3566 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices

Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision-D,

Product Chemistry for chemical

pesticides, and Series 880 and 885

superseded Pesticide Assessment

Guidelines, Subdivision M.

The PR Notice was revised to reflect

public comments received by the

Agency on the draft PR Notice, 62 FR

5228, February 4, 1997 (FRL–5575–3).

Generally, revisions included:

(a) Some modifications to the

summary form and instructions.

(b) Conversion to the new OPPTS Test

Guidelines, Series 830 guideline

reference numbers.

(c) Clarification of the GLP

requirements.

(d) Revisions to the self-certification

statement.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection.

Dated: January 12, 1998.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 98–1528 Filed 1–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPPTS–400056; FRL–5762–2]

Phosphoric Acid; Toxic Chemical

Release Reporting; Community Rightto-Know

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Denial of petition.

SUMMARY: EPA is denying a petition to

delete phosphoric acid from the

reporting requirements under section

313 of the Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986

(EPCRA) and section 6607 of the

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA).

This action is based on EPA’s

conclusion that phosphoric acid does

not meet the deletion criteria of EPCRA

section 313(d)(3). Specifically, EPA is

denying this petition because EPA’s

review of the petition and available

information resulted in the conclusion

that phosphoric acid meets the listing

criterion in EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C)

in that the phosphates that result from

the neutralization of phosphoric acid

may cause algal blooms. Algal blooms

result in deoxygenation of the water and

other effects that may ultimately lead to

a number of serious adverse effects on

ecosystems, including fish kills and

changes in the composition of animal

and plant life.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel R. Bushman, Petitions

Coordinator, 202-260-3882, e-mail:

bushman.daniel@epamail.epa.gov, for

specific information on this document,

or for more information on EPCRA

section 313, the Emergency Planning

and Community Right-to-Know Hotline,

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail

Code 5101, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460, Toll free: 1-800-535-0202, in

Virginia and Alaska: 703-412-9877 or

Toll free TDD: 1-800-553-7672.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Statutory Authority

This action is taken under sections

313(d) and (e)(1) of the Emergency

Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C.

11023. EPCRA is also referred to as Title

III of the Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)

(Pub. L. 99-499).

B. Background

Section 313 of EPCRA requires certain

facilities that manufacture, process, or

otherwise use listed toxic chemicals in

amounts above reporting threshold

levels, to report their environmental

releases of such chemicals annually.

Beginning with the 1991 reporting year,

such facilities must also report pollution

prevention and recycling data for such

chemicals, pursuant to section 6607 of

the Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C.

13106). Section 313 established an

initial list of toxic chemicals that was

comprised of more than 300 chemicals

and 20 chemical categories. Phosphoric

acid (PA) was included in the initial list

of chemicals and chemical categories.

Section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add

chemicals to or delete chemicals from

the list, and sets forth criteria for these

actions. Under section 313(e)(1), any

person may petition EPA to add

chemicals to or delete chemicals from

the list. EPA has added and deleted

chemicals from the original statutory

list. Pursuant to EPCRA section

313(e)(1), EPA must respond to petitions

within 180 days either by initiating a

rulemaking or by publishing an

explanation of why the petition has

been denied.

EPCRA section 313(d)(2) states that a

chemical may be listed if any of the

listing criteria are met. Therefore, in

order to add a chemical, EPA must

demonstrate that at least one criterion is

met, but does not need to examine

whether all other criteria are also met.

Conversely, in order to remove a

chemical from the list, EPA must

demonstrate that none of the criteria are

met.

EPA issued a statement of petition

policy and guidance in the Federal

Register of February 4, 1987 (52 FR

3479), to provide guidance regarding the

recommended content and format for

petitions. On May 23, 1991 (56 FR

23703), EPA issued a statement of

policy and guidance regarding the

recommended content of petitions to

delete individual members of the

section 313 metal compound categories.

EPA has issued a statement clarifying its

interpretation of the section 313(d)(2)

and (3) criteria for adding and deleting

chemicals from the section 313 toxic

chemical list (59 FR 61432; November

30, 1994) (FRL-4922-2).

II. Description of Petition

On November 9, 1990, The Fertilizer

Institute (TFI) petitioned the Agency to

delist PA from the list of toxic

chemicals subject to reporting under

section 313 of EPCRA (Ref. 1). The TFI

petition was very similar to a petition

that Ecolab, Inc. submitted on December

14, 1989, requesting EPA to delete PA

from the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic

chemicals (Ref. 2). During the final days

of the review on this first petition,

Ecolab, Inc. withdrew the petition.

Nevertheless, EPA issued a notice in the

Federal Register of June 25, 1990 (55 FR

25876), describing its technical review

and evaluation of the petition. As part

of the notice, the Agency stated that it

would have denied the petition and

noted that its concern for PA is due to

PA’s contribution to eutrophication,

which results from phosphate loading in

the environment. In that notice, the

Agency also requested public comment

on the creation of an EPCRA section 313

phosphates category that would include

PA. Although EPA is not proposing to

add a phosphates category at this time,

it intends to propose such a category in

a separate rulemaking at a later date.

Because it believes that the comments

received in response to the earlier notice

and EPA’s responses to those comments

provide information relevant to the

listing of PA under EPCRA section 313,

it addresses those comments in Unit V.

of this document.

The petition submitted by TFI was

reviewed to identify the issues that

differed from the Ecolab petition. The

assertions that TFI addressed in its

subsequent petition were: (1) PA does

not meet the statutory criteria of section

313 of EPCRA; (2) the vast majority of

PA releases are by sources not covered

by the requirements of EPCRA section

313 at that time and therefore, the

environmental effects attributed to

phosphate loading caused by PA are not
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices 3567

effects for which the manufacturers

subject to section 313 reporting should

be held accountable; and (3) EPA in its

exposure assessment used ‘‘flawed

assumptions’’ and ‘‘inaccurate data’’ in

the course of the review.

These issues are addressed in Units

IV., V., and VI. of this document. EPA’s

technical assessment remains basically

unchanged since the original review of

the Ecolab petition; the previous review

is summarized in the following unit.

III. EPA’s Technical Review of

Phosphoric Acid

A. Toxicity Evaluation

1. Human health. In the physiological

pH range of 6 to 9, PA dissociates to

phosphate ions which predominately

exist as a combination of H2PO4

- and

HPO4

-2. Phosphate is readily absorbed

from the gastrointestinal tract.

Phosphate levels in the blood of higher

animals are regulated by the parathyroid

gland and are strongly tied to calcium

ion regulation in the body. No

information was found in the available

literature regarding the absorption of PA

from the lungs or skin (Ref. 3).

EPA’s hazard assessment resulted in

the following conclusions:

a. Acute effects. PA may cause

irritation and corrosive effects as do

many other acids. PA is weaker than the

other strong mineral acids. The Poison

Index states that ‘‘[PA] causes irritation

of eyes, skin, and the respiratory tract.

When ingested it can produce nausea,

vomiting, abdominal pain, bloody

diarrhea, acidosis, shock and irritation

or burns of the oropharyngeal mucosa,

esophagus and stomach.’’ As with other

corrosive or caustic materials, the extent

of damage is generally determined by

the acidity of the solution and duration

of contact. PA, however, is not expected

to exist beyond facility site boundaries

at a pH that will cause these effects (Ref.

3).

b. Chronic effects. PA has been shown

to cause nephrocalcinosis in rats when

administered at relatively high

concentrations in the diet (Ref. 3). PA

cannot be reasonably anticipated to

cause heritable genetic effects in

humans (Ref. 4). No information was

found in the available literature with

which to evaluate the potential of PA to

cause carcinogenic effects. PA cannot be

reasonably anticipated to cause

developmental or reproductive toxicity

in humans. No information was found

in the available literature with which to

evaluate the potential of PA to cause

neurotoxic effects (Ref. 3).

2. Environmental toxicity. PA, which

is a source of phosphates, can

reasonably be anticipated to cause

significant adverse effects on the

environment. PA, as well as other

phosphates have the potential to cause

increased algal growth leading to

eutrophication in the aquatic

environment (Ref. 5). Eutrophication

may result when nutrients, especially

phosphates, enter into an aquatic

ecosystem in the presence of sunlight

and nitrogen. The phosphate ion is a

plant nutrient and it can be a major

limiting factor for plant growth in

freshwater environments. In excess, PA

can cause extreme algal blooms. Toxic

effects result from oxygen depletion as

the algae die and decay. Toxic effects

have also been related to the release of

decay products or direct excretion of

toxic substances from sources such as

blue-green algae. In addition,

phosphates in aquatic environments

may encourage the growth of introduced

plants to the detriment of native plants

and thereby change plant distribution.

Laboratory studies indicate that

eutrophication may occur at phosphate

concentrations as low as 50 parts per

billion (ppb) in lakes. The resulting

oxygen depletion and toxic decay

products (e.g., hydrogen sulfide) kill

many invertebrates and fish (Ref. 5).

Although green algae are more

sensitive to growth stimulation by

phosphates in fresh water, blue-green

algal blooms are also stimulated by

phosphates and may cause greater

damage. At least three species of bluegreen algae are known to excrete toxins.

Secretions by cyanobacteria of

dialyzable metabolites have inhibited

the growth of other species of algae and

may result in algal monoculture. When

algal blooms of these toxic species occur

in a reservoir, lake, slough, or pond, the

cells and toxins can become sufficiently

concentrated to cause illness or death in

invertebrates and vertebrates. Major

losses have been reported for cattle,

sheep, hogs, birds (domestic and wild)

and fishes, minor losses for dogs,

horses, small wild animals, amphibians,

and invertebrates (Ref. 5).

In addition to eutrophication effects,

PA exhibits low toxicity to freshwater

organisms where typical toxicity values

are greater than 100 milligrams per liter

(mg/L) (Ref. 5). Due to the existing pH

restrictions under the Clean Water Act

(CWA), releases of PA to surface waters

are not anticipated to lead to

problematic pH excursions. Under the

CWA, parameters such as pH may be

subject to both technology-based and

water quality-based limitations. The

technology-based limitations are either

derived from nationally applicable

effluent guidelines or pretreatment

standards (many of which limit pH to a

range of 6.0 to 9.0) or are based on: (1)

The permit writer’s ‘‘Best Professional

Judgement’’ if there is no applicable

guideline for a direct discharger, or (2)

local pretreatment requirements. Water

quality-based limitations generally

would be established to ensure that

applicable water quality standards are

attained and maintained. Dischargers

are typically subject to monitoring

provisions under which permittees are

to report discharges of controlled

parameters.

B. Release and Exposure

EPA does not believe that

consideration of release or exposure

information is necessary in determining

whether to keep PA on the list of

EPCRA section 313 toxic chemicals. In

1994, EPA clarified its policy on the use

of exposure assessments in listing

decisions under EPCRA section

313(d)(2) and (3) (November 30, 1994,

59 FR 61432). As part of this

clarification, EPA stated that, under the

criterion of section 313(d)(2)(C),

exposure considerations are not

appropriate

. . .for chemicals that are highly ecotoxic

or induce well-established adverse

environmental effects. For chemicals which

induce well-established serious adverse

effects, e.g., chlorofluorocarbons, which

cause stratospheric ozone depletion, EPA

believes that an exposure assessment is

unnecessary. EPA believes that these

chemicals typically do not affect solely one

or two species but rather cause changes

across a whole ecosystem. EPA believes that

these effects are sufficiently serious because

of the scope of their impact and the welldocumented evidence supporting the adverse

effects. (November 30, 1994, 59 FR 61432).

Eutrophication due to phosphate

loading is a well-established serious

adverse effect that induces a number of

changes to ecosystems, including fish

kills and changes in the composition of

animal and plant life. Therefore, an

exposure assessment is not necessary in

order to determine that phosphates,

including PA, meet the listing criterion

of EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C). During

its review of Ecolab’s earlier petition,

however, EPA conducted an exposure

assessment for PA. Thus, for

informational purposes only, the

Agency is setting forth the results of this

exposure assessment below.

PA will dissociate in water to

hydrogen and phosphate ions (Refs. 6

and 7). Further reactions by abiotic

processes are not expected to reduce the

amount of PA released to the

environment (Ref. 7). PA can be

expected to enter the phosphorus cycle

and become available as a nutrient in

both aquatic and terrestrial settings. In

aquatic settings, algae are able to
3568 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices

bioconcentrate low levels of

phosphorus. The phosphorus cycle

tends to lose phosphorus to soil and

bottom sediments. Phosphorus binds to

soil so its movement through soil is very

slow. Ultimately, phosphorus moves

from land to the sea and is deposited in

bottom sediments (Ref. 7).

The exposure assessment conducted

for EPA’s original review of PA was

based upon information from the 1987

TRI data base, which listed 1,173

facilities that discharged some amount

of PA (Ref. 7). From this EPA identified

150 facilities from which PA is released

to the environment in significant

quantities. Of these, 46 facilities

reported releases to surface waters and

52 facilities reported releases to the

atmosphere. The exposure assessment

concentrated on releases to water to

address environmental toxicity

concerns. It is important to note that

this assessment only analyzed PA

releases, the phosphates that are

released as a result of neutralization of

PA at a facility are not currently

reported to the TRI. Although the

currently reported PA releases do

indicate which facilities are releasing

phosphates, they do not reflect the full

magnitude of the actual phosphate

loading from facility releases. Therefore,

the exposure assessment did not

provide a complete picture of the

significance of phosphate loading as a

result of releases of phosphoric acid and

phosphates from facilities that report

under EPCRA section 313.

Aquatic exposure to PA was

calculated by determining the stream

flow at each facility. Surface water

concentrations, under low flow

conditions, from discharges during

manufacture of PA ranged from 8.76 to

72,123 ppb. Surface water

concentrations from discharges during

processing and use ranged, under low

flow conditions, from 0.62 to 337,262

ppb.

Facilities that routinely discharge PA

to surface waters must comply with the

CWA requirements. Under EPCRA

section 313, by neutralizing their

releases, facilities are technically

releasing phosphates rather than PA to

water and thus can report a release of

zero. Even with neutralization of the

PA, for the 1995 reporting year, TRI

facilities still reported over 20 million

pounds of releases of PA to surface

waters from the more than 2,200 Form

R reports filed. As stated above, these

facilities are releasing additional

phosphates to surface waters from the

neutralization of PA, which are not

currently captured under EPCRA

section 313, but are the basis for

concern for facilities that release PA.

C. Summary of Technical Review

PA is acutely toxic to human tissue

with effects ranging from irritation to

acidosis and burns. The extent of the

damage is dependant on the acidity of

the PA solution and duration of

exposure. There, however, are no acute

human health effects expected to result

from exposure to PA at an acidity that

can reasonably be anticipated to exist in

the environment under normal release

conditions. Therefore, PA cannot

reasonably be anticipated to cause ‘‘. .

. significant adverse acute human health

effects at concentration levels that are

reasonably likely to exist beyond facility

site boundaries as a result of

continuous, or frequently recurring,

releases.’’

In terms of chronic health effects, the

available data indicate that PA cannot

reasonably be anticipated to cause

cancer, heritable genetic effects,

neurotoxicity, developmental or

reproductive toxicity, or other chronic

health effects with the exception of

nephrocalcinosis when PA is

administered at relatively high

concentrations in the diet.

PA can reasonably be anticipated to

cause significant adverse effects on the

environment. PA has been demonstrated

to cause environmental toxicity by its

contribution to phosphate loading in the

environment, which can lead to

eutrophication. Eutrophication takes

place in oceans, rivers, lakes, and

estuaries and results when nutrients,

such as phosphates, enter into an

aquatic ecosystem, well supplied with

sunlight and nitrogen, and stimulate

excessive algal growth. EPA believes

that eutrophication due to phosphate

loading is a well-established serious

adverse effect that induces a number of

changes to ecosystems including fish

kills and changes in the composition of

animal and plant life.

IV. Technical Issues Addressed by The

Fertilizer Institute

TFI’s petition to delist PA focused,

among other things, on environmental

exposure to PA from EPCRA section 313

covered facilities. Specifically, TFI

argued that industrial releases of PA

have no significant link to

eutrophication of the nation’s surface

waters. EPA believes that the adverse

effects associated with phosphates,

including phosphoric acid, are wellestablished effects that cause changes

across a whole ecosystem. Further, as

stated in Unit III.B. of this document,

EPA believes that the effects induced by

phosphates are of such sufficient

seriousness that factoring exposure

considerations into the listing decision

is not warranted because of the scope of

their impact and the well-documented

evidence supporting the adverse effects.

Although information on exposure is

not being used in today’s action to

support the determination that

phosphoric acid and phosphates meet

the section 313(d)(2)(C) criteria, TFI’s

comments do pertain to information

presented by EPA in the June 25, 1990

(55 FR 25876) Federal Register notice

and, thus, will be addressed.

TFI claims that the exposure

assessment portion of the technical

review of Ecolab’s petition was flawed.

TFI’s main claims are: (1) EPA’s

exposure modeling of releases of PA to

surface waters did not sufficiently

account for the fate of much of the

phosphate which TFI claims would be

consumed by plant and/or animal life or

would be bound and thus not contribute

to the concentration; (2) the modeling

incorrectly calculated phosphate

concentration rather than phosphorus

concentration; and (3) improper

receiving streams were used in the

models. EPA believes that there is not

expected to be any significant abiotic

removal of PA after discharge into

streams. PA will dissociate to hydrogen

and phosphate ions when released to

water. In this state there are four

possible removal mechanisms:

volatilization, photolysis, hydrolysis,

and adsorption to sludge and sediments.

Phosphate is non-volatile, therefore

there will be no removal via this

mechanism. Phosphate ions also will

not undergo hydrolysis or photolysis.

Inorganic phosphate will not adsorb to

stream sediments. The only way for a

phosphate ion to be able to sorb is for

it first to be transformed by other

processes. These transformations,

however, do not limit the availability of

phosphate ions to algae for several

reasons. Inorganic phosphate ion is

most rapidly taken up by algae, but

organic and complexed phosphate can

also be readily utilized by most species,

particularly those with alkaline

phosphatase activity. The transformed

phosphate complex that is sorbed to

sediments can be released back to the

epilimnion by biota in the sediments,

and by anaerobic conditions in the

water. Lastly, algae are able to

effectively utilize phosphorus from the

sediments. In conclusion, phosphate

ions are capable of several chemical

reactions in the environment, but very

few of these reactions limit its biological

availability (Refs. 3, 6, and 7).

While TFI is correct that phosphate

ions will be removed from surface water

by organisms, this is precisely the basis

for the concern over surface water

releases. Uptake of and utilization of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices 3569

phosphate by algae is the primary

concern, since it can lead to

eutrophication. While removal of

phosphate ions by heterotrophic

organisms could theoretically be

significant, in reality it accounts for

only a minor amount of removal

because there is a far larger biomass of

algae, and bacteria are poor competitors

under carbon limiting conditions.

TFI claims that the background levels

of phosphorus are above the level of

concern at each of the receiving streams

examined by EPA. TFI did not provide

data to support this blanket statement

nor did TFI describe the type of

phosphorous measurement it was

examining.

EPA agrees that the exposure

evaluation report details the phosphate

concentrations in analyzed receiving

streams, whereas the concern

concentration is expressed in terms of

total phosphorous. Phosphate amounts

are 3.07 times the phosphorous atom in

the ion. Therefore, the concern

concentration could be expressed as

153.5 ppb of phosphate (converted from

concentration of concern of 50 ppb total

phosphorous). Comparing this value to

the exposure concentrations shows that

27 of the 46 surface water dischargers

analyzed exceeded the concern

concentration, rather than the 30

referred to in the exposure assessment.

This does not alter the significance of

the releases.

TFI claims that EPA used incorrect

flow data for one facility in its exposure

modeling. A reexamination of the river

flow data, which is contained in EPA’s

Industrial Facilities Discharge file,

showed that the original flow values

used by EPA were correct. This file,

which uses U.S. Geological Survey data,

is maintained by EPA’s Office of Water.

For a second facility, TFI claims that

EPA identified and used an incorrect

receiving stream. A reexamination of the

information available to EPA at the time

of the initial assessment confirmed the

original estimated discharge site.

Further inquiry substantiated the claim

that surface water discharges go to the

receiving waters identified by TFI.

Nevertheless, the discrepancy in the

flow data of the streams is of a

magnitude that would not substantially

affect the estimated concentrations of

phosphate. Thus, the reexamination of

the exposure data based on the

comments by TFI has had little effect on

the final concentration numbers

generated in the review conducted in

response to the Ecolab petition.

V. Public Comment

In the notice issuing the results of

EPA’s technical review and evaluation

of the Ecolab petition to delete PA (June

25, 1990, 55 FR 25876), the Agency

requested public comment on the

creation of a phosphates category. In

1990, EPA received 12 comments on the

creation of this category, 2 of which

were in favor of the creation and 10 of

which were opposed to it. Although

EPA is not proposing to add a

phosphates category at this time,

because PA is a source of phosphates,

EPA believes that the comments

received and EPA’s responses to those

comments provide information relevant

to the listing of PA under EPCRA

section 313. Therefore, EPA is including

the comments and responses to the

issue of the addition of a phosphates

category in this document. EPA intends

to propose the creation of a phosphates

category at a later date.

The majority of the commenters

contended that eutrophication is an

indirect toxic effect and that a

phosphates category should not be

listed under section 313 because

phosphates do not exhibit direct

toxicity. They asserted that Congress

intended that the section 313 list of

toxic chemicals include only chemicals

that induce direct toxicity, and that

Congress did not intend the list to

include chemicals which are only

indirectly toxic.

EPA disagrees with these

commenters. The EPCRA section

313(d)(2) listing criteria each state that

EPA may list a chemical that it

determines ‘‘is known to cause or can

reasonably be anticipated to cause’’ the

relevant adverse human health or

environmental effect. It further provides

that ‘‘[a] determination under this

paragraph shall be based on generally

accepted scientific principles.’’

Ultimately, the crux of the issue

commenters raise lies in interpreting the

phrase ‘‘cause or can reasonably be

anticipated to cause,’’ which Congress

chose not to define. In arguing that EPA

lacks the statutory authority to base its

listing decisions on ‘‘indirect toxicity,’’

the commenters would have the Agency

adopt an artificially narrow view of

causation that would require a singlestep path between exposure to the toxic

chemical and the effect. Such a

mechanistic approach confuses the

mode or mechanism of the chemical’s

action (i.e., the chain of causation) with

the fundamental question of whether,

regardless of the number of intervening

steps, there is a natural and continuous

line, unbroken by any intervening

causes, between exposure to the

chemical and the toxic effect. By

contrast, EPA believes that Congress

granted the Agency broad discretion in

making listing decisions and directed

EPA to rely on generally accepted

scientific principles in making

determinations to implement this

section of EPCRA.

It is a generally accepted scientific

principle that causality need not be

linear, i.e., a one-step process. e.g.,

Proposed Guidelines for Ecological Risk

Assessment, 61 FR 47552, September 9,

1996; Proposed Guidelines for

Carcinogen Risk Assessment, 61 FR

17960, April 23, 1996. For purposes of

EPCRA section 313, the distinction

between direct and indirect effects is

technically an artificial one. Whether

the toxic effect is caused directly by a

chemical through a one-step process, or

indirectly by a degradation product of

the chemical, a second chemical that is

created through chemical reactions

involving the first chemical, or some

other mechanism, the toxic effect still

occurs as a result of exposure to the

chemical. It makes no difference to the

affected organism whether the toxic

agent was a result of chemical

degradation or chemical reactions.

Fundamentally, EPCRA section 313 is

concerned with adverse effects on

humans and the environment, not the

chain of causation by which such effects

occur. In fact, this type of ‘‘indirect’’

toxicity is not unlike the effects of

certain nonlinear carcinogens. Some

carcinogens induce cancer through a

two step mechanism in which the

chemical causes an intervening

pathological change, and this

pathological change is the direct cause

of the cancer, but this does not mean

that the chemical is not known or

reasonably anticipated to cause cancer.

It is therefore reasonable for EPA to

consider such effects in light of the

broad statutory purpose to inform the

public about releases to the

environment. Were EPA to exclude

indirect effects from consideration, it

would dilute the purpose of the statute

by precluding public access to

information about chemicals that cause

a wide range of adverse health and

environmental effects.

In prior petition decisions, EPA has

considered other types of significant

adverse effects on the environment that

result from the releases of chemicals.

For example, the addition of seven

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons

(August 3, 1990, 55 FR 31594) and the

denial of petitions on volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), specifically, the

ethylene and propylene petition

(January 27, 1989, 54 FR 4072) and the

cyclohexane petition (March 15, 1989,

54 FR 10668) all concerned adverse

effects on the environment.

Some commenters do not believe that

it is probable that eutrophication will
3570 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices

occur and believe that if it does occur

it is not necessarily tied to phosphate

releases.

Although a number of nutrients in

addition to phosphorus (as phosphates)

are required for eutrophication to occur,

in many cases phosphorus levels are the

limiting factor. Phosphorus (as

phosphate) is the most critical nutrient

in controlling the growth of blue-green

algal species. There is no indication in

the literature that the connection

between phosphates and algal blooms

and fish kills is tenuous.

A number of communities have

experienced problems with

eutrophication that is a result of

phosphate loading. For example, in the

Chowan River in North Carolina

significant algal blooms have occurred

in 1987, 1989, and 1990 (Ref. 8).

Many commenters believe that a

phosphates category should not be

added because releases of phosphates

from industrial facilities subject to

section 313 reporting requirements are

an insignificant part of total phosphates

released to the environment.

Nationwide, approximately two to

three percent of all releases of

phosphates to the environment are from

industrial facilities that are required to

report under EPCRA section 313.

However, discharges from industrial

facilities can contribute significantly to

the levels of phosphates in a receiving

stream. There are cases in which the

major contributor of phosphates to a

stream or river is an industrial facility

that is covered by EPCRA section 313.

Whether EPCRA section 313 covered

facilities are a significant source of a

toxic chemical in the environment

compared to other sources does not

change the fact that a toxic chemical

that meets the listing criteria of EPCRA

section 313 is being released to the

environment and adding to the overall

amount of the chemical in the

environment.

Many commenters believe that a

phosphates category should not be

added to the section 313 list because

information on phosphate releases are

captured by the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Not all industries required to report

under EPCRA section 313 are required

to have NPDES permits. Moreover, even

if an individual discharger is regulated

and has monitoring data related to its

releases of PA, this information is not

readily available to the public, as it

would be if the discharger were required

to comply with EPCRA section 313.

Rather, the public would have to resort

to the more cumbersome Freedom of

Information Act process to obtain the

information. Thus, contrary to

commenters suggestions, listing

phosphates on TRI would provide

useful, easily accessible information to

the public.

VI. Explanation of Denial of Petition

EPA believes that the types of

deleterious changes that PA effects in

aquatic ecosystems meet the listing

criteria under EPCRA section 313(d)(2).

As stated in the Conference Report

accompanying EPCRA, 99-962, October

3, 1986, Joint Explanatory Statement of

the Committee of Conference (p. 295):

In determining what constitutes a

significant adverse effect on the

environment...the Administrator should

consider the extent to which the toxic

chemical causes or can reasonably be

anticipated to cause any of the following

adverse reactions, even if restricted to the

immediate vicinity adjacent to the site:

(1) Gradual or sudden changes in the

composition of animal life or plant life,

including fungal or microbial organisms in

an area.

(2) Abnormal number of deaths of

organisms (e.g., fish kills).

(3) Reduction of the reproductive success

or the vigor of a species.

(4) Reduction in agricultural productivity,

whether crops or livestock.

(5) Alterations in the behavior or

distribution of a species.

(6) Long lasting or irreversible

contamination of components of the physical

environment, especially in the case of ground

water, and surface water and soil resources

that have limited self-cleansing capability.

The effect of phosphates, including

PA, on the environment is to induce a

number of changes to the environment

specified above, particularly fish kills

and changes in the composition of

animal and plant life in an area.

EPA has serious concerns for the

contribution of PA to phosphate loading

in the environment and its potential

eutrophic effects. EPA believes that the

adverse effects associated with

phosphates, including phosphoric acid,

are well-established effects that cause

changes across a whole ecosystem.

Further, EPA believes that the effects

induced by phosphates, including PA,

are of such sufficient seriousness that

additional exposure considerations are

not warranted because of the scope of

the impact of the effects and the welldocumented evidence supporting the

adverse effects. This determination is

consistent with EPA’s stated policy on

the use of exposure assessments in

EPCRA section 313 listing and delisting

decisions (59 FR 61432, November 30,

1994). Therefore, EPA is denying TFI’s

petition to delete PA from the EPCRA

section 313 list of toxic chemicals

because EPA has determined that PA

meets the listing criteria of EPCRA

section 313(d)(2)(C).

The Agency believes that the most

efficient manner to address its concerns

for phosphates is by the formation of a

phosphates category. However, at this

time, EPA is not proposing to create a

phosphates category under EPCRA

section 313. EPA intends to propose the

creation of such a category as a separate

rulemaking at a later date.

VII. References

1. TFI. Petition to Delete Phosphoric

Acid from the List of Toxic Chemicals

Subject to the Requirements of Section

313 of Title III of the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act

of 1996 (SARA). The Fertilizer Institute.

(November 9, 1990).

2. ECOLAB. Letter from John R.

Keenan to EPA Administrator William

K. Reilly, Subject: Phosphoric Acid

(CAS 7664-38-2) Petition for Deletion

from SARA 313. Ecolab Inc. (December

8, 1989).

3. USEPA, OPPT. Memorandum from

Janette Houk, Ph.D., Hazard Integrator,

Chemical Review and Evaluation

Branch, Health and Environmental

Review Division. Re: Petition to Delist

Phosphoric Acid. (February 14, 1990).

4. USEPA, OPPT. Memorandum from

Michael C. Cimino, Ph.D., Biologist,

Toxic Effects Section, Toxic Effects

Branch, Health and Environmental

Review Division. Re: Mutagenicity

Review of Delist Petition for Phosphoric

Acid. (February 9, 1990).

5. USEPA, OPPT. Memorandum from

Ossi Meyn, D.Env., Environmental

Effects Branch, Health and

Environmental Review Division. Re:

Petition to Delist Phosphoric Acid -

Ecological Hazard. (February 27, 1990).

6. USEPA, OPPT. DeVito, Stephen C.,

‘‘Phosphoric Acid Chemistry Report.’’

(January 11, 1990).

7. USEPA, OPPT. LaVeck, Gerald,

‘‘Exposure Assessment for a Petition to

Delist Phosphoric Acid.’’ (1990).

8. NCDNRCD. ‘‘Chowan River Water

Quality Management Plan 1990

Update.’’ North Carolina Department of

Natural Resources and Community

Development. (September 28, 1990).

VIII. Administrative Record

The record supporting this decision is

contained in docket control number

OPPTS-400056. Comments on EPA’s

previous phosphoric acid petition

response are contained in docket

number OPPTS-400048. All documents,

including the references listed in Unit

VII. of this document and an index of

the docket, are available to the public in

the TSCA Nonconfidential Information

Center (NCIC), also known as the Public

Docket Office, from noon to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1998 / Notices 3571

holidays. The TSCA NCIC is located at

EPA Headquarters, Rm. NE-B607, 401 M

St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Community right-to-know, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Toxic

chemicals.

Dated: January 12, 1998.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 98–1644 Filed 1–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5952–1]

Proposed Cost Recovery Settlement

Under Section 122(h)(1) of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as Amended, 42

U.S.C. 9622(h)(1), Hadley Street Drum

Site, St. Louis, Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EAP).

ACTION: Notice of proposed cost

recovery settlement under section

122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 9662(h)(1), Hadley

Street Drum Site, St. Louis, Missouri.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

is proposing to enter into a cost recovery

administrative settlement to resolve

claims under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1). This

settlement is intended to resolve the

liability of Hadley Street Real Estate

Company, Inc. (‘‘Hadley Street Real

Estate’’) for the response costs incurred

by the EPA in overseeing a removal

action conducted by Hadley Street Real

Estate at the Hadley Street Drum

Superfund Site, St. Louis, Missouri. The

proposed settlement was signed by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

on October 8, 1997. Because EPA’s total

response costs did not exceed $500,000,

the Attorney General’s concurrence is

not required for this settlement.

DATES: Written comments must be

provided on or before February 23,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Daniel J. Shiel, Office of

Regional Counsel, United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue,

Kansas City, Kansas 66101 and should

refer to: In the matter of Hadley Street,

Real Estate Company, Inc., EPA Docket

NO. VII–98–F–0001.

The proposed administrative

settlement may be examined in person

at the United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region VII, 726

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas

66101. To request a copy by mail please

refer to the matter name and docket

number set forth above and enclose a

check in the amount of $3.75 (25 cents

per page for reproduction costs),

payable to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed administrative settlement

concerns the Hadley Street Drum

Superfund Site in St. Louis, Missouri.

On July 24, 1992, EPA issued a CERCLA

106(a) Unilateral Administrative Order

(‘‘the Order’’) to Respondent requiring it

to conduct removal actions at the Site.

This administrative action was

captioned In the matter of Hadley Street

Drum Site, EPA Docket NO. VII–92–F–

0024. The Hadley Street Drum Site

included properties located at 1515 and

1531–1541 Hadley Street, St. Louis,

Missouri. Hadley Street Real Estate

owned a portion of the Site at the time

EPA issued the UAO. Hadley Street Real

Estate conducted the removal actions

ordered by EPA on its property and EPA

conducted the necessary removal

actions on the other portion of the Site.

Hadley Street Real Estate did not

agree to reimburse EPA’s costs of

overseeing the removal action. By letter

dated October 12, 1995, EPA mailed

Respondent an Itemized Cost Summary

with a demand that Respondent pay

EPA $31,806.21 in response costs. This

led to submittal of information on behalf

of Hadley Street Real Estate supporting

its claim of inability to pay the full

amount of EPA’s costs. Hadley Street

Real Estate ultimately offered to pay

$5,000 of EPA’s costs. EPA Region VII

reviewed the information submitted by

Hadley Street Real Estate and concluded

that it could not pay more than the

$5,000 offered in settlement.

Dated: December 15, 1997.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–1641 Filed 1–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Farm Credit

Administration Board; Regular Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given,

pursuant to the Government in the

Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), that

the March 12, 1998 regular meeting of

the Farm Credit Administration Board

(Board) will not be held.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Floyd Fithian, Secretary to the Farm

Credit Administration Board, (703) 883–

4025, TDD (703) 883–4444.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit

Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive,

McLean, Virginia 22102–5090.

Dated: January 22, 1998.

Floyd Fithian,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 98–1773 Filed 1–21–98; 2:17 pm]

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Farm Credit

Administration Board; Special Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given,

pursuant to the Government in the

Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of

the forthcoming special meeting of the

Farm Credit Administration Board

(Board).

DATE AND TIME: The special meeting of

the Board will be held at the offices of

the Farm Credit Administration in

McLean, Virginia, on January 27, 1998,

from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the

Board concludes its business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Floyd Fithian, Secretary to the Farm

Credit Administration Board, (703) 883–

4025, TDD (703) 883–4444.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit

Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive,

McLean, Virginia 22102–5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of

this meeting of the Board will be open

to the public (limited space available),

and parts of this meeting will be closed

to the public. In order to increase the

accessibility to Board meetings, persons

requiring assistance should make

arrangements in advance. The matters to

be considered at the meeting are:

Open Session

A. Approval of Minutes

B. New Business

Regulation

General Financing Agreements [12

CFR Part 614] (Final)

*Closed Session

C. Report

OGC Litigation Report

* Session closed-exempt pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 552b(c)(10).