EPA rules

As part of TSCA, EPA can require the testing of any chemical if there is the possibiUty of an unreasonable risk to health or environment or if there is significant human or environmental exposure. If the substance poses an unreasonable risk, EPA can prohibit the manufacture, processing, or distribution of the substance limit the amount of the substance that can be manufactured, processed, or distributed prohibit a particular use for the substance limit the concentration of the substance during manufacture, processing, or distribution regulate disposal methods for the substance and require manufacturers to maintain records of process and to conduct tests to assure compliance with EPA rules. 

For the U.S., the new EPA rules will limit sulfur in gasoline to 30 ppm, phased between 2004 and 2006. The automobile industry has made a strong case for lower sulfur because of its effect on the catalytic converter. The converter has the same catalyst as the refinery reformer and it is poisoned just as easily by sulfur. 

The search for the ideal PCB replacement continues, especially for the difficult electrical transformer application. Approximately 324 million lb of PCBs are still present in some 150,000 transformers. Possible substitutes range from mineral oil to high-temperature hydrocarbons, with silicones by far the most popular. There may be as much as a 2 billion market in replacing PCB-containing transformers, which under 1985 EPA rules cannot... 

The original EPA rule required that NOx reductions be in place by May,... 

Section 5(a) requires premanufacture notification (PMN) to be submitted by an operator at least 90 days before a new substance is produced or imported or before an existing substance is used in what has been determined by an EPA rule to be a... 

Another approach of risk management is cost-benefit. Cost calculations can be based on number of lives saved or additional years of life. Burnett and Hahn (2001) examined the proposed EPA rule to lower the arsenic drinking water standard from 50 ug/ to 10 ug/L. They stated that EPA used the value of a human life at 6.1 million dollars. EPA determined that people are willing to pay up to 6.1 million dollars per life saved to implement a policy to reduce safety and health risks. EPA s model showed 28 lives saved, which translated into a benefit of 170 million dollars, but the costs of saving those 28 lives was 210 million dollars. Therefore, the cost effectiveness of the reduction was 7.5 million dollars a life. 

EPA Rule 40 CFR Part 68, Risk Management Programs for Chemical Accidental Release Prevention Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1996. 

While the OSHA rule applies to operations that affect workers within a site where certain highly hazardous chemicals are present at stated levels, the EPA rule was developed to additionally protect the public and the environment from the undesired consequences of explosions and other accidental releases. Much of the information in this chapter comes from DOE-STD-1100 (U.S. Department of Energy 19%) and is enhanced with associated material from the System Safety Analysis Handbook (Stephans and Talso 1997) and other sources as specified. 

One may ask why is this EPA rule needed if there is an OSHA PSM rule Originally there was a parallel schedule with the OSHA PSM, but due to the tempo of enactment, the two regulations ended up being enacted about four years apart. 

A major difference between the two rules is in the applicability of each. Where the OSHA rule serves to protect workers within a site, the EPA rule protects the public and the environment outside the site. 

OSHA s Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (29 CFR 1910.119). In addition, the chemical list and threshold quantities for the EPA rule differ somewhat from those in the OSHA rule and result in a facility needing to expand their risk management program to other portions of the facility. The three principal areas in which the requirements of the EPA exceed those of the OSHA Rule are ... 

---