otherwise consistent with the Act. Based on this review, 
EPA is obligated to determine whether to approve, disapprove, or 
partially approve and partially disapprove OTC's recommendation.


Statement of Need:


On February 10, 1994, the Northeast Ozone Transport Commission 
submitted a recommendation for adoption of an Ozone Transport 
Commission Low Emission Vehicle (OTC LEV) program for the entire 
Northeast Ozone Transport Region. In keeping with EPA's emphasis on 
environmental partnerships, development of this program will engage the 
Agency in extensive dialogue with the several States in the Region.


Alternatives:


The Administrator may approve, disapprove, or partially approve and 
partially disapprove the recommendation.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A cost/benefit analysis has not been completed on this program.


Risks:


The risks are those associated with not attaining the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard for ozone within the Northeast Ozone Nonattainment 
Area, should it be determined that the recommended measure (OTC LEV) is 
necessary to such attainment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            57 FR 13498                                    04/26/94
Supplemental Notice                                            10/00/94
Final Decision Notice                                          11/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3526.


Agency Contact:
Mike Shields
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
401 M Street SW.
Washington, DC 20460
202 260-3450
RIN: 2060-AF15
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
154. MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATORS
Legal Authority:


 Clean Air Act of 1990, section 129


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 60


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, February 1995. Final, Statutory, November 1992. Final, 
Judicial, April 1996.


Abstract:


The EPA is developing new source performance standards (NSPS) and 
emission guidelines (EG) for existing sources under Sections 111 and 
129 of the Clean Air Act. The NSPS are to reflect the maximum degree of 
reductions in emissions that have been demonstrated for new units. The 
EG may be less stringent than the standards for new units. States must 
submit plans for implementing and enforcing the guidelines. Section 129 
requires that emission limits be established for particulate matter, 
sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, 
lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans. These standards 
are being developed under EPA's integrated combustion strategy, whereby 
EPA will regulate various forms of combustion under a coordinated plan. 
Two other elements of this strategy, the emission standards for 
municipal waste combustion and hazardous waste combustion, are 
summarized elsewhere in this Regulatory Plan.


Statement of Need:


The medical waste incinerator rules will establish emission limits for 
dioxins, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, cadmium, lead, mercury, 
SO2, HC1, and NOx. These rules will require maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT), as defined by Section 129, to be installed on all 
applicable facilities to reduce emissions of the above pollutants.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 129 of the Clean Air Act required the rule for medical waste 
incinerators to be promulgated by November 15, 1992. The Agency is now 
under a court-ordered deadline to propose by February 1, 1995, and 
promulgate by April 15, 1996. These rules are to include new source 
performance standards for new sources and emission guidelines for 
existing sources.


Alternatives:


The Clean Air Act specifies that the emission guidelines and the new 
source performance standards can be based on MACT, and that MACT for 
existing sources can be no less stringent than the average emission 
limitations achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units; and 
for new sources, can be no less stringent than the average emission 
limitations achieved by the best performing similar source. All control 
technologies for each pollutant as stringent as the floor or more 
stringent have been analyzed during the development of the standard.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The annualized cost of the standards for new incinerators will be in 
the range of $75 million to $215 million. The annualized cost of 
implementing the guidelines for existing incinerators will be in the 
range of $350 million to $1.2 billion. The combined standards and 
guidelines will result in reductions of dioxin emissions by more than 
99 percent, as will reductions in the 90 percent to 98 percent range 
for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and 
carbon monoxide.


Risks:


Medical waste incinerators are among the larger sources of dioxin 
emissions in the country. Because of the adverse effects of dioxin 
emissions on the public health and ecosystems, it is one of the 
Agency's highest priorities to reduce the exposure to dioxin emissions. 
These regulations will reduce dioxin emissions by more than 99 percent.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           02/00/95
Final Action                                                   04/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2719.


Agency Contact:
Rick Copland
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
(MD-13)
Research Triangle Park
NC 27711
919 541-5251
RIN: 2060-AC62
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
155. NSPS: MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION--PHASE II AND PHASE III
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 4111/Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, section 129


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 60


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, September 1, 1994. Final, Judicial, September 1, 1995.


NPRM, Statutory, November 1991, for Phase II/Large MWCs.


NPRM, Statutory, November 1992, for Phase III/Small MWCs.


Abstract:


The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 direct EPA to set standards of 
performance and emission guidelines for new and existing municipal 
waste combustors under Sections 111 and 129; to base these standards 
and guidelines on maximum achievable control technology; and to include 
emission limits for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen 
chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, mercury, lead, cadmium, 
and dioxins and dibenzofurans. The standards for both large and small 
municipal waste combustors have been combined into one set of 
standards. These standards are being developed under EPA's integrated 
combustion strategy, whereby EPA will regulate various forms of 
combustion under a coordinated plan. Two other elements of this 
strategy, the emission standards for medical waste and hazardous waste 
combustion, are summarized elsewhere in this Regulatory Plan.


Statement of Need:


The municipal waste combustor rules will establish emission limits for 
dioxins, particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, SO2, HC1, and NOx. 
These rules will require maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 
as defined by Section 129 to be installed on all applicable facilities 
to reduce emissions of the above pollutants.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 129 of the Clean Air Act required the rule for municipal waste 
combustors burning greater than 250 tons per day of waste be 
promulgated on November 15, 1991, and the rule for municipal waste 
combustors burning less than 250 tons per day be promulgated by 
November 15, 1992. The Agency is now under court-ordered deadline for 
both rules to be proposed by September 1, 1994, and promulgated by 
September 1, 1995. These rules are to include new source performance 
standards for new sources and emission guidelines for existing sources.


Alternatives:


The Clean Air Act specifies that the emission guidelines and the new 
source performance standards be based on MACT and that MACT for 
existing sources can be no less stringent than the average emission 
limitations achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units and/or 
new sources can be no less stringent than the average emission 
limitations achieved by the best performing similar source. All control 
technologies for each pollutant as stringent as the floor or more 
stringent have been analyzed during the development of the standard.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The annualized cost for the new source performance standards for new 
municipal waste combustors will be about $43 million. The annualized 
cost for the emission guidelines for existing municipal waste 
combustors will be about $445 million. Dioxin, particulate matter, 
cadmium, and lead emissions will be reduced by more than 99 percent. 
Mercury emissions will be reduced by 85 percent, SO2 and HCl emissions 
by 95 percent, and NOx emissions by 45 percent. The quantified benefits 
associated with the rule and the guidelines are in excess of $266 
million per year, but the benefit assessment is incomplete at this 
time. In particular, the current benefit estimate does not include 
benefits for the control of dioxin, mercury, lead, cadmium, NOx, or 
carbon monoxide. No valuation of these pollutants is possible at this 
time.


Risks:


Municipal waste combustors are among the larger sources of dioxin 
emissions in the country. Because of the adverse effects of dioxin 
emissions on the public health and ecosystems, it is one of the 
Agency's highest priorities to reduce the exposure to dioxin emissions 
by more than 99 percent.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/94
Final Action                                                   09/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2916.


Agency Contact:
Walt Stevenson
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
(MD-13)
Research Triangle Park
NC 27711
919 541-5264
RIN: 2060-AD00
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
156. REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE FOR EMISSIONS FROM MOTOR 
VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES
Legal Authority:


 PL 101-549, Sec 208


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 86


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, January 31, 1995. Final, Statutory, May 15, 1992. 
Final, Judicial, October 31, 1995. Other, Judicial, May 15, 1993.


Original statutory deadline (5/15/92) is from 11/90 Clean Air Act 
Amendments. Other Judicial date: per U.S. District Court Consent 
Decree, EPA issued a preliminary technical report on 5/15/93.


Abstract:


This action revises the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) used to design all 
Federal emissions test methods, as well as all federally approved 
methods of estimating and projecting emissions from automobiles. This 
revision will advance the Agency's strategic aim of using better 
science and better data by assuring that automobiles can be accurately 
tested for compliance with Federal standards, and it will also enable 
EPA and others to obtain accurate emission inventories and projections 
to assist in planning for attainment of national air quality standards.


Statement of Need:


Section 206(h) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to ``review and revise 
as necessary'' the regulations governing the FTP to ``insure that 
vehicles are tested under circumstances which reflect the actual 
current driving conditions under which motor vehicles are used, 
including conditions relating to fuel, temperature, acceleration, and 
altitude.'' The driving cycle used for the FTP was adopted over 20 
years ago, and accumulated research suggests that it may no longer 
adequately represent overall vehicle emission control performance under 
current driving conditions. Extensive surveys of current driving 
behavior conducted by the EPA indicate significant difference between 
actual driving behavior and the current FTP. New test cycles determined 
from the driving behavior surveys were used to compare emissions 
predicted by the FTP with emissions that occur in actual driving. The 
test results support the need for revisions to the FTP.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


EPA is under court order to revise the Federal Test Procedure.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A costs and benefits analysis has not been completed on this program.


Risks:


The risks addressed by this action are those associated with not 
attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon 
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. These risks have been 
extensively detailed as part of the individual rulemakings setting 
these national standards. Achievement and maintenance of attainment of 
the standards depend in part on accurate knowledge of the emissions 
characteristics of sources, including automobiles. This action will 
increase the accuracy of such knowledge by incorporating the latest 
techniques of emission measurement.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/95
Final Action                                                   10/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3323.


Agency Contact:
John German
Chief, Special Projects Staff
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Lab
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
313 668-4214
RIN: 2060-AE27
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
157. CONTROL OF AIR TOXICS EMISSIONS FROM MOTOR VEHICLES
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7545/CAA 211; 42 USC 7521/CAA 202


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 80; 40 CFR 86


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, May 15, 1995.


Abstract:


The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require EPA to study the need for 
and feasibility of controlling toxic air pollutants associated with 
motor vehicles and fuels. Based on this study, EPA must promulgate 
standards containing reasonable requirements to control such toxic 
emissions, applied at a minimum to benzene and formaldehyde.


Statement of Need:


The Clean Air Act of 1990 required EPA to study the need for and 
feasibility of controlling toxic air pollutants associated with motor 
vehicles and fuels. Based on this study, EPA must promulgate standards 
containing reasonable requirements to control such toxics--at a minimum 
benzene and formaldehyde. A study was completed and promulgated by EPA 
on April 30, 1993. In keeping with the Agency's emphasis on better 
science and data, this study is presently undergoing a peer review 
process.


Alternatives:


EPA may draw on the reformulated gasoline rule, which will reduce toxic 
emissions from mobile sources in areas covered by the reformulated 
gasoline program.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A cost and benefits analysis has not been completed on this program.


Risks:


The air toxics study currently under review found that approximately 
half the excess cancer risk due to air pollution is caused by mobile 
sources.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/94
Final Action                                                   05/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2769.


Agency Contact:
Judy Gray
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
313 668-4231
RIN: 2060-AC75
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
158. EMISSION STANDARDS FOR NEW NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES AT AND 
BELOW 19 KILOWATTS (25 HORSEPOWER) (PHASE 2)
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7547/CAA 213


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 90


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, April 30, 1996. Final, Statutory, November 15, 1992. 
Final, Judicial, April 30, 1997.


Abstract:


This action will establish the second phase of emission standards for 
new nonroad spark-ignition engines at and below 19 kilowatts (25 
horsepower), as required by section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act as 
amended. This action is the product of a negotiated rulemaking.


Statement of Need:


EPA's 1991 study of nonroad emissions clearly showed that exhaust from 
the Nation's 89 million pieces of lawn and garden equipment is a 
significant source of volatile organic compound and carbon monoxide 
emissions. This rulemaking will establish emission standards for new 
nonroad spark-ignition engines at and below 19 kilowatts (25 
horsepower), as required by section 213(a) of the Clean Air Act.


Alternatives:


EPA is under court order to finalize nonroad standards.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Manufacturers are expected to meet the Phase I standards, which would 
become effective in 1996, with technology, primarily by improving the 
air and fuel mixture. Hydrocarbon emissions, which contribute to the 
formation of ground-level ozone, will be reduced 32 percent.


Risks:


The risks addressed by this action are those associated with not 
attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and 
carbon monoxide. These risks have been extensively detailed as part of 
the individual rulemakings setting these national standards. Emissions 
from this category of engines are known to be a significant source of 
ozone precursors and carbon monoxide.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           04/00/96
Final Action                                                   04/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3361.


Agency Contact:
Lucie Audette
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Lab
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
313 741-7850
RIN: 2060-AE29
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
159. RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR CHEMICAL ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION
Legal Authority:


 PL 101-549; Clean Air Act Section 112(r)


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 68


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, November 15, 1993.


Abstract:


Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, required the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate by November 15, 
1993, reasonable regulations and appropriate guidance to provide for 
prevention and detection of accidental releases of chemicals and for 
responses to such releases. These regulations shall include, as 
appropriate, provisions concerning the use, operation, repair, and 
maintenance of equipment to monitor, detect, inspect, and control 
releases, including training of personnel in the use and maintenance of 
equipment or in the conduct of periodic inspections. The regulations 
shall require the owner or operator of stationary sources at which a 
regulated substance is present to prepare and implement a risk 
management plan (RMP) and provide emergency response in order to 
protect human health and the environment. EPA has established an 
Agency-wide work group, which has brought technical, legal, and policy 
experience and expertise in the chemical process, safety risk 
management, and other areas related to risk management plans for 
chemical accidental release prevention. EPA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on October 20, 1993, 40 FR 54190.


These regulations will promote pollution prevention as well as 
prevention of chemical accidents. They not only will assist industry in 
erecting appropriate safeguards, but they also will provide further 
incentive for the minimization of hazardous chemicals in the community.


Each RMP must include a hazard assessment that evaluates the potential 
effects of an accidental release of any regulated substance. The hazard 
assessment must include an estimate of potential release quantities and 
downwind effects, including potential exposure to populations. It must 
also include a 5-year release history, including the size, 
concentration, and duration of releases, and must consider worst-case 
release scenarios. The RMP must document a prevention program, 
including safety precautions, maintenance, monitoring, and employee 
training measures. It must document a response program that provides 
specific action to be taken to protect human health and the environment 
in response to a release, including the informing of public and local 
agencies, emergency health care, and employee training.


Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA also requires that:

 The RMPs must be registered with EPA;
 The plans must be submitted to the Chemical Safety and Hazard 
            Investigation Board, to the State in which the facility is 
            located, and to any local agency that has responsibility 
            for planning for or responding to chemical accidents;
 The plans must be made available to the public, as required by 
            CAA section 114(c);
 EPA must establish a system for auditing the RMPs; and
 EPA must ensure that plans are periodically updated.


 Section 112(r)(3) of CAA required EPA to develop and promulgate by 
November 15, 1992, a list of at least 100 substances (``regulated 
substances'') that are known to cause or may be reasonably anticipated 
to cause death, injury, or serious adverse health effects to human 
health or the environment. EPA is also required to set threshold 
quantities for each listed substance and develop procedures for 
addition and deletion of substances from the list. EPA promulgated this 
rule on January 30, 1994, at 40 FR 4478.


The list and thresholds promulgated under CAA section 112(r)(3) will 
determine which facilities must comply with the accident prevention 
regulations required under section 112(r)(7) of CAA; that is, those 
stationary sources that have presented more than a threshold quantity 
of a regulated substance.


Statement of Need:


Existing Federal regulations addressing the potential for catastrophic 
events related to chemical substances are focused on emergency 
preparedness and response. Specifically, the Emergency Planning and 
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) established the structure at the 
State and local levels to deal with emergency planning and response to 
chemical accidents. Several other laws and programs at the Federal 
level dealt with emergency response to chemical accidents: the Clean 
Water Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act (CERCLA) created the National Oil and Hazardous 
Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP sets up the Federal 
Government's emergency response structure and procedures for responding 
to chemical accidents. The accidental-release prevention provisions 
under the CAA recognize the need for integrating emergency preparedness 
and response with activities to prevent accidental releases from 
occurring in the first place.


The proposed rule for the prevention and detection program, including 
RMPs for accidental-release prevention, required industry to develop an 
integrated, holistic approach to managing the risk posed by the 
presence and use of regulated substances. In the development of its 
risk management program, EPA has also been coordinating with the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). EPA's proposed 
RMP rule adopts and builds on process safety management elements 
included in OSHA's chemical process safety standard required under 
section 304 of the CAA amendments of 1990. (OSHA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on July 17, 1990, 55 FR 29150, and a final 
rule on February 24, 1992, 57 FR 6316.) These elements include process 
information, process hazard analysis, standard operating procedures, 
training, prestartup reviews, mechanical integrity, management of 
change, accident investigation, safety audits, and emergency response.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





The legal basis for this rulemaking is summarized in the ``Abstract'' 
section.


Alternatives:


EPA developed its proposed rule after an extensive information-
gathering effort. Three States--California, New Jersey, and Delaware--
have risk management plan requirements under State laws. EPA met with 
officials in all three States and held interviews with seven facilities 
in these States. EPA then held eight focus groups, five with facilities 
and three with implementing agencies, in the three States to solicit 
their opinions on existing and proposed regulations. Finally, EPA held 
a 2-day roundtable seminar associated with the risk management planning 
requirements. State officials, trade associations, labor unions, 
environmentalists, and organizations of public officials participated 
in the discussions.


EPA evaluated two options for the risk management program: Program 
Option 1, the proposed rule, included the statutorily mandated elements 
(hazard assessment, registration, emergency response program, and risk 
management plan) plus the mandated prevention program that adopted 
OSHA's process safety management standard. Program Option 2, based on 
the New Jersey risk management program, includes all listed elements 
but requires a greater level of documentation and more detailed 
requirements for many elements.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Because, from an economic perspective, the RMP regulations and the list 
of regulated substances are inseparable, EPA prepared a regulatory 
impact analysis (RIA) that combines the two requirements. As indicated 
in the previous section, the RIA evaluated two options for the risk 
management program. Because the two program options cover the same 
elements with the only difference between the two the level of detail, 
it was not possible to develop separate estimates of the benefits for 
the two program options based on data available. Consequently, only one 
set of benefits estimates was developed.


EPA's proposed option is list 2 in Program Option 1, which is estimated 
to have an initial cost of $503 million and quantifiable annual 
benefits of $890 million. The proposed rule is expected to result in 
other, nonquantifiable benefits as well. By reducing the likelihood of 
accidental releases and the likelihood that any release will be 
catastrophic, the rule should reduce facility operating costs which may 
result in greater output, higher wages, and lower costs for the output. 
The rule will also encourage facilities to reduce the quantity of 
hazardous substances stored onsite and to shift to less toxic 
chemicals, reducing the risk to both workers and the public. Finally, 
the information provided to the public through the mandated RMP will be 
useful to both the public and governments at all levels.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            58 FR 54190                                    10/22/93
Supplemental NPRM                                              02/00/95
Final Action                                                   05/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2979.


Agency Contact:
Lyse Helsing
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(5101)
Washington, DC 20460
202 260-6128
RIN: 2050-AD26
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
160. ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION PROGRAM
Legal Authority:


 PL 100-478, Sec 1010


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Pesticides are necessary for production of agricultural food and fiber 
commodities, yet have the potential to harm threatened or endangered 
species. EPA will develop and implement an endangered species pesticide 
labeling program designed to conserve federally listed species and to 
minimize the impacts to persons who use pesticides. The program will 
include development of species maps and pesticide use limitation 
bulletins to be distributed as an extension of pesticide labels. 
Pesticides that are determined to cause harm to endangered species will 
require label changes which display precautionary statements and 
directions on how to obtain county bulletins. EPA will coordinate the 
program with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of 
Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.


Statement of Need:


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registers pesticides for use 
in the United States under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that 
EPA ensure that registered uses of pesticides will not jeopardize the 
continued existence or destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat 
of federally listed endangered or threatened species (listed species).


Section 7 of the ESA imposes requirements on EPA to consult with the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (for most species) or the U.S. National 
Marines Fisheries Service (for marine species) if the use of a 
pesticide ``may affect'' a listed species or its critical habitat. At 
the same time, section 1010 of the 1988 amendments to the ESA requires 
EPA to work jointly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the 
U.S. Department of Interior (USDI) to ensure that listed species are 
protected from pesticides while also minimizing the impacts on 
pesticide users. Balancing these responsibilities has led to the 
development of the Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP).


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Under FIFRA, use of a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its 
labeling is a violation of the law. Thus, in general, ESPP relies on 
the labeling of pesticide products that may harm listed species or 
their habitat. If data indicate that a pesticide may adversely affect 
an endangered or threatened species, EPA will seek a biological opinion 
from USDI. If the opinion indicates that the pesticide ``may affect'' 
the species or its habitat, it will also include recommendations for 
mitigating actions or practices. EPA will then minimize the jeopardy 
through the use of use restrictions described in detail in county-
specific bulletins and maps which show the geographical area within 
which use must be restricted. Pesticide product label statements will 
then instruct the user to consult county bulletins for further 
instruction.


Alternatives:


The 1988 ESA amendments required EPA to conduct an analysis of 
alternatives for the program and to solicit public comment on the 
elements of the program. As noted above, creating an enforceable 
program under FIFRA must rely on the labeling of pesticide products. 
Public comments resulting from two proposals in the Federal Register 
did not reveal alternatives to the labeling/bulletin approach, but did 
offer a number of alternatives within this overall approach. Most of 
these alternatives relied on more local input and involvement in 
determining the pesticide use limitations necessary to protect listed 
species. To the extent that they were practical and efficient, these 
alternatives, such as State-initiated plans and landowner agreements, 
were incorporated into the ESPP.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The benefits of the ESPP are to contribute to the preservation and 
recovery of endangered and threatened species, specifically, and to 
maintain and enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in general. 
The benefits of preserving species are generally acknowledged as being 
exceedingly high, but cannot be determined on a dollar basis.


The EPA used a case-study approach to analyze economic impacts, based 
upon the provisions of the program originally intended for 
implementation in 1988. The results of these case studies have been 
submitted to OMB, and OMB has been briefed on the results. Costs to 
pesticide users will be of two types: (1) opportunity costs to 
determine any pesticide use limitations that might apply to their 
situation, and (2) costs associated with potential crop losses of the 
use of higher cost alternative pesticides, when restrictions limit 
these to the pesticide of choice. Costs based on these case studies 
could not be extrapolated to the Nation as a whole. To a moderate 
extent, costs are dependent upon the listing of additional species and 
possible future changes in the ESA.


Risks:


Most pesticides could cause harm to some listed species that are 
exposed; for example, nearly all herbicides could affect endangered 
plants. Pesticide use limitations instituted by the ESPP should result 
in no exposure or exposure below levels of concern for listed species. 
Without these use limitations, there is a moderate-to-high probability 
that some listed species would be harmed by pesticides. EPA is allowing 
the maximum flexibility, consistent with the ESA, for local involvement 
to design measures that are both protective of the species and not 
unnecessarily disruptive of agricultural production, vector control, or 
other pesticide uses.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Final Endangered Species Protection Program
Notice 12/31/94
Proposed Endangered Species Protection Program
Notice 07/03/89 (54 FR 27984)
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3113.


Agency Contact:
Larry Turner
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
7507C
Washington, DC 20460
703 305-5007
RIN: 2070-AC42
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
161. CHEMICAL LIST EXPANSION; EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-
TO-KNOW ACT SECTION 313
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 11013; 42 USC 11023; 42 USC 11048; 42 USC 11076/EPCRA 313


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 372


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The original Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemical list consisted of 
320 chemicals and chemical categories. In an effort to provide the 
public with a broader picture of chemicals that will have to submit 
information for the Toxics Release Inventory in their communities, EPA 
is expanding the original TRI chemical list. On January 12, 1994 (59 FR 
1788), EPA published a proposed rule to add 313 chemicals and chemical 
categories to the TRI chemical list. Of the 313 chemicals and chemical 
categories proposed, there are approximately 160 pesticide active 
ingredients. The chemicals and chemical categories being proposed were 
selected from numerous other regulatory lists and meet the criteria for 
human health and environmental toxicity and in addition are extremely 
toxic to aquatic organisms, EPCRA section 313(d)(2). In addition, the 
chemicals passed a production volume screen to ensure that reports 
would be received if the substance is added to the TRI chemical list. 
Part of this activity included the review of 17 chemicals, previously 
described in RIN 2070-AC40, 16 of which are from a list of hazardous 
air pollutants subject to the requirements of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, and one of which was considered for addition due to 
its extreme aquatic toxicity. Of these 17 chemicals, nine were included 
in the proposed rule. Linked to this rule is a possible small-source 
exemption that will provide some measure of relief to the reporting 
community. This exemption will allow facilities releasing small amounts 
of listed chemicals to be exempt from full TRI reporting requirements.


Statement of Need:


The original Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) chemical list consisted of 
320 chemicals and chemical categories. In an effort to provide the 
public with a broader picture of chemicals in their communities, EPA, 
in accordance with EPCRA section 313(d), is expanding the original 
toxic chemical list. By providing the public with information on these 
chemicals they can participate in informed environmental decisionmaking 
to reduce risks to human health and the environment. On January 12, 
1994 (59 FR 1788), EPA published a proposed rule to add 313 chemicals 
and chemical categories to the TRI chemical list. Of the 313 chemicals 
and chemical categories proposed, there are approximately 160 pesticide 
active ingredients. The chemicals being proposed were selected from 
numerous other regulatory lists and meet the criteria for human health 
and environmental toxicity in EPCRA section 313(d)(2). In addition, the 
chemicals passed a production volume screen to ensure that reports 
would be received if they are added to the TRI list. Part of this 
activity included the review of 17 chemicals, previously described in 
RIN 2070-AC40/SAN 3007. Sixteen of these chemicals are from a list of 
hazardous air pollutants subject to requirements of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, and one was considered for addition due to its 
extreme aquatic toxicity. Of these 17 chemicals nine were included in 
the proposed rule.


Alternatives:


There were several alternatives that were considered in the analysis 
and included in the proposed rule. EPA asked for public comment on all 
of these issues as well as the entire proposed rule. One of the 
alternatives considered is whether to add categories of chemicals (for 
example, disocyanates) versus individual chemicals. Another alternative 
is to not add those proposed chemicals for which data are collected 
under the Clean Air Act if this information can be made readily 
available to the public. In addition, EPA considered the option of 
adding chemicals that are persistent bioaccumulators to TRI and how to 
modify reporting thresholds so that reports for these chemicals would 
be received.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated total costs of this action for the first year are 
estimated at $161 million and $91 million for subsequent years. The 
addition of chemicals to the TRI is intended to expand upon the past 
success of the program in enabling all interested parties to establish 
credible baselines and to set realistic goals over time. The 
information reported in TRI increases knowledge of levels of pollutants 
released to the environment and pathways of exposure, improving 
scientific understanding of the health and environmental risks of toxic 
chemicals; allows the public to make informed decisions on where to 
work and live; enhances the ability of corporate lenders and purchasers 
to more accurately gauge a facility's potential liabilities; and 
assists Federal, State, and local authorities in making better 
decisions on acceptable levels of toxics in communities.


Risks:


While the substances proposed for addition to the TRI list are, on 
average, of smaller total national impact than those chemicals 
currently listed, the manufacturing, processing, or use of these 
chemicals may still represent a significant concern for individual 
communities where such chemical activity is concentrated. EPA believes 
that the public has a right to know about such releases and what 
facilities are doing to manage wastes containing these chemicals. The 
public can use this data to evaluate potential risks from these 
chemicals and to determine how to avoid these risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 1788                                     01/12/94
Final Action                                                   11/30/94
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3007.


Agency Contact:
Susan B. Hazen
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
SE.
Washington, DC 20460
202 260-1024
RIN: 2070-AC47
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
162. WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES SYSTEM
Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1251/CWA 118(c)(2)


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 132


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Statutory, June 30, 1991. NPRM, Judicial, April 16, 1993. Final, 
Statutory, June 30, 1992. Final, Judicial, March 13, 1995.


Abstract:


The Great Lakes are a valuable national resource, with unique 
environmental problems. In 1990 the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act 
was enacted, requiring States to adopt minimum water quality standards 
for the protection of the Great Lakes System.


Statement of Need:


The proposed part 132 rule establishes minimum water quality standards, 
antidegradation policies, and implementing procedures for the waters of 
the Great Lakes System in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, 
Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin, including waters 
within the jurisdiction of Indian Tribes. The proposed rule specifies 
numeric criteria for selected pollutants to protect aquatic life, 
wildlife and human health within the Great Lakes System and provides 
methodologies to derive numeric criteria for additional pollutants 
discharged to these waters. The proposed Part 132 rule also contains 
specific procedures to translate the proposed ambient water quality 
criteria into enforceable controls on discharges of pollutants, and a 
proposed antidegradation policy for the Great Lakes System.


The numeric water quality criteria are critical to the success of the 
Agency's multimedia efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes 
ecosystem and would serve as the water quality goals for other elements 
of our Great Lakes System, such as remedial action plans and lakewide 
management plans, which specifically target nonpoint sources of 
pollution for ``cleanup'' within the Great Lakes System.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


This regulation constitutes the Water Quality Guidance for the Great 
Lakes System required by section 118(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act (Pub. 
L. 92-500 as amended by the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990, 
Pub. L. 101-596). This guidance specifies minimum water quality 
standards, antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures for 
the Great Lakes System to protect human health, aquatic life, and 
wildlife.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Based on the information provided by each State and a review of the 
permit files, EPA identified about 3,800 direct dischargers that could 
be affected by the Part 132 proposal. Of these, about 590 are major 
dischargers and the remaining 3,210 are minor dischargers. Of the 590 
majors, about 275 are industrial facilities and 315 are publicly owned 
treatment works (POTWs). Out of these dischargers, EPA used a 
stratified random sampling procedure to select 59 facilities (50 major 
and 9 minor) that it considered representative of all types and sizes 
of facilities in the basin.


The estimated total annualized costs for direct and indirect 
dischargers to implement the Part 132 proposal is between $80 million 
and $505 million (first-quarter 1992 dollars); costs under the most 
likely scenario (with a focus on pollution prevention) are about $190 
million. Under Scenario 2, major industrial facilities and POTWs 
account for about 53 percent of the costs, indirect dischargers about 
41 percent, and minor dischargers about 6 percent. Among the major 
dischargers three categories account for about 80 percent of the costs-
-POTWs (37 percent), organic chemicals/petroleum refining (27 percent), 
and pulp and paper (15 percent). The Agency estimated the cost 
effectiveness of the proposed Part 132 rule in terms of cost of 
reducing the loadings of toxic pollutants.


Future Analyses: We continue to seek involvement of other Federal 
agencies and interested parties. We held numerous meetings with the 
general public, industry, environmental groups, local governments, and 
state regulatory agencies. A second open public meeting is being 
planned for the September/October 1994 time period. A Federal Register 
notice announcing the meeting will appear in the Federal Register in 
August. The purpose will be to discuss options on a narrow range of 
issues that are being considered in developing the final Part 132 Rule. 
We will seriously consider all the comments, information and data 
provided by the public in developing the Part 132 Rule.


Risks:


The Great Lakes basin is a complex hydrologic system where pollutants 
can remain in the ecosystem for many years. This presents an increased 
risk to aquatic life and wildlife throughout the Great Lakes basin. The 
effects of toxic pollutants on aquatic life and wildlife in the Great 
Lakes System have been shown to include reproductive damage, wasting, 
deformities, tumors, and behavioral changes.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Proposed Guidanc58 FR 20802                                    04/16/93
Final Guidance                                                 03/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3203.


Agency Contact:
Mark Morris
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
(4301)
Washington, DC 20460
202 260-0312
RIN: 2040-AC08
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
163. SAN FRANCISCO BAY/DELTA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1251


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 137.37


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, April 6, 1994. Final, Judicial, December 15, 1994.


Abstract:


On December 15, 1993, the Administrator signed a notice proposing 
Federal water quality standards for the San Francisco Bay/Delta 
estuary. EPA had been sued by numerous environmental groups to propose 
such standards following its disapproval of portions of the State's 
water-quality standards in September 1991. EPA Region 9 disapproved the 
State's standards because they were not adequate to protect the 
designated fish and wildlife uses of the estuary, as required by 
section 303 of the Clean Water Act. EPA took this action in conjunction 
with rulemakings by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National 
Marine Fisheries under the Endangered Species Act, all of which were 
published together on January 6, 1994.


Statement of Need:


In 1978, the State of California (the State) adopted and submitted to 
EPA a Water Quality Control Plan (1978 Delta Plan) intended to protect 
designated uses of the Bay/Delta estuary. While EPA approved the 1978 
Delta Plan, the Agency conditioned its approval upon (1) a set of 
``interpretations'' of the standards, and (2) the State's commitment to 
develop additional criteria to protect aquatic life and tidal wetlands 
in and surrounding Suisun Marsh. For the next decade, EPA largely 
deferred to the State regarding decisions about estuarine protection. 
In that time, populations of virtually all of the estuary's key fish 
species plummeted--some to record low levels. In May 1991, when the 
State submitted its 1991 Bay/Delta Plan to amend certain salinity 
criteria and adopt new temperature and dissolved oxygen criteria, EPA's 
longstanding concerns were not resolved. Consequently, in September 
1991, EPA disapproved portions of the State's 1991 Bay/Delta Plan 
because they did not adequately protect the designated fish and 
wildlife uses of the estuary. In response, on January 6, 1993, EPA 
published a set of proposed water-quality standards for the Bay/Delta 
estuary including salinity criteria to protect fish and wildlife 
habitat, and survival targets to protect migrating Chinook salmon. The 
proposed standards would supersede and supplement standards in the 1991 
Bay/Delta Plan.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 303 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires each State to adopt 
water-quality standards consisting of designated uses and instream 
water-quality criteria to protect such uses for all waters of the 
United States located within that State. Section 303(c) directs States 
to review and, if appropriate, revise the water-quality standards at 
least once every 3 years. Any new or revised standards adopted by the 
State are to be reviewed and approved or disapproved by EPA. In the 
event that EPA disapproved a State's standards, and the State does not 
make EPA's requested changes within ninety (90) days of disapproval, or 
if EPA determines at any time that revised or new standards are 
necessary to meet CWA requirements, Section 303(c)(4) states that the 
Administrator shall promptly prepare and publish proposed regulations 
to establish water-quality standards for the applicable water bodies. 
EPA's regulations for implementing Section 303(c) are codified at 40 
CFR part 131.


Alternatives:


EPA received over 200 comments on the proposed rule. The Agency will 
review and respond to these comments and include recommendations for 
alternative standards before the final rule is issued.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Monetized social costs and benefits of the Federal proposals are not 
directly comparable because some of the benefits for fisheries, 
ecological improvement, and biological diversity cannot be estimated. 
However, assuming that the State develops a cost-effective 
implementation plan for the standards, the estimated economic costs for 
the agricultural sector are $20 million/year on average, and $25 
million/year for the urban sector. The overall costs may be lower than 
the total of these sector costs given that some of the increases in 
urban costs may represent payments to the agricultural sector for water 
transfers. The benefits are estimated at $10 million/year from improved 
commercial fisheries. Furthermore, the standards are designed to 
produce unquantified but substantial benefits associated with enhanced 
ecosystem integrity, decreasing the need to trigger provisions of the 
Endangered Species Act and increasing opportunities for scientific, 
educational, and recreational activities.


EPA has been working closely with the urban, agricultural, and 
environmental interests in developing the final regulatory impact 
analysis. Through this process, EPA has been promoting water 
conservation, reclamation, water transfers, and other market-based 
mechanisms to reduce the economic impacts of the standards and to more 
efficiently allocate the State's limited water supplies.


Risks:


EPA's proposed water-quality standards for the Bay/Delta estuary are 
the centerpiece of an emerging regional strategy to halt and reverse 
the disintegration of ecosystem processes and properties. Consistent 
with the Agency's promulgation efforts, the San Francisco Estuary 
Project (SFEP) is implementing a Comprehensive Conservation and 
Management Plan (CCMP) designed to improve the scientific understanding 
of the ecosystem, and to establish partnerships for long-term 
stewardship. The SFEP-sponsored fish and riparian inventory has 
identified small rivers and creeks that serve as refugia for 
disappearing species. When the proposed promulgation to protect the 
large rivers and bays is taken together with the efforts to conserve 
the habitats of smaller rivers and creeks, the resulting strategy 
constitutes a dual approach to reducing ecological risks. Furthermore, 
EPA is leading or participating in other important multiagency efforts 
designed to: (1) restore thousands of acres of tidal marshlands in the 
North Bay; (2) enhance and conserve farmed wetlands in the Central 
Delta; (3) resolve concerns regarding the disposal of dredged 
materials; and (4) prevent the discharge of toxic pollutants into the 
estuarine system.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 810                                      01/06/94
Final Action                                                   01/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3503.


Agency Contact:
Patrick Wright
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415 744-1993
RIN: 2040-AC35
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
164. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATION: RADIONUCLIDES
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 300/SDWA 1412


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, June 15, 1991. Final, Statutory, June 19, 1989. Final, 
Judicial, April 30, 1995.


Abstract:


EPA has proposed maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and primary 
drinking water standards for radionuclides in drinking water. These 
radionuclides include radium, uranium, radon, total alpha, and beta 
particle and photon emitters (see RIN 2040-AB90, SAN No. 2782). 
Radionuclides pose a cancer risk. Also, uranium poses a risk from 
kidney toxicity.


Statement of Need:


Section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to establish 
maximum contaminant level goals, maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), 
analytical methods, treatment technologies, and monitoring/reporting/
recordkeeping requirements for 83 contaminants specified in the 
statute. The six radionuclides covered by this rule (radium 226, radium 
228, uranium, radon, alpha emitters, and beta/photon emitters) were 
among the 83 contaminants for which regulation is required. All of the 
radionuclides pose a cancer risk. Uranium also poses a kidney toxicity 
risk.


Alternatives:


In developing the MCLs, EPA considered other levels based on different 
exposure assumptions. Also, the Agency is considering staged compliance 
dates to facilitate implementation by small public water systems. The 
Agency is aware that most radon risk emanates from soil gas rather than 
drinking water. However, the current Safe Drinking Water Act does not 
allow the Agency to consider a multimedia approach to regulation. 
Legislative mandates being considered by Congress would provide the 
Agency the flexibility to employ a multimedia approach to radon risk 
reduction. Congress included language in EPA's 1995 Appropriations Act 
which prohibits the Agency from promulgating the portions of this rule 
relating to radon if the legislative amendments are not passed. EPA is 
assessing the implications of the Appropriations Act on the schedule 
for this regulation.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


In the proposed rule, EPA estimated the total benefits as 84 cancer 
cases averted by regulating all six radionuclides. The cost was 
estimated at $310 million annually, including a capital cost of $2.4 
billion amortized over 20 years at a 3 percent interest rate. Updated 
projections for radon alone are 88 cancer cases at the proposed level 
of 300 pCi/l at a cost of $272 million annually. For comparison, radon 
constituted 80 cancer cases and $180 million of the benefits and costs 
of the proposed rule. These costs and benefits were peer reviewed 
extensively by the Science Advisory Board and other groups during the 
past 2 years.


Risks:


The levels contained in the proposed rule are estimated to avoid 84 
cancer cases per year. Also, for several million people, kidney 
toxicity risk would be reduced.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           51 FR 34836                                    09/30/86
NPRM            56 FR 33050                                    07/18/91
Final Action                                                   04/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2281.


Agency Contact:
Tim Gill
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
(4603)
Washington, DC 20460
202 260-8049
RIN: 2040-AA94
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
165. RCRA EXPANDED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVISIONS TO COMBUSTION 
PERMITTING PROCEDURES
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 6905/RCRA 1006; 42 USC 6912/RCRA 2002; 42 USC 6924/RCRA 3004; 
42 USC 6925/RCRA 3005; 42 USC 6927/RCRA 3007; 42 USC 6974


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 270.41; 40 CFR 270.42; 40 CFR 270.10


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA is proposing to expand the opportunities for public participation 
in the RCRA permitting and decisionmaking processes for all hazardous 
waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities subject to RCRA 
permitting requirements. In particular, EPA is proposing to involve the 
public much earlier in the process and throughout key milestone 
activities, for example, before a facility submits a permit application 
to the permitting agency and when the permitting agency receives the 
application.


The proposal would increase public involvement opportunities during the 
trial burn stage of the permitting process for combustion facilities 
and revise the permitting procedures for combustion facilities 
operating under interim status to make the procedures more closely 
parallel to the more stringent procedures for new combustion 
facilities. The Agency will also be clarifying combustion permit 
modification classifications.


Statement of Need:


EPA developed this proposal to implement key aspects of the Agency's 
Draft Strategy on Waste Minimization and Hazardous Waste Combustion, 
issued by EPA Administrator Carol Browner on May 18, 1993. 
Specifically, this rule addresses the concerns of citizens living near 
hazardous waste facilities, particularly minority and low-income 
communities who feel they need greater opportunity to participate in 
the permitting process. In particular, the proposed rule addresses the 
following goals of the draft strategy:

 Provide for earlier and more extensive public involvement in 
            permitting activities for all RCRA facilities to assure 
            that the concerns of citizens are heard and addressed;
 Address trial burns in the combustion permitting process; and
 Evaluate ways to limit the burning of hazardous waste in 
            interim status units during the administrative appeal of a 
            permit denial, prior to a final decision.
Summary of the Legal Basis:


The RCRA statute requires the Agency to provide for, encourage and 
assist public involvement. The statute also requires the Agency to 
establish permitting procedures for owners and operators of existing 
and new hazardous waste management facilities.


Alternatives:


In developing the proposed requirements, EPA balanced needs: to meet 
the goals of the draft strategy; to be flexible to accommodate existing 
State programs; and to minimize the burden on the public and the 
regulated community. EPA is soliciting comments in the rule on several 
of the proposed requirements, including:

 The applicability of the proposed public involvement 
            requirements--for example, should the requirement for 
            public notice at application submittal apply to post-
            closure permits? Should the information repository be 
            limited to certain types of facilities? Should the facility 
            or the permitting Agency be responsible for issuing some of 
            the proposed public notices?; and
 Whether a State's public participation meeting for siting a 
            facility should be an allowable substitute for the proposed 
            preapplication meeting.
Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Based on the economic impact analysis for the proposed rule, the Agency 
estimates that the proposed requirements would result in an incremental 
national annual cost of $130,000 (lower bound) to $900,000 (upper 
bound).


Expanding public involvement opportunities would allow the community to 
raise concerns and make suggestions early in the permitting process, 
and to remain involved throughout the decisionmaking process. Earlier 
community input should assist applicants and permitting agencies in 
making decisions about the facility and the proposed permit. Airing and 
addressing issues earlier in the process might avoid delays later.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 28680                                    06/02/94
Final Action                                                   07/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3315.


Agency Contact:
Patricia Buzzell
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(5303W)
Washington, DC 20460
703 308-8632
RIN: 2050-AD97
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
166.  ENHANCED MONITORING PROGRAM
Legal Authority:


 Clean Air Act, sections 114(a)(3), 504(b)


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 64


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Judicial, December 20, 1994.


Abstract:


This action is required by the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments to ensure 
better compliance with existing rules. This program will require major 
stationary sources to monitor emissions and certify whether continuous 
compliance with emissions limits has been achieved.


Statement of Need:


The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require major stationary sources 
to provide ongoing monitoring of compliance. Current monitoring data 
provides EPA with a ``snapshot'' which serves only as an indicator of 
compliance or demonstrates the need for a performance test. This 
approach does not provide EPA with the ability to assure that emissions 
reductions from existing rules are being achieved, and results in very 
few identified violations. To ensure better compliance with existing 
rules, the Enhanced Monitoring (EM) Rule requires major stationary 
sources to monitor emissions and certify whether continuous compliance 
with emissions limits has been achieved. The self-monitoring approach 
is comparable to the Clean Water Act NPDES program.


Alternatives:


In an effort to balance two competing needs--minimizing regulatory 
burdens versus maximizing environmental results (emissions reductions)-
-the Agency solicited comments on a wide range of applicability 
options. These options, presented in an October 1993 Federal Register 
proposal, ranged from covering all emission units at all major sources 
(most stringent), to covering only major emission units at major 
sources (least stringent). Based upon comments received and current 
cost-benefit calculations, the Agency has developed an option that 
focuses on the most environmentally significant emission units and will 
cover approximately 50 percent of the potentially affected universe of 
sources (facilities), while achieving 90 percent of possible emissions 
reductions.


The Agency has also developed a flexible, nonprescriptive approach 
toward selection of monitoring equipment for sources affected by the EM 
Rule. Sources will have the ability to choose from a series of 
monitoring equipment options based upon factors such as type of 
pollutant, type of industrial process, size of emission unit, and 
available technology that has been approved in previous regulatory 
decisions. EPA has solicited input from States and the regulated 
community in an effort to develop a compendium of available monitoring 
methods which will be published in an Enhanced Monitoring Reference 
Document. This document will serve as a guide to currently available 
monitoring methods, and will be periodically updated to include new 
methods that are developed, identified and accepted. The Enhanced 
Monitoring Reference Document will also include, for various source 
categories, examples of presumptively acceptable protocols which EPA 
has established as meeting the requirements of the EM Rule. This 
approach will afford the regulated community the opportunity to choose 
the most cost-effective monitoring approach that meets the parameters 
set forth in the EM Rule.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


In keeping with Executive Order 12866, EPA is preparing a detailed 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that will provide costs and benefits 
associated with the EM Rule. The RIA will compare the relative costs 
and benefits of the preferred approach with several other approaches 
that were considered. The estimated benefits of the EM Rule are 
approximately $2 billion per year. The benefits are calculated based on 
reduced adverse health and welfare impacts and ``avoided costs'' based 
upon the difference between the costs of an EM program and the costs of 
more stringent control requirements.


The costs anticipated from the EM Rule are approximately $1 billion per 
year. The major costs are development of a monitoring protocol, 
purchase of monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance of the 
system, recordkeeping and reporting, and ``behavioral adjustment 
costs.''


A large part of the total EM costs (70 percent) is in the category of 
``behavioral adjustment costs.'' These are costs incurred by facilities 
as a result of enhanced monitoring equipment that will give faster and 
more accurate information about compliance problems. Because facilities 
will be better able to identify problems, it is expected that 
noncompliance will be addressed more quickly and thoroughly than if 
enhanced monitoring had not been in place. In some cases, facilities 
may realize that repeated periods of noncompliance will require the 
purchase of control equipment. Although it is estimated that the number 
of facilities that would need to install control equipment is very low, 
the total costs to these facilities are a large component of the total 
cost of the EM Rule. The cost and benefit estimates identified in this 
section are being refined based on comments received on the proposed 
rule and will be addressed in more detail in the final RIA.


Risks:


The preferred EM option will apply to approximately 20,000 pollutant 
points nationally. The establishment of enhanced monitoring 
requirements at these pollutant points will result in the reduction of 
more than 1.3 million tons of pollution per year. Pollutants reduced by 
the EM Rule include CO, NOx, PM-10, SO2, and VOCs, as well as certain 
hazardous air pollutants such as benzene and mercury. The enhanced 
monitoring provisions apply to existing Clean Air Acts standards; 
however, enhanced monitoring will also be incorporated into other Clean 
Air Act regulations that are under development for other pollutants and 
source types. As these new rules are developed, pollution reductions 
beyond 1.3 million tons per year will be realized.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Final Action                                                   12/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3584.


Agency Contact:
Scott Throwe
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
401 M Street SW.
Washington, DC 20460
703 308-8676
RIN: 2020-AA24
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F