Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Notices 30589

provide an advance written request due

to potential time limitations. Requests to

speak at the stakeholder meeting should

be made to John Bachman, Great Lakes

Environmental Center, Inc. at (231) 941–

2230 or by e-mail at: jbachman@glectc.com.

EPA is inviting all interested members

of the public to participate in the

stakeholder meeting. Approximately

150 seats will be available for the

public. Seats will be available on a firstcome, first served basis. On-site

registration for the meeting will begin at

8 a.m.

For additional information about the

meeting, please contact Robert Cantilli

of EPA’s Office of Science and

Technology at (202) 260–5546 or by email at cantilli.robert@epa.gov.

James Hanlon,

Acting Director, Office of Science and

Technology.

[FR Doc. 00–12001 Filed 5–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6700–1]

Science Advisory Board Notification of

Public Advisory Committee Meetings

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, Public Law 92–463,

notice is hereby given of three meetings

of Committees of the US EPA Science

Advisory Board on the dates and times

noted below. All times noted are Eastern

Daylight Time. All meetings are open to

the public; however, seating is limited

and available on a first come basis.

Important Notice: Documents that are

the subject of SAB reviews are normally

available from the originating EPA office

and are not available from the SAB

Office—information concerning

availability of documents from the

relevant Program Office is included

below.

1. SAB Executive Committee (EC)

Teleconference—May 30, 2000

The Executive Committee (EC) of US

EPA’s Science Advisory Board will

conduct a public teleconference meeting

on Tuesday, May 30, 2000, between the

hours of 1 and 3 pm Eastern Daylight

Time. The meeting will be coordinated

through a conference call connection in

Room 6013 in the USEPA, Ariel Rios

Building North, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The

public is encouraged to attend the

meeting in the conference room noted

above. However, the public may also

attend through a telephonic link, to the

extent that lines are available.

Additional instructions about how to

participate in the conference call can be

obtained by calling Ms. Priscilla TilleryGadsen no earlier than one week prior

to the meeting (beginning on May 23) at

(202) 564–4533, or via e-mail at

tillery.priscilla@epa.gov.

Purpose of the Meeting—In this

meeting, the Executive Committee plans

to review reports from some of its

Committees/Subcommittee, most likely

including the following:

(a) Drinking Water Committee (DWC):

‘‘Science Advisory Board Report on

EPA’s Draft Proposal on a Groundwater

Rule’’

(b) Environmental Economics

Advisory Committee (EEAC): ‘‘Benefits

Adjustments for Long-Term Effects’’

(c) Environmental Engineering

Committee (EEC): ‘‘Review of the

Agency’s Environmental Technology

Verification (ETV) Program’’

Availability of Review Materials:

Drafts of the reports that will be

reviewed at the meeting should be

available to the public at the SAB

website (http://www.epa.gov/sab) by

close-of-business on May 19, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any

member of the public wishing further

information concerning this meeting or

wishing to submit brief oral comments

must contact Dr. Donald Barnes,

Designated Federal Officer, Science

Advisory Board (1400A), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20460; telephone (202) 564–4533;

FAX (202) 501–0323; or via e-mail at

barnes.don@epa.gov. Requests for oral

comments must be in writing (e-mail

preferred) and received by Dr. Barnes no

later than noon Eastern Time on May

26, 2000.

2. Drinking Water Committee (DWC)

Meeting—June 5–7, 2000

The Drinking Water Committee of the

US EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB),

will meet from June 5 through 7, 2000.

Days one and two of the meeting, June

5 and 6, 2000, will be held at the

Holiday Inn Georgetown, 2101

Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20007, phone: (202) 338–4600 . On

day three, June 7, 2000, the Committee

will meet in conference room 6013,

USEPA, Ariel Rios Building North, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20004; phone: (202) 564–4533. The

meeting will begin by 9 a.m. on June 5

and adjourn no later than 3 p.m. on June

7, 2000.

Purpose of the Meeting—The Drinking

Water Committee will conduct a review

of EPA’s proposed drinking water

regulation for arsenic. The Committee

will conduct this review in fulfillment

of its responsibilities under Section

1412(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA as amended in August 1996)

which states that:

The Administrator shall request

comments from the Science Advisory

Board (established under the

Environmental Research, Development,

and Demonstration Act of 1978) prior to

proposal of a maximum contaminant

level goal and national primary drinking

water regulation. The Board shall

respond, as it deems appropriate, within

the time period applicable for

promulgation of the national primary

drinking water standard concerned.

This subsection shall, under no

circumstances, be used to delay final

promulgation of any national primary

drinking water standard.

Background—The current National

Primary Drinking Water Regulation for

arsenic is 50 μg/Liter (0.05 milligrams

per liter—mg/L). This regulatory level

has been in effect since 1976 and is

based on a U.S. Public Health Service

standard whose origins date back to

1942. The 1996 Amendments to the Safe

Drinking Water Act required the Agency

to proceed on two tracks to update the

standard: on the one hand, the Agency

was directed to develop an arsenic

research strategy by February 1997

designed to serve as roadmap for filling

gaps in our understanding of the

scientific issues surrounding arsenic

and, at the same time, to work toward

proposing a new primary drinking water

regulation by January 1, 2000 and to

promulgate a final rule by January 1,

2001.

In response, the Agency met its

deadline for developing the research

plan and is currently implementing the

plan, together with external partners.

EPA has also been updating and

assembling the various risk management

components that will be needed to

propose a revised regulation: risk

characterization, analytical methods,

occurrence, treatment technologies,

costs, and benefits. The most

challenging of these has been the risk

characterization and the underlying risk

assessment of the health effects of

arsenic. To assist the Agency in its

efforts, EPA asked the National

Academy of Sciences’ National Research

Council (NRC) to evaluate all relevant

national and international literature

concerning the health effects of arsenic

and to provide the Agency with its

assessment of these data and

information. The NRC published its

report, Arsenic in Drinking Water in

March, 1999. That report concluded that

studies in Taiwan, Chile, and Argentina

link arsenic to skin, bladder and lung

30590 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Notices

cancer and to noncancer effects. The

NRC report recommended that EPA

lower its MCL.

Charge to the Committee—A. Arsenic

Health Effects

Charge Question 1: Concentration of

inorganic arsenic as principal form

causing health effects—Does the SAB

have perspectives on this issue that it

believes EPA should consider in

developing its risk assessment?

EPA has identified inorganic arsenic

as the principal form causing health

effects, and the literature indicates that

most arsenic in drinking water is

inorganic. EPA’s MCLG and MCL do not

distinguish between arsenate and

arsenite.

Charge Question 2: Implications of

natural arsenic exposure through food—

Does SAB agree with the implied NRC

perspective that relative source

contribution of food should be taken

into consideration in the setting of the

drinking water standard and how might

we consider this and communicate it to

the public?

The 1999 NRC report estimated the

daily inorganic food intake by assuming

that 10% of the arsenic in seafood is

inorganic, and all other foods are 100%

inorganic arsenic. NRC noted that these

assumptions set an upper bound on the

contribution from food, which is about

10 μg a day for adults. The NRC report

stated that ‘‘The significance of the

intake of inorganic arsenic from food

increases as the concentration of arsenic

in water decreases. If [drinking] water

contains 50 μg/L of inorganic arsenic,

arsenic in food might not be significant.

However, if [drinking] water contains 5

μg/L of arsenic and 2 L per day is

consumed, the contribution of inorganic

arsenic from diet and water are

comparable (NRC report).’’ Further,

‘‘The public health significance of daily

ingestion of a given amount of arsenic

in drinking water will be influenced by

the background levels of arsenic

consumed in food (NRC report).’’

‘‘Consideration of arsenic in food might

affect both the dose-response

relationship for arsenic in drinking

water in the study population and the

implications for risk from arsenic in

drinking water in the United States

where dietary arsenic might differ from

that in the study population in Taiwan

(NRC report)’’.

Charge Question 3: Accounting for

Cardiovascular Health End Point—Is

precautionary advice on use of lowarsenic water in preparation of infant

formula appropriate given the available

information?

The NRC report was inconclusive

about the health risks to the pregnant

woman, developing fetus, infants,

lactating women, and children. Given

the potential for cardiovascular disease

(as evidenced by EPA’s Utah studies

and extensive other data) and

uncertainty about risks to infants, EPA

plans to issue a health advisory to

recommend use of low-arsenic water in

preparation of infant formula.

B. Arsenic Treatment Charge for the

SAB

Charge Question 4: Decision tree for

waste disposal options for arsenic

treatment brines and spent media—

Based upon a review of the submitted

materials, does the SAB believe that the

EPA produced an accurate projection of

the likely disposal options for arsenic

residuals and the distribution of these

options by treatment type? What are the

SAB’s views on the advantages and the

limitations of the various waste disposal

options? What effect, if any, would the

SAB’s analysis of these advantages and

limitations have on the probabilities

assigned? What are the SAB’s views on

which options will be more likely used

by small systems (less than 10,000

people), and which will be more likely

used by larger ones?

EPA identified waste disposal options

that will likely be used for arsenic

treatment residuals. EPA considered

three types or residuals: brines or liquid

wastes, sludges, and solid wastes.

Ultimately, liquid wastes would be

disposed at sanitary sewers, evaporation

ponds, or be directly discharged.

Chemical precipitation is assumed to be

an intermediate step for the disposal of

some brines. Sludges would be either

mechanically, or non-mechanically

dewatered prior to ultimate disposal at

a landfill. Solid wastes would typically

be disposed at non-hazardous landfills.

EPA assigned national selection

probabilities to each of these options in

a decision tree. These probabilities are

an estimation of the likelihood of a

treatment plant opting for a particular

disposal option given the size of the

system, whether it is surface water or

groundwater, and the type of arsenic

removal treatment technology used.

The Toxicity Characteristic (TC) that

identifies wastes as hazardous waste

used 100 times the interim primary

drinking water standards for eight

metals. Although six of the drinking

water standards have changed, the TC

values have not. However, some people

are concerned that after the drinking

water MCL is lowered, the TC for

arsenic will be lowered to 100 times the

new MCL, and that many drinking water

treatment residuals will be subject to

costly hazardous waste management

regulations even though the Office of

Solid Waste has stated that the simple

100 times criterion will not be used

when the TC regulatory levels are

revised, but rather, more sophisticated

modeling tools would be used.

Consequently, the important questions

relating to waste disposal do not relate

to hazardous waste disposal. Rather, for

brines, they relate to questions such as

TDS (total dissolved solids) restrictions

in waters receiving brine, and

restrictions on sanitary sewer discharge

due to TBLLs (technically based local

limits). For sludge disposal, they relate

to restrictions that may be placed on

land application, which may result in

more systems using landfills.

Charge Question 5: Decision tree for

ground water treatment technologies—

Does the SAB agree with the principal

‘‘branches’’ of EPA’s decision tree

described in the submitted documents

and the likelihood that these options

will be used for systems of various sizes

with various source water

characteristics? What views does the

SAB have on EPA’s description of the

advantages and limitations of these

treatment technologies? Would the

SAB’s views on the these advantages

and limitations affect the probabilities

assigned?

EPA has identified treatment

technologies that will likely be used to

treat arsenic in groundwater systems.

These include ion exchange, activated

alumina, reverse osmosis, coagulationassisted microfiltration, greensand

filtration, and point-of-use and point-ofentry devices. The EPA has also

identified non-treatment options such as

regionalization and alternate source.

EPA consulted with small utilities and

AWWA in order to identify issues

which would affect selection of

treatment technologies for small

systems, which included cost,

complexity of operation, chemical

handling issues, and frequency of

maintenance on point-of-use devices.

EPA has assigned selection probabilities

to each of these options in a decision

tree that form the basis for the Agency’s

overall cost projections.

Availability of Review Materials—

Additional information on the materials

provided to the Committee for this

review can be obtained by contacting

Ms. Irene Dooley, US EPA Office of

Water by telephone at (202) 260–9531 or

by e-mail at dooley.irene@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any

member of the public wishing further

information concerning this meeting or

wishing to submit brief oral comments

(10 minutes or less) must contact

Thomas O. Miller, Designated Federal

Officer, Science Advisory Board

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 93 / Friday, May 12, 2000 / Notices 30591

(1400A), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone

(202) 564–4558; FAX (202) 501–0582; or

via e-mail at miller.tom@epa.gov.

Requests for oral comments must be in

writing (e-mail, fax or mail) and

received by Mr. Miller no later than

noon Eastern Time on May 30, 2000.

3. SAB Executive Committee (EC)

Teleconference—June 12, 2000

The Executive Committee (EC) of US

EPA’s Science Advisory Board will

conduct a public teleconference meeting

on Monday, June 12, 2000 between the

hours of 1 and 3 pm Eastern Daylight

Time. The meeting will be coordinated

through a conference call connection in

Room 6013 in the USEPA, Ariel Rios

Building North, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The

public is encouraged to attend the

meeting in the conference room noted

above. However, the public may also

attend through a telephonic link, to the

extent that lines are available.

Additional instructions about how to

participate in the conference call can be

obtained by calling Ms. Priscilla TilleryGadsen no earlier than one week prior

to the meeting (beginning on May 29) at

(202) 564–4533, or via e-mail at

tillery.priscilla@epa.gov.

Purpose of the Meeting—In this

meeting, the Executive Committee plans

to review reports from some of its

Committees/Subcommittee, most likely

including the following:

(a) EC Subcommittee on Data from the

Testing of Human Subjects: ‘‘Report on

Data from the Testing of Human

Subjects’’

(b) EC Subcommittee on Review of

Cancer Guidelines: ‘‘Applicability of the

Agency’s Cancer Risk assessment

Guidelines to Children’’

(c) Environmental Engineering

Committee (EEC): ‘‘Commentary on

Measures of Environmental Technology

Performance.’’

Availability of Review Materials—

Drafts of the reports that will be

reviewed at the meeting should be

available to the public at the SAB

website (http://www.epa.gov/sab) by

close-of-business on May 25, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any

member of the public wishing further

information concerning this meeting or

wishing to submit brief oral comments

must contact Dr. Donald Barnes,

Designated Federal Officer, Science

Advisory Board (1400A), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20460; telephone (202) 564–4533;

FAX (202) 501–0323; or via e-mail at

barnes.don@epa.gov. Requests for oral

comments must be in writing (e-mail

preferred) and received by Dr. Barnes no

later than noon Eastern Time on June 5,

2000.

Providing Oral or Written Comments at

SAB Meetings

It is the policy of the Science

Advisory Board to accept written public

comments of any length, and to

accommodate oral public comments

whenever possible. The Science

Advisory Board expects that public

statements presented at its meetings will

not be repetitive of previously

submitted oral or written statements.

Oral Comments: In general, each

individual or group requesting an oral

presentation at a face-to-face meeting

will be limited to a total time of ten

minutes. For teleconference meetings,

opportunities for oral comment will

usually be limited to no more than three

minutes per speaker and no more than

fifteen minutes total. Deadlines for

getting on the public speaker list for a

meeting are given above. Speakers

should bring at least 35 copies of their

comments and presentation slides for

distribution to the reviewers and public

at the meeting. Written Comments:

Although the SAB accepts written

comments until the date of the meeting

(unless otherwise stated), written

comments should be received in the

SAB Staff Office at least one week prior

to the meeting date so that the

comments may be made available to the

committee for their consideration.

Comments should be supplied to the

appropriate DFO at the address/contact

information noted above in the

following formats: One hard copy with

original signature, and one electronic

copy via e-mail (acceptable file format:

WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files

(in IBM-PC/Windows 95/98 format).

Those providing written comments and

who attend the meeting are also asked

to bring 25 copies of their comments for

public distribution.

General Information—Additional

information concerning the Science

Advisory Board, its structure, function,

and composition, may be found on the

SAB Website (http://www.epa.gov/sab)

and in The FY1999 Annual Report of

the Staff Director which is available

from the SAB Publications Staff at (202)

564–4533 or via fax at (202) 501–0256.

Committee rosters, draft Agendas and

meeting calendars are also located on

our website.

Meeting Access—Individuals

requiring special accommodation at this

meeting, including wheelchair access to

the conference room, should contact the

DFO at least five business days prior to

the meeting so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.

Dated: May 5, 2000.

Donald G. Barnes,

Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.

[FR Doc. 00–12021 Filed 5–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[PF–926; FRL–6497–1]

Notice of Filing Pesticide Petitions to

Establish a Tolerance for Certain

Pesticide Chemicals in or on Food

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

initial filing of a pesticide petition

proposing the establishment of

regulations for residues of certain

pesticide chemicals in or on various

food commodities.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket

control number PF–914, must be

received on or before June 12, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted by mail, electronically, or in

person. Please follow the detailed

instructions for each method as

provided in Unit I.C. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure

proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative

that you identify docket control number

PF–926 in the subject line on the first

page of your response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Tracy Keigwin, Registration

Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20460; telephone number: (703)

305–6605; e-mail address:

keigwin.tracy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if

you are an agricultural producer, food

manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer.

Potentially affected categories and

entities may include, but are not limited

to:

CategoriesNAICS

codes

Examples of potentially affected entities

Industry 111 Crop production

112 Animal production