Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES5

900

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
F. Activities Not Directly Regulated by This Rule EPA is not regulating all activities or exposures to PIP 3:1, even though the Exposure and Use Assessment Ref. 4
identified potential for exposures under many conditions of use. One such activity is disposal. EPA generally presumes compliance with federal and state laws and regulations, including, for example, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRA and its implementing regulations and state laws, as well as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act CWA, and the Safe Drinking Water Act SDWA. As described in the proposed rule, regulations promulgated under the authority of the RCRA govern the disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. Although PIP 3:1 is not a listed or characteristic hazardous waste under RCRA, it is subject to the requirements applicable to solid waste under Subtitle D of RCRA. This means there is a general prohibition on open dumping which includes a prohibition on open burning. Wastes containing this chemical that do not otherwise meet the criteria for hazardous waste would be disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills MSWLFs, industrial nonhazardous, or, in a few instances, construction/demolition landfills. Nonhazardous solid waste is regulated under Subtitle D of RCRA, and states play a lead role in ensuring that the federal requirements are met. The requirements for MSWLFs include location restrictions, composite liners, leachate collection and removal systems, operating practices, groundwater monitoring, closure and post-closure care, corrective action provisions, and financial assurance.
Industrial waste non-hazardous landfills and construction/demolition waste landfills are primarily regulated under state regulatory programs, and in addition they must meet the criteria set forth in federal regulations, which may include requirements such as siting, groundwater monitoring and corrective action depending upon what types of waste are accepted. Disposal by underground injection is regulated under both RCRA and SDWA. In view of this comprehensive, stringent program for addressing disposal, EPA
proposed that it is not practicable to impose additional requirements under TSCA on the disposal of the PBT
chemicals, including PIP 3:1.
EPA received a number of comments on this aspect of its proposal. Some commenters agreed with EPAs proposed determination that it is not practicable to regulate disposal, while
VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:01 Jan 05, 2021

Jkt 253001

others disagreed. However, in EPAs view, establishing an entirely new disposal program for PIP 3:1containing wastes would be expensive and difficult to establish and administer. In addition, imposing a requirement to treat these wastes as if they were listed as hazardous wastes would have impacts on hazardous waste disposal capacity and be very expensive for states and local governments as well as for affected industries. Therefore, EPA has determined that it is not practicable to further regulate PIP 3:1containing wastes for disposal. More information on the comments received and EPAs responses can be found in the Response to Comments document Ref.
5. One commenter, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. ISRI
EPAHQOPPT201900800559, noted that, while EPA proposed to not regulate disposal of the PBT chemicals under TSCA, the effect of EPAs proposed prohibition on manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce would prohibit the processing and distribution in commerce of the PBTs and articles and products containing the PBT chemicals for disposal. EPA did not intend such an effect and has added an exclusion in the final regulatory text for processing and distribution in commerce for disposal.
EPA also proposed not to use its TSCA section 6a authorities to regulate commercial use of products and articles containing the PBT chemicals, such as televisions and computers, because such regulation would not be practicable. It would be extremely burdensome, necessitating the identification of products containing PIP 3:1, and the disposal of countless products and articles that would have to be replaced.
If EPA prohibited the continued commercial use of these items, widespread economic impacts and disruption in the channels of trade would occur while the prohibited items were identified and replaced. Although some commenters agreed with EPAs proposed determination that it is not practicable to regulate commercial use, and others disagreed, for the reasons noted in the proposal and discussed further in the Response to Comments document Ref. 5, EPA continues to believe that prohibiting or otherwise restricting the continued commercial use of products and articles containing PIP 3:1 would result in extreme burdens in exchange for what in most cases would be minimal exposure reductions. Thus, EPA concludes that it is impracticable to prohibit or otherwise restrict the continued commercial use of PIP 3:1-containing products.

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

EPA also proposed not to use its TSCA section 6a authorities to directly regulate occupational exposures. As explained in the proposed rule, as a matter of policy, EPA assumes compliance with federal and state requirements, such as worker protection standards, unless case-specific facts indicate otherwise. The OSHA has not established a permissible exposure limit PEL for PIP 3:1. However, under section 5a1 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C.
654a1, each employer has a legal obligation to furnish to each of its employees employment and a place of employment that are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. The OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR
1910.1200 requires chemical manufacturers and importers to classify the hazards of chemicals they produce or import, and all employers to provide information to employees about hazardous chemicals to which they may be exposed under normal conditions of use or in foreseeable emergencies. The OSHA standard at 29 CFR
1920.134a1 requires the use of feasible engineering controls to prevent atmospheric contamination by harmful substances and requires the use of respirators where effective engineering controls are not feasible. The OSHA
standard at 29 CFR 1920.134c details the required respiratory protection program. The OSHA standard at 29 CFR
1910.132a requires the use of personal protective equipment PPE by workers when necessary due to a chemical hazard; 29 CFR 1910.133 requires the use of eye and face protection when employees are exposed to hazards including liquid chemicals; and 29 CFR
1910.138 requires the use of PPE to protect employees hands including from skin absorption of harmful substances. The provisions of 29 CFR
1910.132d and f address hazard assessment, PPE selection, and training with respect to PPE required under 29
CFR 1910.133, 1910.135, 1910.136, 1910.138 and 1910.140. EPA assumes that employers will require, and workers will use, appropriate PPE
consistent with OSHA standards, taking into account employer-based assessments, in a manner sufficient to prevent occupational exposures that are capable of causing injury.
EPA assumes compliance with other federal requirements, including OSHA
standards and regulations. EPA does not read TSCA section 6h4 to direct EPA
to adopt potentially redundant or conflicting requirements. Not only
E:FRFM06JAR5.SGM

06JAR5