Chemical industry officials are seeking to block an EPA effort to conduct extensive testing-related to risk assessments for a host of Superfund and air pollutants, saying the agency already has adequate data on the contaminants and that EPA is not justified in seeking to obtain the information.

EPA proposed last October to require manufacturers of a number of common pollutants to conduct tests under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that will support Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) health evaluations at waste sites. The chemicals at issue are as follows: chloroethane; hydrogen cyanide (HCN); methylene chloride (DCM); and sodium cyanide (NaCN). According to the EPA, all these can be found in soil and water as a result of discharges from a number of industrial activities, including electroplating, mining, andiron and steel manufacturing.

EPA argues it is also required to evaluate the pollutants under the "residual risk" provisions of section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the proposal seeks comment on model agreements that would call on industry to conduct tests on the pollutants using emerging toxicological tools know as physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models.

In its proposal, the EPA argues that the data collection is necessary in order for ATSDR to make informed decisions regarding human health concerns related to chemical exposure at waste sites. But industry officials submitted critical comments in mid-March, saying EPA has sufficient information on the chemicals and that EPA’s recent effort is unwarranted. The officials argue that EPA does not meet the threshold to require testing under section 4 of TSCA because sufficient data on the chemicals already exists and that risk levels are not great enough to warrant the expensive testing. (Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com.)

The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance's "active involvement in both the ATSDR and EPA programs affecting the chlorinated solvents causes it seriously to question whether any of the testing proposed for DCM can be justified. ... [N]one of the proposed testing has been identified by ATSDR as a [priority data need] for DCM," the group says in its March 13 comments. "Moreover, it is inconceivable that the results of any of the proposed studies would affect the way sources of DCM are regulated under the Clean Air Act."

The CN Council, which represents HCN and NaCN manufacturers and whose members include DuPont and Rohm and Haas Co., argues in its March 19 comments that different EPA offices have conducted recent assessments on the chemicals its members manufacture.

"Based on the robust available database, the CN Council believes that additional testing of HCN or NaCN is not warranted, as it will not provide any further useful information to support the stated goals and objectives of the proposed test program," the council says in its comments. "Moreover, the CN Council believes that EPA has not adequately supported the findings required to justify testing under TSCA Section 4."

The CN Council also argues that Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) emissions data on HCN does not reflect anticipated reductions due to already promulgated CAA regulations. EPA published final maximum achievable control technology (MACT) regulations in 2002, which the CN Council says will decrease emissions of HCN. The group says reported TRI emissions data submitted to the agency in 2003 and 2004 do not reflect the new MACT standards, which industrial facilities that manufacture HCN had to begin complying with in 2005.

EPA officials were unavailable for comment on the proposal.

(For more on this story, see the April issue of Metal Finishing.)

Source: InsideEPA.com, Environmental Policy Alert