information for each exposure monitoring event:
     Dates, duration, and results of each sample taken.
     All measurements that may be necessary to determine the
conditions that may affect the exposure monitoring results.
     Name, workplace address, work shift, job classification,
and work area of the person monitored; documentation of all other
persons whose exposures the monitoring is intended to represent if
using a representative sample; and type of respiratory protective
device worn by the monitored person, if any.
     Use of appropriate sampling and analytical methods, such
as analytical methods already approved by EPA, OSHA or NIOSH, or
compliance with an analytical method verification procedure.
     Compliance with the Good Laboratory Practice Standards at
40 CFR part 792.
     Information regarding air monitoring equipment, including:
type, maintenance, performance tests, and any malfunctions.
    iii. Direct Dermal Contact Control (DDCC) Requirements.
    DDCC requirements are a process-based set of provisions to address
unreasonable risk driven by direct dermal contact in the workplace.
DDCC requirements would include controls to prevent direct dermal
contact in the workplace by separating, distancing, physically
removing, or isolating all person(s) from direct handling of CTC or
from contact with surfaces that may be contaminated with CTC (i.e.,
equipment or materials on which CTC may be present) under routine
conditions in the workplace (hereafter referred to as direct dermal
contact).
    EPA requests comment on available methods to measure the
effectiveness of controls in preventing or reducing the potential for
direct dermal contact to CTC. EPA is also requesting comment on
available monitoring methods, such as charcoal patch testing, as
feasible or effective methods to measure potential direct dermal
contact with CTC.
    As discussed further in Unit V.A.1., EPA expects that many
workplaces already have stringent controls in place that reduce dermal
exposures to CTC; for some workplaces, EPA understands that these
existing controls may already prevent or reduce direct dermal contact
with CTC.
    c. Incorporation of the Hierarchy of Controls.
    EPA recommends and encourages the use of pollution prevention as a
means of controlling exposures whenever practicable. Pollution
prevention, also known as source reduction, is any practice that
reduces, eliminates, or prevents pollution at its source (e.g.,
elimination and substitution). Similarly, the hierarchy of controls
includes elimination, substitution, engineering controls, and
administrative controls, prior to relying on PPE as a means of
controlling exposures (Ref. 8). EPA is proposing to require owners or
operators to reduce inhalation exposures below the ECEL and implement
DDCC requirements in accordance with the hierarchy of controls. The
establishment of an ECEL and DDCC requirements is intended to allow
more flexibility to owners and operators to choose their controls when
compared with requiring specific prescriptive controls. EPA is
soliciting comment regarding the exposure control strategies required
under the WCPP and documented in the exposure control plan, including
the implementation of additional engineering controls, increase
frequency of exposure monitoring, implementation of respiratory and
dermal protection and notification of monitoring, and associated costs
with the WCPP exposure control strategies implementation.
    EPA expects owners or operators to identify and implement feasible
exposure controls such as elimination, substitution, engineering
controls, and administrative controls. If these controls are not
sufficient to reduce exposures to or below the ECEL and/or prevent
direct dermal contact with CTC in the workplace, EPA proposes to
require each owner or operator to use such controls to reduce CTC air
concentrations in the workplace and/or to prevent direct dermal contact
to the extent achievable, and supplement these controls using
respiratory protection and/or dermal PPE before persons are permitted
to enter a regulated area, as described in this unit. If an owner or
operator chooses to replace CTC with a substitute, EPA recommends that
they carefully review the available hazard and exposure information on
the potential substitute to avoid a regrettable substitution. In
addition, EPA proposes that a regulated entity would be prohibited from
rotating work schedules of potentially exposed persons to comply with
these requirements, similar to OSHA's Methylene Chloride Standard (29
CFR 1910.1052). EPA expects that, for conditions of use where EPA is
proposing these requirements, compliance at most workplaces would be
part of an existing industrial hygiene program. EPA is soliciting
comment on whether any of the requirements for the exposure control
strategies, including EPA's proposed prohibition of rotating work
schedules for potentially exposed persons, should be modified and
considered in the final rule.
    Examples of engineering controls that may prevent or reduce the
potential for direct dermal contact include automation, physical
barriers between contaminated and clean work areas, enclosed transfer
liquid lines (with purging mechanisms in place (e.g., nitrogen,
aqueous) for operations such as product changes or cleaning), and
design of tools (e.g., a closed loop container system providing
contact-free connection for unloading fresh and collecting spent
solvents, pneumatic tools, tongs, funnels, glove bags, etc.). Examples
of administrative controls that may reduce inhalation exposures or
prevent or reduce the potential for direct dermal contact include
adjusting work practices (i.e., implementing policies and procedures)
such as providing safe working distances from areas where direct
handling of CTC may occur.
    The Agency understands that certain engineering controls can reduce
exposures to people inside the workplace but may lead to increased
ventilation of CTC outside of the workplace, thereby increasing risks
to people in fenceline communities of adverse health effects from
exposures to CTC in ambient air. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
prohibit increased releases of CTC to outdoor air associated with the
implementation of the WCPP/ECEL. This proposed requirement is intended
to avoid unintended increases in exposures to people from CTC emissions
to ambient air. The proposed rule would require owners and operators to
attest in their WCPP/ECEL

exposure control plan that engineering controls selected do not
increase emissions of CTC to ambient air outside of the workplace and
document in their exposure control plan whether additional equipment
was installed to capture emissions of CTC to ambient air. EPA requests
comment on how this proposed requirement may impact the availability,
feasibility, or cost of engineering controls as a means to reduce
workplace exposures to or below the proposed ECEL.
    d. Regulated area.
    Based on the exposure monitoring, EPA is proposing to require that
owners or operators of workplaces subject to a WCPP demarcate any area
where airborne concentrations of CTC exceed or are reasonably expected
to exceed the ECEL. Regulated areas would be demarcated using
administrative controls, such as warning signs or highly visible
signifiers, in multiple languages as appropriate (e.g., based on
languages spoken by potentially exposed persons), placed in conspicuous
areas, and documented through training and recordkeeping. The owner or
operator would be required to restrict access to the regulated area
from any potentially exposed person that lacks proper training, is not
wearing required PPE as described in this unit or is otherwise
unauthorized to enter. EPA is proposing to require owners and operators
demarcate a regulated area beginning 9 months after the date of
publication of the final rule, or within 3 months after receipt of any
exposure monitoring that indicates exposures exceeding the ECEL. EPA is
soliciting comment on requiring warning signs to demarcate regulated
areas, such as the requirements found in OSHA's General Industry
Standard for Beryllium (29 CFR 1910.1024(m)(2)).
    e. Exposure Control Plan.
    EPA proposes to require that owners and operators document their
exposure control strategy, implementation and compliance with the WCPP,
including ECEL and DDCC requirements, in an exposure control plan. An
exposure control plan may include relevant existing documentation of
the facility's safety and health program that may already be developed
as part of meeting OSHA requirements or other safety and health
standards (Ref. 23). EPA proposes to require that the exposure control
plan documentation include the following:
    (i) Identification and rationale of exposure controls selected
including: elimination of CTC, substitution of CTC, engineering
controls, and administrative controls selected and used to reduce
inhalation exposures in the workplace to either at or below the ECEL or
to the lowest level achievable and to prevent or reduce direct dermal
contact with CTC in the workplace, and the rationale explaining why
each exposure control was selected (e.g., the hierarchy of controls,
feasibility, effectiveness, or other relevant considerations);
    (ii) For any category of exposure control not selected, document
the efforts identifying why these are not feasible, not effective, or
otherwise not implemented;
    (iii) Actions taken to implement exposure controls selected,
including proper installation, maintenance, training or other steps
taken;
    (iv) Description of any regulated area and how it is demarcated,
and identification of authorized persons; and description of when the
owner or operator expects exposures may be likely to exceed the ECEL;
    (v) Attestation that exposure controls selected do not increase
emissions of CTC to ambient air outside of the workplace and whether
additional equipment was installed to capture or otherwise prevent
increased emissions of CTC to ambient air;
    (vi) Regular inspections, evaluations, and updating of the exposure
controls no less frequent than every five years to ensure effectiveness
and confirm that all persons are implementing them as required;
    (vii) Occurrence and duration of any change in the production,
process, control equipment, personnel or work practices and explanation
of why the owner or operator may expect to result in new or additional
exposures above the ECEL or not, and occurrence and duration of any
other change that may result in new or additional exposures above the
ECEL have occurred;
    (viii) Occurrence and duration of any start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction of the facility that causes air concentrations above the
ECEL and/or direct dermal contact with CTC and subsequent corrective
actions taken during start-up, shutdown, or malfunctions to mitigate
exposures to CTC; and
    (ix) Availability of the exposure control plan and associated
records for potentially exposed persons.
    EPA may require more, less, or different documentation regarding
exposure control strategies in the final rule based on public comment.
    f. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
    Where elimination, substitution, engineering controls, and
administrative controls are not feasible to reduce the air
concentration to or below the ECEL and/or prevent direct dermal contact
with CTC for all potentially exposed persons, EPA is proposing to
require implementation of a PPE program in alignment with OSHA's
General Requirements for Personal Protective Equipment at 29 CFR
1910.132. Consistent with 29 CFR 1910.132, owners and operators would
be required to provide PPE, including respiratory protection and dermal
protection selected in accordance with the guidelines described in this
unit, that is of safe design and construction for the work to be
performed. EPA is proposing to require owners and operators ensure each
potentially exposed person who is required by this unit to wear PPE to
use and maintain PPE in a sanitary, reliable, and undamaged condition.
Owners and operators would be required to select and provide PPE that
properly fits each potentially exposed person who is required by this
unit to use PPE and communicate PPE selections to each affected person.
    i. Required Respiratory Protection.
    EPA is proposing to require a respiratory protection program with
worksite-specific procedures and elements for required respirator use.
The respiratory protection program proposed by EPA would be implemented
when the most recent exposure monitoring concentration measured as an
8-hour TWA is above the ECEL and after exhausting all other feasible
controls as described in this unit. The proposed program must be
administered by a suitably trained administrator. EPA is proposing to
require each owner or operator to select respiratory protection in
accordance with the requirements described in this unit and also to
comply with OSHA's general PPE training requirements at 29 CFR
1910.132(f) and 29 CFR 1910.134(a) through (1), except (d)(1)(iii), for
selection, proper use, maintenance, fit-testing, medical evaluation,
and training when using respirators. EPA is proposing that owners and
operators would provide PPE training to each potentially exposed person
who is required by this unit to wear PPE prior to or at the time of
initial assignment to a job involving potential exposure to CTC. Owners
and operators would also have to re-train each affected person at least
once annually or whenever the owner or operator has reason to believe
that a previously trained person does not have the required
understanding and skill to properly use PPE, or when changes in the
workplace or in the PPE to be used render the previous training
obsolete. EPA is not proposing to cross reference 29 CFR
1910.134(d)(1)(iii) because the WCPP contains requirements for
identifying CTC respiratory hazards in the workplace.

    EPA is proposing to require each owner or operator supply a
respirator, selected in accordance with this unit, to each potentially
exposed person who enters a regulated area within 3 months after the
receipt of any exposure monitoring that indicates exposures exceeding
the ECEL or 6 months after publication of the final rule if initial
monitoring was completed prior to publication of the rule, and to
ensure that all potentially exposed persons within the regulated area
are using the provided respirators whenever CTC exposures exceed or can
reasonably be expected to exceed the ECEL. EPA recognizes that
implementing exposure controls and a respiratory protection program
meeting the requirements outlined in this unit may require different
compliance timeframes depending on existing health and safety programs
at various facilities. EPA is soliciting comment on whether 6 months is
a reasonable timeframe to implement a respiratory protection program or
if a different timeframe is needed. Additionally, EPA is proposing that
the owner or operator must ensure that all filters, cartridges and
canisters used in the workplace are labeled and color coded with the
NIOSH approval label and that the label is not removed and remains
legible. EPA is requesting comment on whether there should be a
requirement to replace cartridges or canisters after a certain number
of hours, such as the requirements found in OSHA's General Industry
Standard for 1,3-Butadiene (29 CFR 1910.1051(h)), or a requirement for
a minimum service life of non-powered air-purifying respirators such as
the requirements found in OSHA's General Industry Standard for Benzene
(29 CFR 1910.1028(g)(3)(D)).
    EPA is proposing the following requirements for respiratory
protection, based on the exposure monitoring concentrations measured as
an eight-hour TWA that exceed the ECEL (0.03 ppm). EPA is proposing to
establish minimum respiratory protection requirements, such that any
respirator affording a higher degree of protection than the following
proposed requirements may be used. While this unit includes respirator
selection requirements for respirators of APF of 1,000 or greater, EPA
does not anticipate that respirators beyond APF 50 will be widely or
regularly used to address unreasonable risk, particularly when other
controls are put in place.
     If the measured exposure concentration is at or below 0.03
ppm: no respiratory protection is required.
     If the measured exposure concentration is above 0.03 ppm
and less than or equal to 0.3 ppm (10 times ECEL): Any NIOSH-certified
air-purifying half mask respirator equipped with NIOSH-approved organic
vapor cartridges or canisters; or any negative pressure (demand mode)
supplied-air respirator equipped with a half mask (APF 10).
     If the measured exposure concentration is above 0.3 ppm
and less than or equal to 0.75 ppm (25 times ECEL): Any NIOSH-certified
powered air-purifying respirator with a loose-fitting hood or helmet
equipped with NIOSH-approved organic vapor cartridges or canisters; or
any NIOSH-certified continuous flow supplied-air respirator equipped
with a hood or helmet (APF 25).
     If the measured exposure concentration is above 0.75 ppm
and less than or equal to 1.5 ppm (50 times ECEL): Any NIOSH-certified
air-purifying full facepiece respirator equipped with NIOSH-approved
organic vapor cartridges or canisters; any NIOSH-certified powered air-
purifying respirator equipped with a tight-fitting half or full
facepiece and NIOSH-approved organic vapor cartridges or canisters; any
NIOSH-certified negative pressure (demand mode) supplied-air respirator
equipped with a full facepiece; any NIOSH-certified continuous flow
supplied-air respirator equipped with a tight-fitting half or full
facepiece; or any NIOSH-certified negative pressure (demand mode) self-
contained respirator equipped with a full facepiece (APF 50).
     If the measured exposure concentration is above 1.5 ppm
and less than or equal to 30 ppm (1,000 times ECEL): Any NIOSH-
certified powered air-purifying respirator equipped with a tight-
fitting full facepiece and NIOSH-approved organic vapor cartridges or
canisters; or any NIOSH-certified supplied air respirator equipped with
a full facepiece and operated in a continuous flow mode or pressure
demand or other positive pressure mode (APF 1,000).
     If the measured exposure concentration is greater than 30
ppm (1,000 times ECEL) or the concentration is unknown: Any NIOSH-
certified self-contained breathing apparatus equipped with a full
facepiece and operated in a pressure demand or other positive pressure
mode (APF 10,000).
    ii. Required Dermal Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
    Where elimination, substitution, engineering controls, and
administrative controls are not feasible or sufficient to fully prevent
direct dermal contact with CTC, EPA is proposing to require a dermal
protection program with worksite-specific procedures and elements for
required dermal PPE, and administered by a suitably trained
administrator. In choosing appropriate dermal PPE, owners and operators
would be required to select gloves, clothing, and protective gear
(which covers any exposed dermal area of arms, legs, torso, and face)
based on specifications from the manufacturer or supplier that
demonstrate an impervious barrier to CTC during expected durations of
use and normal conditions of exposure within the workplace, accounting
for potential chemical permeation or breakthrough times.
    For example, owners and operators can select gloves that have been
tested in accordance with the American Society for Testing Material
(ASTM) F739 ``Standard Test Method for Permeation of Liquids and Gases
through Protective Clothing Materials under Conditions of Continuous
Contact.'' EPA is proposing that dermal PPE be provided for use for a
time period only to the extent and no longer than the time period for
which testing has demonstrated that the dermal PPE will be impermeable
during expected durations of use and conditions of exposure. EPA is
proposing to require that owners and operators also consider other
factors when selecting appropriate dermal PPE, including effectiveness
of glove type when preventing exposures from CTC alone and in likely
combination with other chemical substances used in the work area or
when used with glove liners, permeation, degree of dexterity required
to perform task, and temperature, as identified in the Hand Protection
section of OSHA's Personal Protective Equipment guidance (Ref. 24).
    EPA is proposing that owners and operators would be required to
establish, either through manufacturer or supplier-provided
documentation or individually prepared third party testing, that the
selected dermal PPE will be impervious for the expected duration and
conditions of exposure, such as using the format specified in ASTM
F1194-99 (2010) ``Standard Guide for Documenting the Results of
Chemical Permeation Testing of Materials Used in Protective Clothing
Materials,'' reporting cumulative permeation rate as a function of
time, or equivalent manufacturer or supplier provided testing. Owners
and operators would also be required to consider likely combinations of
chemical substances to which the clothing may be exposed in the work
area when selecting the appropriate PPE such that the PPE will prevent
direct dermal contact to

CTC. EPA is proposing that dermal PPE must be immediately provided and
replaced if any person is dermally exposed to CTC longer than the
breakthrough time period for which testing has demonstrated that the
PPE will be impermeable or if there is a chemical permeation or
breakage of the PPE.
    And compatible with the OSHA Hand Protection PPE Standard (29 CFR
1910.138), owners and operators would be required to select dermal PPE
based on an evaluation of the performance characteristics of the PPE
relative to the task(s) to be performed, conditions present, and the
duration of use. In addition, EPA recommends that owners and operators
consider 29 CFR 1910.133(b) for the selection and use of eye and face
protection.
    EPA proposes to require that owners and operators document in the
dermal protection program the following information, as applicable:
    (A) The name, workplace address, work shift, job classification,
and work area of each person reasonably likely to directly handle CTC
or handle equipment or materials on which CTC may present and the type
of dermal PPE selected to be worn by each of these persons;
    (B) The basis for specific dermal PPE selection (e.g.,
demonstration based on permeation testing or manufacturer
specifications that each item of PPE selected provides an impervious
barrier to prevent exposure during expected duration and conditions of
exposure, including the likely combinations of chemical substances to
which the PPE may be exposed in the work area); and
    (C) Appropriately sized PPE and training on proper application,
wear, and removal of dermal PPE, and proper care/disposal of dermal
PPE.
    EPA is soliciting comments on the requirements proposed for
appropriate dermal PPE selection, the effectiveness of PPE in
preventing direct dermal contact with CTC in the workplace, and general
absorption and permeation effects to PPE from direct dermal exposure.
In addition, EPA understands that some workplaces rinse and reuse PPE
after minimal use and is therefore soliciting comments on the impact on
effectiveness of rinsing and reusing certain types of PPE, either
gloves or protective clothing and gear. EPA also requests comment on
the degree to which additional guidance related to use of dermal PPE
might be appropriate.
    EPA is proposing to require each owner or operator supply dermal
PPE, selected in accordance with this unit, to each potentially exposed
person within 6 months after publication of the final rule.
    g. Workplace Information and training.
    To ensure that potentially exposed persons in the workplace are
informed of the hazards associated with CTC exposure, EPA is proposing
to require that owners or operators of workplaces subject to an ECEL
and DDCC requirements institute a training program for all potentially
exposed persons. EPA is proposing to require implementation of a
training program compatible with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard
(29 CFR 1910.1200) and the OSHA General Industry Standard for Methylene
Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052). To ensure that potentially exposed persons
in the workplace are informed of the hazards associated with CTC
exposure, EPA is proposing to require that owners or operators of
workplaces subject to the WCPP institute a training and information
program for potentially exposed persons and ensure their participation
in the training and information program.
    As part of the training and information program, the owner or
operator would be required to provide information and comprehensive
training in an understandable manner (i.e., in plain language) and in
multiple languages as appropriate (e.g., based on languages spoken by
potentially exposed persons) to potentially exposed persons prior to or
at the time of initial assignment to a job involving potential exposure
or direct dermal contact to CTC. Compatible with the OSHA Hazard
Communication Standard, owners and operators would be required to
provide information and training to all potentially exposed persons
that includes:
    (i) The requirements of the CTC WCPP and how to access or obtain a
copy of the requirements of the WCPP;
    (ii) The quantity, location, manner of use, release, and storage of
CTC and the specific operations in the workplace that could result in
CTC exposure;
    (iii) Principles of safe use and handling of CTC in the workplace,
including specific measures the owner or operator has implemented to
reduce inhalation exposures to at or below the ECEL or prevent direct
dermal contact with CTC, such as work practices and PPE used;
    (iv) The methods and observations that may be used to detect the
presence or release of CTC in the workplace (such as monitoring
conducted by the owner or operator, continuous monitoring devices,
visual appearance or odor of CTC when being released, etc.); and
    (v) The health hazards associated with exposure with CTC.
    In addition to providing training at the time of initial assignment
to a job involving potential inhalation exposure or direct dermal
contact to CTC, and similar to annual retraining requirements in the
OSHA General Industry Standard for Beryllium (29 CFR 1910.1024), owners
and operators subject to an ECEL and DDCC requirements would be
required to retrain each potentially exposed person at minimum annually
to ensure employees understand the principles of safe use and handling
of CTC in the workplace. Owners and operators would also need to update
the training as necessary whenever there are changes in the workplace,
such as new tasks or modifications of tasks; in particular whenever
there are changes in the workplace that increase exposure to CTC, where
exposure to CTC can reasonably be expected to exceed the ECEL action
level, or whenever there are changes in the workplace that may result
in direct dermal contact to CTC without appropriate PPE use. To support
compliance, EPA is proposing that each owner or operator of a workplace
subject to the WCPP would be required to provide to the EPA, upon
request, all available materials related to workplace information and
training.
    h. Workplace participation.
    EPA encourages owners or operators subject to ECEL and DDCC
requirements to consult with potentially exposed persons on the
development and implementation of an exposure control plan and
respirator and dermal PPE program. EPA is proposing to require owners
or operators to provide potentially exposed persons regular access to
the exposure control plan, exposure monitoring records, and respirator
and dermal PPE program implementation plan (documenting proper
application, wear, and removal of PPE). To ensure compliance with the
requirement for workplace access to the exposure control plan and PPE
program documentation, EPA is proposing that owners or operators
document the notice to and ability of any potentially exposed person
that may reasonably be affected by inhalation exposure and/or direct
dermal contact to CTC to readily access the exposure control plans,
facility exposure monitoring records, respiratory protection program
documentation, dermal PPE program documentation, or any other
information relevant to CTC exposure in the workplace. EPA is
requesting comment on how owners and operators can engage with
potentially exposed persons on the development and

implementation of an exposure control plan and PPE program.
    EPA proposes that the owner or operator must, within 15 work days
after receipt of the results of any exposure monitoring, notify each
person whose exposure is represented by that monitoring in writing,
either individually to each potentially exposed person or by posting
the information in an appropriate and accessible location accessible to
all persons whose exposure is represented by the monitoring, such as
public spaces or common areas, outside the regulated area. This notice
must include the exposure monitoring results, identification and
explanation of the ECEL and ECEL action level in plain language, any
corresponding required respiratory protection, if applicable, the
quantity, location, manner of CTC use and identified releases of CTC
that could result in exposure to CTC, and whether the airborne
concentration of CTC exceeds the ECEL. The notice must also include a
description of actions taken by the owner or operator to reduce
inhalation exposures to or below the ECEL, if applicable, or refer to a
document available to the potentially exposed persons which would state
the actions to be taken to reduce exposures and would be posted in
multiple languages if necessary.
    i. Recordkeeping.
    To support and demonstrate compliance, EPA is proposing that owners
and operators of a workplace subject to an ECEL and DDCC requirements
retain compliance records for five years. These proposed requirements
are not intended to supersede or otherwise relieve regulated entities
from any recordkeeping requirement imposed by other federal laws or
regulations. EPA is proposing to require records to include:
    (A) The exposure control plan;
    (B) PPE program implementation and documentation, including as
necessary, respiratory protection and dermal protection used and
related PPE training; and
    (C) Information and training provided to each person prior to or at
the time of initial assignment and any retraining.
    In addition, EPA is proposing that owners and operators subject to
the WCPP ECEL requirements maintain records to include:
    (A) The exposure monitoring records;
    (B) Notification of exposure monitoring results; and
    (C) If the owner or operator relies on exposure monitoring data
generated within the last five years as their initial exposure
monitoring, records that demonstrate that it meets all of the
requirements of this section.
    The owners and operators, upon request by EPA, would be required to
make all records maintained by this unit available to EPA for
examination and copying. All records required to be maintained by this
unit could be kept in the most administratively convenient form
(electronic or paper).
    j. Compliance Timeframes.
    EPA is proposing to require owners or operators of workplaces
subject to these restrictions to conduct initial exposure monitoring
for an ECEL and implement the DDCC requirements as outlined in this
unit within 6 months after the date of publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register or within 30 days of introduction of CTC into the
workplace if CTC use commences at least 6 months after the date of
publication. EPA is proposing to require that each owner or operator
ensure that the airborne concentration of CTC does not exceed the ECEL
for all potentially exposed persons within 9 months after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, or beginning 4
months after introduction of CTC into the workplace if CTC use
commences at least 6 months after the date of publication. EPA is also
proposing to require owners and operators demarcate a regulated area
wherever exposures exceed or can reasonably be expected to exceed the
ECEL beginning 9 months after the date of publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register, or beginning 4 months after introduction of
CTC into the workplace if CTC use commences at least 6 months after the
date of publication. If applicable, EPA is also proposing that each
owner or operator must provide respiratory protection sufficient to
reduce inhalation exposures to below the ECEL to all potentially
exposed persons in the regulated area within 3 months after the receipt
of the results of any exposure monitoring that indicates exposures
exceeding the ECEL or, if using monitoring data conducted within five
years prior to the effective date of this rule that satisfies all other
requirements of this section, within 9 months after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Regulated
entities should then proceed accordingly to implement an exposure
control plan within 12 months after date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. EPA is also proposing to require each
owner or operator to provide information and training for each person
prior to or at the time of initial assignment to a job involving
potential exposure to CTC within 6 months after the date of initial
exposure monitoring or within 6 months after the date of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register if initial exposure monitoring
was completed prior to publication of the rule. EPA will consider
compliance timeframes that may be substantially longer or shorter than
the proposed timeframes for owners or operators to conduct initial
exposure monitoring for the ECEL, implement the ECEL and DDCC
requirements, and any procedural adjustments needed to comply with the
requirements outlined in this unit, and is requesting comment on the
feasibility of the proposed compliance timeframes, as well as longer or
shorter timeframes.
    2. Prescriptive Workplace Controls: Fume Hood and Dermal PPE.
    a. Overview.
    In contrast to the proposed non-prescriptive requirements of the
ECEL and DDCC where regulated entities would have flexibility to select
controls in accordance with the hierarchy of controls to comply with
the parameters outlined in this unit, EPA may also find it appropriate
in certain circumstances to require specific prescriptive controls for
certain conditions of use with occupational exposures. In the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride, EPA identified certain workplace
controls that reduce exposures from the industrial and commercial use
of CTC as a laboratory chemical. Therefore, EPA is proposing to require
specific prescriptive controls for the industrial and commercial use of
CTC as a laboratory chemical, as described in this unit. This unit
describes proposed requirements for a fume hood and dermal PPE for the
industrial and commercial use of CTC as a laboratory chemical and
advanced engineering controls specifically for DoD's industrial and
commercial use of CTC as a laboratory chemical in chemical weapons
destruction, including additional requirements proposed for
recordkeeping. This unit also describes compliance timeframes for these
proposed requirements. Each owner or operator of a workplace where the
industrial and commercial use as a laboratory chemical occurs would be
responsible for compliance with the requirements outlined in this unit.
    b. Workplace Requirements for Laboratory Use.
    To address the unreasonable risk of injury to health resulting from
dermal exposures to CTC identified for the industrial and commercial
use as a laboratory chemical, including DoD's use of CTC as a
laboratory chemical in chemical weapons destruction, EPA is proposing
to require dermal PPE, including impermeable gloves and

protective clothing, in combination with comprehensive training for
tasks particularly related to the use of CTC in a laboratory setting as
specified in this unit for each potentially exposed person to direct
dermal contact in the work area to CTC through direct handling of the
substance or from contact with surfaces that may be contaminated with
CTC. For dermal PPE, EPA is proposing to require that each owner or
operator comply with the requirements outlined in Units IV.A.1.e.ii.
and IV.A.1.f. for selection of dermal PPE and training for all
potentially exposed persons. EPA's description for how the requirements
for the industrial and commercial use as a laboratory chemical would
address the unreasonable risk resulting from dermal exposures under the
conditions of use and the rationale for this regulatory approach is
outlined in Unit V.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to require the use of fume hoods in
workplace laboratory settings for the industrial and commercial use of
CTC as a laboratory chemical, except for DoD's use of CTC as a
laboratory chemical in chemical weapons destruction, to codify existing
good laboratory practices that EPA relied upon as a key basis for its
evaluation of risk from this condition of use. EPA is proposing to
require each owner or operator of a workplace laboratory setting,
except for DoD's use of CTC as a laboratory chemical in chemical
weapons destruction, to ensure fume hoods are in use and functioning
properly to minimize exposures to persons in the area where CTC is used
as a laboratory chemical. EPA suggests owners or operators refer to
OSHA's 29 CFR 1910.1450, Appendix A, for National Research Council
recommendations concerning laboratory chemical hood ventilation system
characteristics and practices to minimize exposures to workers in the
area. As noted in these non-mandatory recommendations, which are based
on the National Research Council's 2011 edition of ``Prudent Practices
in the Laboratory: Handling and Management of Chemical Hazards,''
recommended practices for laboratory chemical hoods include, but are
not limited to, regularly inspecting and maintaining the ventilation
system, ensuring a negative pressure differential between the amount of
air exhausted from the laboratory and the amount supplied to the
laboratory to prevent uncontrolled chemical vapors from leaving the
laboratory, and preventing laboratory air from recirculating back into
the laboratory (29 CFR 1910.1450, Appendix A). EPA requests comment on
whether it should incorporate in the rule best practices to ensure
proper and adequate performance of laboratory fume hoods, such as those
identified in OSHA's 29 CFR 1910.1450, Appendix A National Research
Council Recommendations Concerning Chemical Hygiene in Laboratory. EPA
recognizes that there are several types of fume hoods used in a
laboratory setting with differences in design and specifications to
meet performance standards. The Agency is requesting comment on whether
it should incorporate in the rule specific requirements for laboratory
hoods, such as design characteristics and/or a range of face
velocities, or some other type of performance standard.
    Rather than fume hoods, EPA understands that DoD uses CTC in small
amounts in a confined, laboratory-like setting with advanced
engineering controls (Ref. 25). Therefore, for DoD's industrial and
commercial use of CTC as a laboratory chemical in chemical weapons
destruction, EPA is proposing to require advanced engineering controls
that essentially codify existing practices at DoD facilities. EPA is
not proposing to require a WCPP, specifically with monitoring
requirements, for DoD's industrial and commercial use of CTC as a
laboratory chemical in chemical weapons destruction.
    To support and demonstrate compliance, EPA is proposing that each
owner or operator of a laboratory workplace subject to the requirements
of this unit retain compliance records for five years. EPA is proposing
to require records of:
    (A) PPE program implementation and documentation as outlined in
this unit; and
    (B) Implementation of a properly functioning fume hood using
manufacturer's instructions for installation, use, and maintenance of
the fume hood, including inspections, tests, development of maintenance
procedures, the establishment of criteria for acceptable test results,
and documentation of test and inspection results. Every five years, the
owner or operator would be required to re-assess and update these
records.
    With regards to the compliance timeframe, EPA is proposing to
require that each owner or operator of a workplace engaged in the
industrial and commercial of CTC as a laboratory chemical ensure fume
hoods are in use and functioning properly and that dermal PPE is
provided to all potentially exposed persons with direct dermal contact
with CTC within 6 months after publication of the final rule. While EPA
is proposing requirements within 6 months of publication of the final
rule, the Agency will consider compliance timeframes that may be
substantially longer or shorter than the proposed timeframe and is
soliciting comments on the feasibility of the proposed compliance
timeframes, as well as longer or shorter timeframes.
    Similarly, EPA is proposing to require that DoD facilities engaged
in the industrial and commercial use of CTC as a laboratory chemical in
chemical weapons destruction ensure that advanced engineering controls
are in use and functioning properly and dermal PPE is provided to all
potentially exposed persons with direct dermal contact with CTC within
12 months after publication of the final rule.
    3. Prohibition of manufacturing, processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of CTC for certain industrial and commercial uses.
    EPA is proposing to prohibit the manufacturing, processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of CTC for the following industrial
and commercial uses:
     Industrial and commercial use as a processing aid in the
manufacture of petrochemical-derived products;
     Industrial and commercial use in the manufacture of other
basic chemicals (including chlorinated compounds used in solvents,
adhesives, asphalt, and paints and coatings), except for use in the
elimination of nitrogen trichloride in the production of chlorine and
caustic soda (for which EPA is proposing a WCPP);
     Industrial and commercial use in metal recovery; and
     Industrial and commercial use as an additive.
    EPA is also proposing to explicitly prohibit:
     Processing: Incorporation into formulation, mixture or
reaction products in petrochemical-derived manufacturing (the upstream
processing condition of use for the industrial and commercial use of
CTC as a processing aid in the manufacture of petrochemicals-derived
products).
    EPA has attempted to identify users of CTC for the conditions of
use the Agency is proposing to prohibit; however, the Agency has not
found any ongoing users of CTC for these conditions of use. EPA expects
that this is a result of the phaseout of CTC manufacturing in the
United States for most non-feedstock domestic uses due to the Montreal
Protocol and Title VI of the CAA, and EPA believes it is reasonable to
assume that industry has found alternatives for these uses.

Therefore, the Agency understands that CTC is no longer needed for
these uses and is proposing that the prohibitions described in this
unit would take effect 180 days after the publication date of the final
rule. EPA has no reasonably available information indicating that the
proposed compliance dates are not practicable or that additional time
is needed. However, EPA requests comment on whether CTC is still used
in any of the conditions of use EPA is proposing to prohibit, and if
so, whether additional time is needed to cease use, whether the
compliance dates should be staggered by lifecycle, whether the proposed
prohibitions would impact the production and availability of any
pesticide, drug, or other substance excluded from the definition of
``chemical substance'' under TSCA section 3(2)(B)(ii) through (vi), or
any other reason for additional compliance time. EPA is also requesting
comment on whether the Agency should require a WCPP (as outlined in the
Unit IV.B.2. in the primary alternative regulatory action) or
prescriptive controls, including respirators and dermal PPE, for any of
the conditions of use EPA is proposing to prohibit.
    EPA is also proposing to prohibit the manufacturing, processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of CTC for the industrial and
commercial use of CTC in specialty uses by the DoD. EPA received
monitoring data for the industrial and commercial of CTC in specialty
uses by the DoD, which was used in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon
Tetrachloride. The Agency understands that DoD has successfully phased
out the use of CTC for this condition of use and is therefore proposing
that the prohibition for specialty uses by the DoD would take effect
365 days after the publication date of the final rule. EPA is
requesting comments on whether a shorter timeframe for prohibition
would be practicable.
    After the risk evaluation was published, DoD did further analysis
and provided additional information clarifying their ongoing use of CTC
and risk management measures implemented. DoD provided information on
their use of CTC as a laboratory chemical in chemical weapons
destruction, indicating that CTC is used in small amounts in a
confined, laboratory-like setting with advanced engineering controls.
Therefore, EPA is proposing not to prohibit this use and instead to
regulate this use under the condition of use of industrial and
commercial use of CTC as a laboratory chemical. Unit IV.A.2. provides
details on the proposed prescriptive controls for DoD's use of CTC as a
laboratory chemical in chemical weapons destruction.
    Additionally, EPA recognizes that there may be instances where an
ongoing use of CTC that has implications for national security or
critical infrastructure as it relates to other Federal agencies (e.g.,
DOD, NASA) is identified after the CTC rule is finalized, but the final
rule prohibits that use. For instances like that, EPA requests comments
on an appropriate, predictable, process that could expedite
reconsideration for uses that Federal agencies or their contractors
become aware of after the final rule is issued using the tools
available under TSCA, aligning with the requirements of TSCA section
6(g). One example of an approach could be the establishment by
rulemaking of a Federal agency category of use that would require
implementation of the WCPP and periodic reporting to EPA on details of
the use as well as progress in discontinuing the use or finding a
suitable alternative. To utilize the category of use a Federal agency
would petition EPA, supported by documentation describing the specific
use (including documentation of the specific need, service life of any
relevant equipment, and specific identification of any applicable
regulatory requirements or certifications, as well as the location and
quantity of the chemical being used); the implications of cessation of
this use for national security or critical infrastructure (including
how the specific use would prevent injuries/fatalities or otherwise
provide life-supporting functions); exposure control plan; and, for
Federal agency uses where similar adoption by the commercial sector may
be likely, concrete steps taken to identify, test, and qualify
substitutes for the uses (including details on the substitutes tested
and the specific certifications that would require updating; and
estimates of the time required to identify, test, and qualify
substitutes with supporting documentation). EPA requests comment on
whether these are the appropriate types of information for use in
evaluating this type of category of use, and whether there are other
considerations that should apply. EPA would make a decision on the
petition within 30 days and publish the decision in the Federal
Register shortly after. Additionally, during the year following the
petition, EPA would take public comment on the approved petition and no
later than 180 days after submitting the petition to EPA, the
requesting agency would submit monitoring data indicating compliance
with the WCPP at each relevant location as well as documentation of
efforts to identify or qualify substitutes. In the absence of that
confirmatory data, the utilization of the generic Federal agency
category of use would expire within one year of the date of receipt by
EPA of the petition. EPA could undertake a TSCA section 6(g) rulemaking
for those instances where the Federal agency could not demonstrate
compliance with the WCPP. This is just one example of a potential
process. EPA requests comments on a transparent process that could
expedite reconsideration for uses that Federal agencies or their
contractors become aware of after the final rule is issued.
    4. Other requirements.
    a. Recordkeeping.
    EPA is proposing that manufacturers, processors, distributors, and
industrial and commercial users of CTC maintain ordinary business
records, such as invoices and bills-of-lading, that demonstrate
compliance with the prohibitions, restrictions, and other provisions of
this proposed regulation; and maintain such records for a period of 5
years from the date the record is generated. EPA is proposing that this
requirement begin at the effective date of the final rule, which is
expected to be set as the date 60 days after date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register. Recordkeeping requirements would
ensure that owners or operators can demonstrate compliance with the
regulations if necessary.
    b. Downstream Notification.
    For conditions of use that are not otherwise prohibited under this
proposed regulation, EPA is proposing that manufacturers (including
importers), processors, and distributors of CTC provide downstream
notification of the prohibitions through Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) by
adding to sections 1(c) and 15 of the SDS the following language:

    After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], this chemical is and may only be
distributed in commerce or processed for the following purposes:
Processing as a reactant/intermediate; Repackaging for use as a
laboratory chemical; Recycling; Incorporation into formulation,
mixture or reaction products in agricultural products manufacturing
and other basic organic and inorganic chemical manufacturing;
Industrial and commercial use as an industrial processing aid in the
manufacture of agricultural products; Industrial and commercial use
in the elimination of nitrogen trichloride in the production of
chlorine and caustic soda; Industrial and commercial use as a
laboratory

chemical; Industrial and commercial specialty uses by the U.S.
Department of Defense until [DATE 365 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]; and Disposal.

    The intention of downstream notification is to spread awareness
throughout the supply chain of the restrictions on use of CTC under
TSCA as well as provide information to end users about allowable TSCA
uses of CTC.
    In order to provide adequate time to undertake the changes to the
SDS and ensure that all users in the supply chain receive the revised
SDS, EPA is proposing a 6-month period for manufacturers, processors,
and distributors to implement the proposed SDS changes following
publication of the final rule.
    EPA requests comments on the timeframes for recordkeeping and
downstream notification requirements described in this unit.

B. Primary Alternative Regulatory Action

    As indicated by TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A)(iv)(II) and (III), EPA must
consider and publish a statement based on reasonably available
information with respect to the reasonably ascertainable economic
consequences of the rule, including consideration of the costs and
benefits and the cost effectiveness of the proposed regulatory action
and one or more primary alternative regulatory actions considered by
the Agency.
    The primary alternative regulatory action described in this unit
and considered by EPA combines requirements for a WCPP and prescriptive
workplace controls to address the unreasonable risk from CTC driven by
the various conditions of use. The primary alternative regulatory
action would allow a WCPP, including requirements to meet an ECEL and
DDCC, for those conditions of use that would be prohibited under the
proposed regulatory action, and prescriptive controls for those
conditions of use where an ECEL and DDCC are the proposed regulatory
action and where PPE may address the unreasonable risk. EPA requests
comment on this primary alternative regulatory action and whether any
elements of the primary alternative regulatory action described in this
unit should be considered in combination with elements of the proposed
regulatory action as EPA develops the final regulatory action. Examples
of possible combinations in approaches may include, but are not limited
to: adoption of the primary alternative regulatory action for certain
conditions of use and the proposed regulatory action for other
conditions of use; allowing regulated entities to opt out of
requirements described in the proposed regulatory action by complying
with requirements described in the primary alternative regulatory
action; or allowing regulated entities to opt out of requirements
described in the primary alternative regulatory action by complying
with requirements described in the proposed regulatory action.
    1. Prescriptive workplace controls.
    The primary alternative regulatory action would require
prescriptive workplace controls, specifically respirators and dermal
PPE, for manufacturing (including import) of CTC and for the following
other conditions of use, which account for essentially all of the
production volume of CTC manufactured annually, where the proposed
regulatory action is a WCPP:
     Processing as a reactant in the production of HCFCs, HFCs,
HFOs, and PCE;
     Processing: Incorporation into formulation, mixtures, or
reaction products for agricultural products manufacturing and other
basic organic and inorganic chemical manufacturing;
     Processing: Repackaging for use as a laboratory chemical;
     Processing: Recycling;
     Industrial and commercial use as an industrial processing
aid in the manufacture of agricultural products;
     Industrial and commercial use in the elimination of
nitrogen trichloride in the production of chlorine and caustic soda;
and
     Disposal.
    In the risk evaluation, EPA identified respirators and gloves that
would reduce inhalation and dermal exposures to CTC. Under the primary
alternative regulatory action, EPA considered requiring dermal PPE as
described in Unit IV.A.1.f.ii. This approach differs from the proposed
regulatory action because it would not require the use of elimination,
substitution, engineering controls, and administrative controls, in
accordance with the hierarchy of controls, to the extent feasible as a
means of controlling dermal exposures to comply with DDCC requirements.
Rather, this approach would require dermal PPE in combination with
comprehensive training for tasks where dermal exposure may occur from
direct handling of CTC or from contact with surfaces that may be
contaminated with CTC (i.e., equipment or materials on which CTC may be
present). EPA recognizes that resorting to the use of dermal PPE does
not consider other, more protective controls in the hierarchy, as a
WCPP does. By using other controls in the hierarchy, owners and
operators may be more easily able to prevent direct dermal contact.
    For inhalation exposures in the risk evaluation, EPA identified
assigned protection factors (APF) for respirators for each condition of
use that would mitigate the unreasonable risk. EPA expects that
workplaces engaged in the conditions of use described in Unit III.B.1.
may be able to implement prescriptive controls as part of an industrial
hygiene program. Under the primary alternative regulatory action, EPA
considered requiring that owners or operators implement all aspects of
a respiratory protection program (e.g., training, fitting, medical
surveillance, etc.). This approach differs from the proposed regulatory
action because it does not require the use of elimination,
substitution, engineering controls, and administrative controls, in
accordance with the hierarchy of controls, to the extent feasible as a
means of controlling inhalation exposures to comply with an ECEL, or
require monitoring to determine the airborne concentration in the
workplace. As discussed in Unit V.A.1., EPA understands that there are
several uncertainties regarding the applicability of respirators, such
as the inability to use respirators by some workers due to respiratory
concerns, issues with fit-testing, and interference with work
efficiency. In addition, the APFs for the respirators are based on
monitoring data that included 12-hour and 8-hour shifts as well as
monitoring data from the DoD provided during the risk evaluation (Ref.
1). EPA recognizes that workers and ONUs are not typically exposed to
CTC for their entire work shifts; rather, exposures to CTC tend to
occur intermittently and the level of respiratory APF needed may vary
throughout each work shift (Ref. 26). In addition, EPA understands that
workplaces have unique processes and equipment in place and that
varying levels of respiratory APFs may be needed for different
workplaces. Due to these uncertainties, EPA is proposing prescriptive
workplace controls as the primary alternative regulatory action.
However, the Agency also understands that requiring specific
respirators may be more cost-effective and easier to implement for
regulated entities since it would not require monitoring for an ECEL.
Based on the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride, EPA
determined that the use of respirators with an APF of 50 could control
CTC air concentration to levels that eliminate the unreasonable risk

from inhalation exposures based on high-end exposures during a 12-hour
work shift driven by the following conditions of use: domestic
manufacture; processing as a reactant in the production of HCFCs, HFCs,
HFOs, and PCE; incorporation into formulation, mixture, or reaction
products for agricultural products manufacturing and other basic
organic and inorganic chemical manufacturing; and industrial and
commercial use in the elimination of nitrogen trichloride in the
production of chlorine and caustic soda. EPA also determined that the
use of respirators with an APF of 25 could control CTC air
concentration to levels that eliminate the unreasonable risk from
inhalation exposures based on high-end exposures during an 8-hour work
shift driven by the following conditions of use: import; repackaging of
CTC for use as a laboratory chemical; recycling; industrial and
commercial use of CTC as an industrial processing aid in the
manufacture of agricultural products; and disposal. The alternative
regulatory action would require that owners or operators require the
use of respirators with an APF 25 or 50, as described in this
paragraph, as well as dermal PPE, for any person reasonably likely to
be exposed to CTC from the conditions of use described in this unit
(Unit IV.B.1.). EPA recognizes that the length of work shifts and the
inhalation exposures to CTC throughout a specific work shift may vary
across facilities and that monitoring may be helpful to identify the
respirators required to eliminate unreasonable risk driven by
inhalation exposures. Therefore, the Agency is soliciting comments on
information to support the consideration of other APFs that are also
protective of the highest possible lengths of exposures and on whether
or how monitoring should be considered for the alternative regulatory
action.
    EPA understands that many workplaces already have engineering
controls or administrative controls in place that reduce exposures to
CTC, in particular highly standardized and industrialized workplaces or
where CTC is used in a closed system. However, EPA does not have
reasonably available information on engineering controls and
administrative controls that would mitigate unreasonable risk across a
wide variety of workplaces for most conditions of use. EPA is
requesting comment on specific controls that mitigate the unreasonable
risk from CTC and that could be included as part of a prescriptive
workplace controls requirement, which could be considered as EPA
develops the final regulatory action. Specifically, EPA is soliciting
comment on engineering controls and administrative controls that reduce
inhalation exposures to at or below the ECEL of 0.03 ppm as an 8-hr TWA
or prevent dermal exposure from direct handling of CTC or from contact
with surfaces that may be contaminated with CTC and any associated cost
related to these controls. Examples of potential controls and workplace
practices include a closed system transfer, purging liquid lines with
nitrogen, and limiting frequency and duration of exposure to CTC. EPA
is also soliciting comment on combinations of engineering controls,
administrative controls, and PPE that would reduce inhalation exposures
to at or below the ECEL of 0.03 ppm as an 8-hr TWA or prevent direct
dermal contact for all regulated entities and any associated cost
related to these controls.
    2. Workplace Chemical Protection Program (WCPP).
    As discussed in Unit IV.A.3., EPA understands that the conditions
of use the Agency is proposing to prohibit have been phased out.
However, if EPA receives information indicating the continued use of
CTC for these conditions of use, the Agency may consider regulating
these uses rather than prohibiting them. Therefore, the primary
alternative regulatory action considered by EPA would require the
implementation of a WCPP, including an ECEL and DDCC requirements, for
the following processing, industrial, and commercial uses of CTC:
     Processing: Incorporation into formulation, mixtures, or
reaction products in petrochemicals-derived manufacturing;
     Industrial and commercial use as an industrial processing
aid in the manufacture of petrochemicals-derived products;
     Industrial and commercial use in the manufacture of other
basic chemicals (including manufacturing of chlorinated compounds used
in solvents, adhesives, asphalt, and paints and coatings), except for
use in the elimination of nitrogen trichloride in the production of
chlorine and caustic soda;
     Industrial and commercial use in metal recovery;
     Industrial and commercial use as an additive; and
     Industrial and commercial use in specialty uses by the
DoD.
    EPA understands that, if these uses are ongoing, they would occur
in highly industrialized settings and controlled and closed processes,
suggesting a WCPP could be implemented. Unit IV.A.1. provides details
on the WCPP that EPA would require to be implemented for these uses.
For the industrial and commercial use of CTC as a laboratory chemical,
the primary alternative regulatory action considered by EPA would
require the implementation of only the DDCC requirements of the WCPP in
combination with the use of fume hoods in workplace laboratory settings
(requiring fume hoods would make mandatory the current existing good
laboratory practices) and advanced engineering controls specifically
for DoD's use of CTC as a laboratory chemical in chemical weapons
destruction (requiring advanced engineering controls would make
mandatory the existing practices at DoD facilities). EPA is soliciting
comment on non-prescriptive DDCC requirements as compared to the
prescriptive workplace controls of dermal PPE EPA is proposing in Unit
IV.A.2.
    3. Other requirements.
    The primary alternative regulatory action will also require
recordkeeping and downstream notification similar to the proposed
regulatory action as described in Unit IV.A.4.
    4. Compliance timeframes.
    The timeframes for the controls outlined as part of the primary
alternative regulatory action, including ECEL, DDCC, and prescriptive
controls, would remain the same as the timeframes outlined in the
proposed regulatory action in Unit IV.A. In addition, the timeframes
for recordkeeping and downstream notification requirements described in
this unit also do not differ from the timeframes for the recordkeeping
and downstream notification requirements in the proposed regulatory
action described in Unit IV.A.

V. Rationale for the Proposed Regulatory and Primary Alternative
Regulatory Actions

    This unit describes how the considerations described in Unit
III.B.4 were applied when selecting among the TSCA section 6(a)
requirements to arrive at the proposed and primary alternative
regulatory actions described in Unit IV.A and IV.B.

A. Consideration of Risk Management Requirements Available Under TSCA
Section 6(a)

    1. Workplace Chemical Protection Program.
    One option EPA considered for occupational conditions of use was
establishing a WCPP, which would include a combination of restrictions
to address unreasonable risk driven by inhalation and dermal exposures
in the

workplace. A WCPP for CTC would encompass restrictions on certain
occupational conditions of use and could include provisions for an
ECEL, DDCC, and ancillary requirements to support implementation of
these restrictions.
    A WCPP was considered for certain conditions of use for which there
are compelling reasons not to prohibit the activity and for which EPA
has found that a regulatory action would address the unreasonable risk.
For example, CTC is a major feedstock in the generation of lower GWP
HFOs, which is important to the Agency's efforts to address climate-
damaging HFCs. Another example is the use of CTC as an industrial
processing aid in the manufacture of agricultural products, where
industry has described its efforts to explore alternatives, but lack of
success in finding a suitable replacement for CTC (Ref. 5). Similarly,
for the use of CTC in the elimination of nitrogen trichloride in the
production of chlorine and caustic soda, where industry has indicated
that alternatives are not as efficient and/or have not been
demonstrated to be effective in decomposing nitrogen trichloride (Ref.
27). Therefore, for these uses, EPA considered regulatory requirements
other than prohibition, such as a WCPP, that would reduce exposures in
occupational settings so that the unreasonable risk is no longer
present.
a. Existing Chemical Exposure Limit.
    One option considered by EPA was establishing an ECEL and related
required implementation measures, such as monitoring, as a component of
a WCPP. The EPA ECEL requirement for CTC would be non-prescriptive, in
the sense that regulated entities would not be required to use specific
equipment or engineering controls, or any other type of control, to
achieve the exposure concentration limit. Rather, it would be a
performance-based exposure limit that would enable owner or operators
to determine how to most effectively meet the exposure limits based on
conditions at their workplace following the hierarchy of controls.
    Exposures remaining at or below the ECEL would eliminate any
unreasonable risk of injury to health driven by inhalation exposures
for occupational conditions of use.
    In the case of CTC, EPA has calculated the ECEL for CTC to be 0.03
ppm (0.2 mg/m\3\) for inhalation exposures as an 8-hour TWA in
workplace settings, based on the cancer human equivalent concentration
for liver toxicity from chronic inhalation exposures. This is the
concentration at which an adult human, including a member of a
susceptible subpopulation, would be unlikely to suffer adverse effects
if exposed for a working lifetime (Ref. 9). The differences between the
ECEL and the OSHA PEL are discussed in more detail in Unit II.C.1.b.
EPA chose the cancer liver toxicity endpoint as the basis for this
exposure limit, and this exposure limit will be protective of both
acute and chronic non-cancer inhalation endpoints over the course of a
working day and lifetime.
    In deciding whether setting an ECEL would appropriately address
unreasonable risk, EPA considered factors including the prevalence of
use of the chemical substance, prevalence or lack of alternatives,
efficacy, and factors related to work activities that may make it
difficult to comply with an ECEL, particularly at the low levels EPA
has identified. Examples include work activities in conditions of use
that require a high range of motion or for some other reason create
challenges for the implementation of respiratory PPE, and the type of
PPE that may be needed to meet the ECEL in the absence of, or in
addition to, other feasible exposure controls, based on analysis in the
risk evaluation describing expected exposures with and without use of
PPE.
    EPA also considered the feasibility of exposure reduction
sufficient to address the unreasonable risk even in facilities
currently complying with OSHA PELs. EPA acknowledges the regulated
community's expected familiarity with OSHA PELs generally, as well as
facilities' past and ongoing actions to implement the CTC PEL and
corresponding methods of compliance outlined in OSHA standards. Since
the level of EPA's exposure limits is two orders of magnitude lower
than the OSHA PEL (the differences between the ECEL and the OSHA PEL
are discussed in more detail in Unit II.C.4; more information on other
OELs is in Unit II.C.5.), the ECEL requirement creates some uncertainty
as to the ability of facilities engaging in most conditions of use to
meet the ECEL and associated action level without relying on the use of
PPE, and, therefore, whether exposures could be reduced in a manner
aligned with the hierarchy of controls.
    EPA understands that this uncertainty extends to the applicability
of respirators as well. Although respirators could reduce exposures to
levels that are protective of cancer and non-cancer risks, not all
workers may be able to wear respirators. Individuals with impaired lung
function due to asthma, emphysema, or chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, for example, may be physically unable to wear a respirator.
OSHA requires that a determination regarding the ability to use a
respirator be made by a physician or other licensed health-care
professional, and annual fit testing is required for tight-fitting,
full-face piece respirators to provide the required protection.
Individuals with facial hair, such as beards or sideburns that
interfere with a proper face-to-respirator seal, cannot wear tight
fitting respirators. In addition, respirators may also present
communication problems, vision problems, worker fatigue, and reduced
work efficiency (63 FR 1152, January 8, 1998). According to OSHA,
``improperly selected respirators may afford no protection at all (for
example, use of a dust mask against airborne vapors), may be so
uncomfortable as to be intolerable to the wearer, or may hinder vision,
communication, hearing, or movement and thus pose a risk to the
wearer's safety or health.'' (63 FR 1189 through 1190, January 8,
1998).
    b. Direct Dermal Contact Control (DDCC) Requirements.
    Another restriction considered by EPA to include in a WCPP for CTC
to address unreasonable risk driven by dermal exposures was requiring
direct dermal contact controls (DDCC). DDCC requirements under WCPP
would be a process-based set of provisions to address unreasonable risk
driven by dermal exposure by preventing direct dermal contact in the
workplace by separating, distancing, physically removing, or isolating
potentially exposed persons from direct handling of CTC or from contact
with equipment or materials on which CTC may exist under routine
conditions (exceptions may be needed in the event of incidental
exposure or equipment malfunction). Similar to the ECEL, DDCC is non-
prescriptive, in the sense that it does not require a specific control
to prevent direct dermal contact; rather, it would enable regulated
entities to determine how to most effectively prevent direct dermal
contact based on what works best for their workplace, in accordance
with the hierarchy of controls.
    In deciding whether DDCC requirements under a WCPP would
appropriately address the unreasonable risk driven by dermal exposures,
EPA considered factors including the prevalence of use of the chemical
substance; availability of technically and economically feasible
alternatives; efficacy; and factors related to work activities that may
make it difficult to prevent direct dermal contact. Examples include
work activities that require a high dexterity or precise use of hands
and fingers or for some other reason create challenges for the

implementation of dermal PPE, and the type of PPE that would be needed
to prevent direct dermal contact, based on analysis in the risk
evaluation describing expected exposures with and without use of PPE.
EPA also considered whether exposures could be reduced in a manner
aligned with the hierarchy of controls.
    c. CTC Workplace Chemical Protection Program.
    Taking into account these considerations, EPA is proposing that
certain conditions of use would be allowed to continue if regulated
entities could ensure exposures remain at or below the ECEL, direct
dermal contact is prevented, and other requirements are met in the CTC
WCPP. In contrast to considerations that would weigh against the
likelihood of a facility within a condition of use to successfully
implement WCPP, there are certain considerations that indicate a
condition of use is a good fit for effective risk management via WCPP.
Based on reasonably available information, including monitoring data,
and information related to considerations described previously in this
unit, EPA's confidence that requirements to meet an ECEL can be
implemented is highest in the highly standardized and industrialized
settings, such as where CTC is used in a closed system (Ref. 10).
Additionally, the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride
supports EPA's conclusion that only small reductions in exposure are
needed for WCPP ECEL compliance for the conditions of use. Also, for
dermal exposures, reasonably available information indicates that
controls may already be in place at some workplaces to prevent or
reduce direct dermal contact with CTC, including enclosed transfer
liquid lines with a nitrogen purging mechanism, closed loop samplers,
and impervious glove liners in addition to chemically resistant gloves
(Refs. 26 and 28).
    For example, one condition of use where a WCPP may be implemented
is the processing of CTC as a reactant in the production of HFOs, which
are in lower global warming potential products, including refrigerants,
aerosol propellants, and foam-blowing agents, potentially replacing
many of the higher global warming potential products containing HFCs,
which are subject to a phasedown in production and consumption of HFCs
under the AIM Act and the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol.
Among other things, the AIM Act authorizes EPA to address listed HFCs
in three main ways: phasing down HFC production and consumption through
an allowance allocation program, facilitating sector-based transitions
to next-generation technologies, and issuing certain regulations for
purposes of maximizing reclamation and minimizing releases of HFCs from
equipment and ensuring the safety of technicians and consumers. EPA
anticipates that many entities currently using HFCs with higher global
warming potential will transition to alternatives with lower GWP as
requirements under the AIM Act take effect. By allowing for the
continued, controlled use of CTC in the production of lower-GWP HFOs,
efforts to shift to chemicals with lower GWP would not be impeded by
this rulemaking. In addition, CTC may be used in closed reactors to
make feedstocks, including refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and foam-
blowing agents (e.g., HCFCs and HFCs), used to produce HFOs (Ref. 29).
    Additionally, the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride
indicates that readily achievable reductions in exposure are needed for
WCPP compliance for all the conditions of use driving the unreasonable
risk from inhalation exposures. Based on analysis in the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride describing expected exposures with
and without use of PPE, EPA identified an air-supplied respirator of
APF 10, 25, and 50, depending on the condition of use, as the minimum
respiratory PPE that is sufficient to mitigate the unreasonable risk.
This suggests that, for the conditions of use that would be subject to
a WCPP, the reductions in exposure required to achieve a level that
would not present unreasonable risk may be achievable, which, together
with other considerations previously described, including monitoring
data submitted via public comment by the Halogenated Solvents Industry
Alliance (HSIA) during the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon
Tetrachloride indicating exposures near or below the ECEL, adds to
EPA's confidence that facilities engaging in the use of CTC could meet
the WCPP requirements (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0733-0101).
    Pursuant to TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A)(i), EPA is considering
reasonably available information regarding the adverse effects of CTC
on human health and the magnitude of exposure of human beings to CTC.
EPA recognizes that people at workplaces that manufacture, process,
use, or dispose of CTC may also live in the fenceline communities
surrounding these facilities and consequently may be potentially
exposed to CTC through ambient air outside of working hours. In
addition, the Agency understands that certain engineering controls can
reduce exposures to people inside the workplace but may lead to
increased ventilation of CTC outside of the workplace, thereby
increasing risks to people in fenceline communities of adverse health
effects from exposures to CTC in ambient air. Therefore, pursuant to
TSCA section 6(c)(2)(B), EPA is considering the potential adverse
effects on health of people in fenceline communities posed by emissions
of CTC to ambient air described in Unit VI as a factor when proposing
to prohibit increased releases of CTC to outdoor air associated with
the implementation of the WCPP/ECEL. This proposed requirement is
intended to avoid unintended increases in exposures to people from CTC
emissions to ambient air. The proposed rule would require owners and
operators to attest in their WCPP/ECEL exposure control plan that
engineering controls selected do not increase emissions of CTC to
ambient air outside of the workplace and document in their exposure
control plan whether additional equipment was installed to capture
emissions of CTC to ambient air.
    2. Prescriptive controls.
    Another option EPA considered was requiring specific, prescribed
controls--such as engineering controls, administrative controls, and
PPE--to reduce exposures to CTC in occupational settings. Prescriptive
controls could include respirators and dermal PPE. The Agency
identified that PPE could reduce exposures in support of risk
management efforts for CTC. However, for most conditions of use, except
for the use of CTC in a laboratory setting, resorting to the use of PPE
does not consider other, more protective controls in the hierarchy,
including elimination, substitution, engineering, and administrative
controls. EPA also understands that workplaces have unique processes
and equipment in place and that varying levels of respiratory APFs may
be needed for different workplaces. Therefore, there is uncertainty in
prescribing specific respiratory APFs and selecting an APF based on the
monitoring required as part of an ECEL is likely more protective
because there is more certainty in the level of exposure protection
required as a result of regular monitoring requirements. In addition,
the Agency recognizes that many of the largely industrialized and
standardized facilities that use CTC monitor workers to determine the
APFs needed to protect workers, and that the APFs identified to address
the unreasonable risk in the primary alternative regulatory action may
differ from the APFs needed at many of these facilities due to the
variation in processes and equipment in

place. As a result of monitoring, many workplaces may also identify
that respirators are not needed for large portions of the day,
particularly when CTC is not in use. EPA recognizes that requiring
specific APFs to be used over the entire work shifts, rather than tasks
throughout the workday, is not the norm for most facilities, given how
respirators could interfere with physiological and phycological aspects
of task performance and might reduce productivity or necessitate
offering higher wages to workers who must wear respirators for long
periods of time.
    Nevertheless, based on the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon
Tetrachloride, EPA considered the industrial and commercial use in
laboratory chemicals as a strong candidate for prescriptive controls.
Inhalation exposures from the industrial and commercial use of CTC as a
laboratory chemical did not drive the unreasonable risk determination
for CTC due to risk estimates that were predicated on expected safety
practices of using CTC in small amounts under a fume hood, which
reduces the potential for inhalation exposures. To codify assumptions
made in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride regarding the
use of fume hoods in laboratory settings, EPA is proposing to require
fume hoods in laboratory settings that use CTC. This proposed
requirement would protect workers in laboratory settings by ensuring
that good laboratory practices that reduce the potential for inhalation
exposures are consistently applied and enforceable. Additionally, the
2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride determined that dermal
exposures from the industrial and commercial use of CTC as a laboratory
chemical drive the unreasonable risk determination for CTC. The 2020
Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride identifies several
uncertainties regarding the use of chemically resistant gloves and the
dermal model. For example, the risk evaluation does not consider actual
frequency, type and effectiveness of glove use in specific workplaces.
In addition, the risk evaluation does not describe the ``specific
activity training'' associated with the dermal protection factor model,
beyond that it covers procedure for glove removal and disposal. EPA
understands that impermeable gloves in combination with comprehensive
training for particular tasks specific to CTC use can reduce the
potential for dermal exposures in occupational settings. EPA is
requesting comment on whether preventing dermal contact with CTC
through dermal PPE and comprehensive training would adequately address
the unreasonable risk from dermal exposures for the industrial and
commercial use in laboratory chemicals.
    3. Prohibition.
    EPA considered a prohibition as a regulatory option and is
proposing it for certain conditions of use where information indicates
uses have been phased out (Unit IV.A.3). The lack of information
indicating ongoing use for some CTC uses has led EPA to propose
prohibitions, rather than a WCPP, for those conditions of use.
    4. Primary alternative regulatory action.
    EPA acknowledges that for the conditions of use that it is
proposing to prohibit, the types of facilities that would use CTC if
these uses were ongoing would likely be able to implement a WCPP, as
these conditions of use occur in highly controlled and industrial
settings. Therefore, for EPA's primary alternative regulatory action,
described in Unit IV.B., EPA is requesting comment on whether any of
the uses the Agency is proposing to prohibit are ongoing and is
considering a WCPP--including requirements to ensure exposures remain
below an ECEL and DDCC requirements--as an alternative regulatory
action for some conditions of use of CTC.
    As discussed in this unit, in the Risk Evaluation, EPA identified
that PPE could reduce exposures in support of risk management efforts
for CTC and is therefore proposing to consider prescriptive controls,
specifically respirators and dermal PPE, as part of the alternative
regulatory option for those conditions of use where the proposed
regulatory option is a WCPP. Resorting to the use of PPE, however, does
not provide assurance that the owner or operator considered other, more
protective controls in the hierarchy, including elimination,
substitution, engineering, and administrative controls. In addition,
this option does not take into account distinctions in processes and
equipment in all facilities, which may result in varying levels and
types of respiratory and dermal PPE needed.
    While the use of dermal PPE is typical for the use of CTC as a
laboratory chemical, EPA recognizes the potential for there to be other
forms of controls to prevent direct dermal contact in a laboratory
setting. Therefore, as part of the alternative regulatory action, EPA
considered DDCC requirements for the industrial and commercial use of
CTC as a laboratory chemical.
    5. Risk management requirements considered but not proposed.
    An option that EPA considered but is not feasible for CTC is
setting a concentration limit. Because the vast majority of CTC is
processed as a reactant, a concentration limit is not practicable.
Limiting product container size is also an ineffective option for
reducing unreasonable risk from CTC, as it is mostly transported in
large tank and rail cars (Ref. 26).
    6. Additional considerations.
    After considering the different regulatory options under TSCA
section 6(a), lack of alternatives (described in Unit V.B.), compliance
dates, and other requirements under TSCA section 6(c), EPA developed
the proposed regulatory action described in Unit IV.A. to address the
unreasonable risk from CTC. To ensure successful implementation of this
proposed regulatory action, EPA considered other requirements to
support compliance with the proposed regulations, such as requiring
monitoring and recordkeeping to demonstrate compliance with the WCPP,
or downstream notification regarding the prohibition on manufacturing,
processing, and distribution in commerce of CTC. These proposed
requirements are described in Unit IV.A.4.
    Under TSCA section 6(g)(1), EPA may grant an exemption from a
requirement of a TSCA section 6(a) rule for a specific condition of use
of a chemical substance or mixture if the Administrator finds that
certain criteria are met (for example, if compliance with the
requirement would significantly disrupt the national economy, national
security, or critical infrastructure). Based on reasonably available
information, EPA has found that a TSCA section 6(g) exemption is not
warranted at this time. Therefore, EPA is not proposing to grant
exemptions from the rule requirements under TSCA section 6(g). As
discussed in Unit III.A. the Agency is requesting comment on whether to
grant a TSCA section 6(g) exemption for CTC.
    As required under TSCA section 6(d), any rule under TSCA section
6(a) must specify mandatory compliance dates, which shall be as soon as
practicable with a reasonable transition period, but no later than five
years after the date of promulgation of the rule (except in the case of
a use exempted under TSCA section 6(g) or for full implementation of
ban or phaseout requirements). These compliance dates are detailed in
Units IV.A. and IV.B. As discussed in Units IV.A. and IV.B., the Agency
is requesting comment on whether shorter or longer compliance
timeframes should be considered.

B. Consideration of Alternatives in Deciding Whether To Prohibit or
Substantially Restrict CTC

    Under TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C), in deciding whether to prohibit or
restrict in a manner that substantially prevents a specific condition
of use of a chemical substance or mixture, and in setting an
appropriate transition period for such action, EPA must consider, to
the extent practicable, whether technically and economically feasible
alternatives that benefit human health or the environment will be
reasonably available as a substitute when the proposed prohibition or
other restriction takes effect.
    EPA is proposing to prohibit those conditions of use where
information indicates uses of CTC are phasing out or have already been
phased out: the industrial and commercial use of CTC as a processing
aid in the manufacture of petrochemicals-derived products; industrial
and commercial use of CTC in the manufacture of other basic chemicals
(including chlorinated compounds used in solvents, adhesives, asphalt,
and paints and coatings) except for use in the elimination of nitrogen
trichloride in the production of chlorine and caustic soda (for which
EPA is proposing a WCPP); industrial and commercial use of CTC as an
additive; industrial and commercial use of CTC in metal recovery; and
industrial and commercial use of CTC in specialty uses by the DoD.
Since these uses seem to have been phased out, it is reasonable to
assume industry has found alternatives. The transition to these
alternatives has taken place since CTC was restricted under the CAA in
1990 and therefore, while EPA has not identified specific alternatives,
the Agency has concluded that technically and economically feasible
alternatives are reasonably available for CTC; however, the Agency was
unable to examine the health and environmental effects of other
potential alternatives or substitute methods.
    For other conditions of use of CTC for which EPA is proposing
restrictions rather than prohibition, EPA held several outreach
meetings with current users of CTC and carried out thorough research to
determine if technically and economically feasible alternatives and
substitute methods are available. For the processing of CTC as a
reactant in the production of HFOs, the Agency understands that there
are routes of production with feedstocks that do not use CTC. However,
industry has explained that these routes are not as cost-effective or
efficient as CTC and would require replacement or significant
modification of existing production technology (Ref. 30). In addition,
current processes that use CTC to manufacture HCFCs and HFCs, including
HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and HFC-236fa, do not seem to have substitutes
readily available, particularly because these facilities have CTC-
specific infrastructure in place and replacing the infrastructure at
these facilities to use an alternative feedstock would require large
investments (Ref. 30). In terms of PCE production, CTC does not appear
to be a major feedstock in the production of PCE; rather, CTC may be a
minor input when recycled to make additional PCE (Ref. 31). The
recycling of CTC for production of PCE prevents additional disposal and
wasting of CTC. With regard to the use of CTC as an industrial
processing aid in the manufacture of agricultural products, EPA was
informed that, despite past research and development efforts, a
suitable replacement for CTC that would not react with the process
gases in the manufacture of agricultural products has not been
identified (Ref. 5). For the use of CTC in the elimination of nitrogen
trichloride (NTC) in the production of chlorine and caustic soda,
industry has indicated that the alternatives are not as efficient
because they require more of an alternative chemical, require more
energy usage, and/or have not been demonstrated to be effective in
decomposing NTC (Ref. 27). For example, one alternative is refluxing
cold liquid chlorine; more liquid chlorine than CTC would be required
per pound of NTC absorbed, and NTC removal with CTC allows for storage
capacity of the purge stream, while chlorine does not (Ref. 27). EPA
has also not identified technically and economically feasible
alternatives for the specific uses of CTC in a laboratory setting.
    The Agency is requesting comment on the availability of technically
and economically feasible alternatives that are beneficial to health or
the environment compared to CTC.

VI. TSCA Section 6(c)(2) Considerations

A. Health Effects of Carbon Tetrachloride and the Magnitude of Human
Exposure to Carbon Tetrachloride

    The human health hazards to CTC include carcinogenicity, liver
toxicity, neurotoxicity, kidney toxicity, reproductive and
developmental toxicity, irritation and sensitization, and genetic
toxicity. Acute inhalation exposures to CTC at relatively high
concentrations induce immediate and temporary depression of the central
nervous-system, with effects consisting of escape-impairing symptoms
such as dizziness. For chronic non-cancer inhalation exposure scenarios
to CTC, liver toxicity is identified as the most sensitive effect due
to fatty changes to the liver indicative of cellular damage. Under
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, CTC is classified as
``Likely to be Carcinogenic in Humans.'' CTC has been shown to cause
pheochromocytomas (tumors of the adrenal glands) in male and female
mice by oral and inhalation exposures, and a strong association between
neuroblastoma and CTC in a single well-conducted epidemiological study
in the same organ raises concern for potential carcinogenic effects in
human. In addition, a general correlation has been observed in animal
studies with CTC between hepatocellylar cytotocity and regenerative
hyperplasia and the induction of liver tumors (Ref. 1).
    Populations exposed to CTC include workers ages 17 and older of
either gender, including pregnant women and individuals who do not use
CTC but may be indirectly exposed due to their proximity to the user
who is directly handling CTC (ONUs). EPA estimates that, annually,
there are approximately between 852 and 9,554 workers and between 500
and 4,144 ONUs at between 30 and 71 facilities either manufacturing,
processing, or using CTC for industrial and commercial conditions of
use (Ref. 4).
    In addition to these estimates of workers and occupational non-
users directly exposed to CTC, EPA recognizes there is exposure to the
general population from air and water pathways for CTC. As mentioned in
Unit II.D., EPA has separately conducted a screening approach to assess
whether there may be potential risks to the general population from
these exposure pathways. The screening approach was developed in order
to allow EPA to determine--with confidence--situations which present no
unreasonable risk to fenceline communities or where further
investigation would be needed to develop a more-refined estimate of
risk. The fenceline technical support memos for the ambient air pathway
and the water pathway provide the Agency with a quantitative assessment
of exposure. For CTC, the results from applying this screening approach
did not allow EPA to rule out unreasonable risk to fenceline
communities. After doing an initial screen (the single year ambient air
screening analysis) that did not rule out unreasonable risk, EPA
conducted additional analysis (the multi-year ambient air analysis)
from which it

derived risk estimates that are mostly within the cancer benchmarks
used by EPA and other regulatory agencies of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in
1,000,000. The single year ambient air screening analysis and the
multi-year ambient air analysis allow EPA to mathematically calculate a
cancer risk in fenceline communities. While EPA feels confident about
there being no significant risk where calculated risks do not exceed 1
x 10-\6\ (as is the case for two conditions of use) there
are still limitations and uncertainties where the calculated risk
exceeds the 1 in 1,000,000 cancer risk benchmark value as is the case
for five conditions of use, which are described further in this unit.
This unit summarizes the results of the fenceline analysis of the water
pathway and also for the ambient air pathway for CTC, which expands the
original single year ambient air screening approach to include a multi-
year assessment in light of peer review comments on the initial
methodology.
    As described in Unit II.D., EPA's fenceline analysis methodology
was presented to the SACC peer review panel in March 2022, and EPA
considered SACC feedback (including the SACC recommendation to EPA to
consider multiple years of release data to estimate exposures and
associated risks) when applying the fenceline analysis to CTC. EPA also
plans to consider SACC feedback and make decisions regarding how to
build upon the screening approach so that EPA can more accurately
assess and quantify general population exposures in upcoming risk
evaluations, such as for the 1,4-dioxane supplement and for the
forthcoming 20 High Priority Substances. For CTC, EPA recognizes that a
key input into the fenceline assessment of the ambient air pathway was
data on releases from a single year of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
release data (2019 TRI reporting year) and that the use of more than
one year of data could result in different conclusions. Accordingly, in
this unit, EPA presents the results of its analysis based on CTC
releases reported to TRI over a single reporting year as well as over
multiple years (Ref. 32).
    EPA's fenceline analysis for the air pathway for CTC indicates that
EPA cannot rule out unreasonable risk to fenceline communities with
confidence, described further in this unit. Estimates of cancer risk to
fenceline communities were calculated and compared to 1 x 10\-\\6\ as a
benchmark value for cancer risk in fenceline communities. Cancer
benchmark values used by EPA and other regulatory agencies in
interpreting the significance of cancer risk range from 1 in 1,000,000
to 1 in 10,000 (i.e., 1 x 10-\6\ to 1 x 10-\4\)
depending on the subpopulation exposed (Ref. 3). Benchmark values help
inform decisions regarding the significance of risk and the Agency
considers a number of other factors when determining whether risks are
significant, such as the endpoint under consideration, the
reversibility of effect, and exposure-related considerations (e.g.,
duration, magnitude, or frequency of exposure, or population exposed).
    The ambient air fenceline analysis organizes facilities and
associated risks by occupational exposure scenario (OES) and generally
crosswalks each OES with the associated condition of use of CTC (Ref.
32). Due to limited information on activities and use of CTC reported
under TRI, there is uncertainty if the facilities associated with a
specific OES were correctly cross-walked to the appropriate condition
of use, or whether some OESs indicating increased cancer risk from
ambient air exposures to CTC in the air fenceline analysis should be
associated with more than one condition of use of CTC.
    The ambient air fenceline analysis was divided into four steps: (a)
a single-year ambient air analysis, (b) a single-year land use
analysis, (c) a multi-year ambient air analysis, and (d) a multi-year
land use analysis. EPA conducted an ambient air analysis for a single
year and multiple years to determine whether EPA-generated risk
estimates exceeded benchmarks for cancer risk for real and generic
facilities at multiple distances. The Agency then conducted a land use
analysis as part of both the single-year and multi-year analyses to
determine if EPA can reasonably expect an exposure to fenceline
communities to occur within the modeled distances for facilities where
there was an indication of risk above one in a million. This review
consisted of a visual analysis using aerial imagery and interpreting
land/use zoning practices around the facility to identify where
residential, industrial/commercial businesses, or other public spaces
are present within those radial distances indicating risk (as opposed
to uninhabited areas), as well as whether the radial distances lie
outside the boundaries of the facility.
1. CTC Fenceline Analysis of the Ambient Air Pathway
    a. Single year ambient air full-screening results for CTC.
    EPA's single-year (using 2019 TRI data) fenceline analysis for the
ambient air pathway was based on methods presented to the SACC to
identify expected exposure and estimate associated cancer risk to
people who live in fenceline communities within select distances
evaluated from 5 to 10,000 meters from the respective releasing
facility. Where there was an indication of risk above one in a million
in the single year fenceline analysis from a facility, EPA conducted a
land use analysis to determine if the Agency can reasonably expect an
exposure to fenceline communities to occur within the modeled distances
from the respective releasing facility. The land use analysis for the
single-year ambient air analysis is described in Unit VI.A.b. Risk
estimates exceeded one in a million for cancer risk for 31 of the 47
real or generic, or modeled, facilities evaluated, at multiple
distances (between 5 and 2,500 meters from a releasing facility),
representing five OES. One OES had one generic facility evaluated which
showed risk above one in a million, but no land use analysis could be
performed. The remaining four OES included real facilities for which a
land use analysis was conducted.
    b. Single-year land use analysis for CTC.
    The land use analysis for the single-year analysis identified 21
real facilities where cancer risk estimates exceeded one in a million
and there is an expected exposure to fenceline communities.
    c. Multi-year ambient air analysis.
    Following SACC feedback, EPA evaluated 6 years of facility specific
CTC release data as reported to TRI (2015 through 2020 TRI data as well
as the arithmetic average of that data). The multi-year analysis
evaluated 60 real facilities. Cancer risk estimates exceeded one in a
million for cancer for 25 of those 60 facilities at 100 meters from the
releasing facility. Out of these 25 facilities, 6 facilities solely
producing CTC as a byproduct were excluded (because, as described
earlier, the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride did not
include the production of CTC as a byproduct as a condition of use),
resulting in 19 facilities. Based on the multi-year analysis, 4 of the
25 facilities either have cancer risk estimates above one in a million
at distances farther out when compared to the single-year analysis or
are facilities that were not captured in the single-year analysis
(e.g., did not report in 2019 TRI). When excluding facilities producing
CTC as a byproduct, the multi-year analysis found 3 of 19 facilities
have cancer risk estimates above one in a million at distances farther
out when compared to the single-year analysis or are facilities that
were not captured in the single-year analysis. Although the multi-year
analysis did identify several additional

facilities with cancer risk estimates above one in a million for cancer
that were not captured by the single-year fenceline analysis data set,
the multi-year analysis did not change the number of conditions of use
with cancer risk estimates above one in a million at the distances
evaluated.
    Overall, the ambient air analysis for the multi-year fenceline
analysis identified 19 facilities with risk estimates above one in a
million, with only one facility with risk estimates above one in ten
thousand, at 100 meters representing 5 conditions of use. The potential
risks identified for those conditions of use without consideration of
the land use analysis to determine whether there is exposure to
fenceline communities are:
     Manufacturing (8 out of 8 facilities evaluated, with the
highest risk estimate of 4 x 10-\5\);
     Processing as a reactant in the production of HCFCs, HFCs,
HFOs, and PCE (5 of 5 facilities evaluated, with the highest risk
estimate of 7 x 10-\5\);
     Processing: Incorporation into formulation, mixtures, or
reaction products (petrochemicals-derived manufacturing; agricultural
products manufacturing; other basic organic and inorganic chemical
manufacturing) (1 of 1 facility evaluated, with the highest risk
estimate of 8 x 10-\5\);
     Industrial and commercial use as an industrial processing
aid in the manufacture of petrochemicals-derived products and
agricultural products (4 of 8 facilities evaluated, with the highest
risk estimate of 2 x 10-\4\); and
     Disposal (1 of 15 facilities evaluated, with the highest
risk estimate of 3 x 10-\6\).
    d. Multi-year land use analysis.
    The land use analysis for the multi-year analysis was limited to 4
additional facilities identified in the multi-year ambient air analysis
which had cancer risk estimates that exceeded one in a million at
distances farther out than the single-year analysis or were new
facilities not captured by the single-year analysis. Therefore, the
multi-year land use analysis was conducted for these 4 additional
facilities and found only 1 facility had cancer risk estimates that
exceeded one in a million and an expected exposure to fenceline
communities, although that one facility was identified as a facility
producing CTC as a byproduct.
    e. Fenceline analysis of the ambient air pathway conclusions.
    Under the proposed regulatory action described in Unit IV.A., all
of the conditions of use with an indication of potential risk to
fenceline communities would be required to establish a WCPP. [However,
it is important to note that EPA understands that two uses evaluated in
the risk evaluation, along with the manufacturing and processing for
these uses, have ceased and these uses are therefore not expected to be
contributing sources to the ambient air releases in the fenceline
analysis. These two uses are the industrial and commercial use as a
processing aid in the manufacture of petrochemical-derived products and
the industrial and commercial use in the manufacture of most other
basic chemicals, including chlorinated compounds used in solvents,
adhesives, asphalt, and paints and coatings (except for use in the
elimination of nitrogen trichloride in the production of chlorine and
caustic soda) and are proposed for prohibition]. Under the proposed
WCPP requirements, facilities would need to monitor CTC air
concentrations by taking personal breathing zone air samples of
potentially exposed persons, which would allow facilities to better
understand and manage the total releases of CTC within the facility and
potentially stack and fugitive emissions. Furthermore, EPA is proposing
to prohibit increased emissions associated with WCPP requirements, and
in the WCPP exposure control plan facilities would need to evaluate
controls to determine how to reduce releases and exposures to
potentially exposed persons in the workplace and attest that
engineering controls selected do not increase emissions of CTC to
ambient air outside of the workplace and whether additional equipment
was installed to capture emissions of CTC to ambient air. EPA
anticipates that this analysis would help facilities to determine the
most effective ways to reduce releases, including possible engineering
controls or elimination/substitution of CTC, and therefore may also
reduce the overall risk to fenceline communities.
    Although both the single year fenceline analysis, based on methods
presented to the SACC, and the multi-year fenceline analysis conducted
for CTC, which expands upon the fenceline analysis in response to SACC
feedback, indicated potential exposure and associated risks to select
receptors within the general population at particular facilities, there
are some uncertainties associated with the fenceline analysis. The TRI
dataset used for the single- and the multi-year fenceline analysis and
land use analysis does not include actual release point locations,
which can affect the estimated concentrations of the chemical at
varying distances modeled. To identify the release location for each
facility, EPA used a local-coordinate system based on latitude/
longitude coordinates reported in TRI. The latitude/longitude
coordinates may represent the mailing address location of the office
building associated with a very large facility or some other area of
the facility rather than the actual release location (e.g., a specific
process stack). This discrepancy between the coordinates reported in
TRI and the actual release point could result in an exposure
concentration that does not represent the actual distance where
fenceline communities may be exposed.
    For the multi-year analysis, there were a few additional
uncertainties. The multi-year analysis evaluated a conservative
exposure scenario that consists of a facility that operates year-round
(365 days per year, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week) in a South
Coastal meteorologic region and a rural topography setting (Ref. 32).
Therefore, the modeled exposures to receptors may be overestimated if
there are fewer exposure days per year or hours per day. Another
uncertainty for the multi-year analysis is the distribution and volume
of releases to stack and fugitive emissions. Further, there were
certain assumptions and uncertainties related to the model used for the
multi-year analysis, for example, the multi-year analysis used high-end
and central tendency meteorological data contained within the model,
which may differ from the meteorological data utilized in the single
year fenceline analysis. Another uncertainty is that the emission
scenario assumed may or may not represent actual operating conditions
of a given facility. Finally, there is uncertainty in the stack
parameters used and whether they represent actual stack parameters or
conditions of the modeled facilities, including stack height, diameter,
temperature, and other factors.
    EPA also recognizes, as was described in the 2020 Risk Evaluation
for Carbon Tetrachloride, that CTC is highly persistent in the
atmosphere with an estimated tropospheric half-life exceeding 330
years. Thus, CTC has notable global background concentrations due to
its long half-life, despite having limited air releases in the US, as
noted in both the EPA's Air Toxic Screening Assessment modeling
technical support document and in a recent EPA publication comparing
the national air toxics modeling to regional monitoring data (Refs. 33
and 34). The risk estimates from the fenceline analysis do not account
for the background concentrations from

historical emissions, which are persistent in the atmosphere.
    EPA believes that the exposures from which these risk estimates
were derived come from five conditions of use. For these five
conditions of use identified in the multi-year ambient air analysis,
the proposed rule would require strict workplace exposure controls via
implementation of a WCPP as described in Unit IV.A.1. In the instances
where efforts to reduce exposures in the workplace to levels below the
ECEL could lead to adoption of engineering controls that ventilate more
CTC outside, EPA believes this potential additional exposure would be
limited as a result of the existing National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for CTC for these conditions of use
under the CAA. Applicable NESHAPs include: 40 CFR part 63, subpart
VVVVVV, Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources, and 40 CFR part 63,
subparts F, G, H, and I, Organic HAP from the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Other Processes Subject to the
Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks. In addition, as part of the
proposed controls outlined in Unit IV, EPA is proposing to prohibit
increased releases of CTC to outdoor air associated with the
implementation of the WCPP/ECEL to avoid unintended increases in
exposures to people from CTC emissions to ambient air by requiring
owners and operators to attest in their WCPP/ECEL exposure control plan
that engineering controls selected do not increase emissions of CTC to
ambient air outside of the workplace and document in their exposure
control plan whether additional equipment was installed to capture or
otherwise prevent increased emissions of CTC to ambient air. EPA is
requesting comment on the types and costs of technologies firms would
adopt to comply with the prohibition on increased releases of CTC to
outdoor air associated with engineering controls used in the
implementation of the WCPP/ECEL. In addition, EPA requests comment on
whether and to what extent these technologies would reduce CTC
emissions at facilities that adopt them below emissions levels that
existed prior to implementation of the WCPP/ECEL.
    Because EPA believes that the proposed controls outlined in Unit IV
on the five conditions of use will reduce the exposure values used in
the calculation of these fenceline risk estimates, EPA does not intend
at this time to revisit the air pathway for CTC as part of a
supplemental risk evaluation. EPA is seeking comment on its
conclusions, and the expectation that this proposed action in
combination with the emissions standards resulting from existing NESHAP
requirements would reduce risk sufficiently to the general population
and fenceline communities, and whether, consistent with TSCA section
9(b), any other statutory authorities administered by EPA should be
used to take additional regulatory action identified as necessary to
protect against such risk. EPA is also soliciting comment on whether
EPA should require ambient air monitoring at fenceline locations or
facility emissions source monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the
proposed requirement that engineering controls implemented as part of a
WCPP/ECEL under this rule would not result in the ventilation of more
CTC outside. The Agency recognizes that owners and operators may have
difficulty distinguishing between emission increases due to
implementation of the WCPP/ECEL and emissions increases resulting from
other factors such as increased manufacturing, processing, or use of
CTC, although monitoring at both upwind and downwind locations could
help them do so. In addition, EPA understands the difficulty in
distinguishing between background levels of CTC and emissions from
facilities. Therefore, EPA is soliciting comment on the need for and
associated costs of ambient air monitoring at fenceline locations or
facility emissions source monitoring, as well as information on the
frequency and nature of air monitoring EPA should consider including as
requirements in the final rule (such as a detection limit for CTC). EPA
is also soliciting comment on whether, if EPA does not finalize the
proposed prohibition on increased releases of CTC to ambient air
outside of the workplace associated with implementation of the WCPP/
ECEL, EPA should require monitoring to alert EPA to any increased
emissions to ambient air associated with WCPP/ECEL implementation so
that the Agency may take appropriate action.
    2. CTC Fenceline Analysis of the Water Pathway
    EPA's fenceline analysis for the water pathway for CTC, based on
methods presented to the SACC, assesses exposure via drinking water,
incidental oral ingestion of ambient water, and incidental dermal
exposure to ambient water for communities in proximity to waterbodies
receiving direct or indirect releases of CTC from facilities that use
CTC (``fenceline communities'') (Ref. 35). EPA's screening level
analysis did not find potential risk to fenceline communities from the
water pathway. Further, EPA has a Safe Drinking Water Act National
Primary Drinking Water Regulation for CTC that applies to public water
systems to protect public health on a national level.

B. Environmental Effects of Carbon Tetrachloride and the Magnitude of
Exposure of the Environment to Carbon Tetrachloride

    EPA did not identify risks of injury to the environment that drive
the unreasonable risk determination for CTC (Refs. 1 and 3). In the
2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride, EPA identified and
evaluated CTC environmental hazard data for fish, aquatic
invertebrates, amphibians, and algae across acute and chronic exposure
durations.
    Exposures to terrestrial organisms from the suspended soils and
biosolids pathway was qualitatively evaluated. Due to its physical-
chemical properties, EPA expects that CTC does not bioaccumulate in
fish or sediments; and CTC could be mobile in soil and migrate to water
or volatilize to air (Ref. 1).
    EPA concluded in the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride
that CTC poses a hazard to environmental aquatic receptors. Amphibians
were the most sensitive taxa for acute and chronic exposures. Acute
exposures of CTC to fish, freshwater aquatic invertebrates, and
sediment invertebrates resulted in hazard values as low as 10.4 mg/L,
11.1 mg/L, and 2 mg/L, respectively. For chronic exposures, CTC has a
hazard value for amphibians of 0.03 mg/L based on teratogenesis and
lethality in frog embryos and larvae. Furthermore, chronic exposures of
CTC to fish, freshwater aquatic invertebrates, and sediment
invertebrates resulted in hazard values as low as 1.97 mg/L, 1.1 mg/L,
and 0.2 mg/L, respectively. In algal studies, CTC has hazard values
ranging from 0.07 to 23.59 mg/L (Ref. 1).
    In addition to the environmental effects assessed in the 2020 Risk
Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride, EPA recognizes that CTC is an
ozone-depleting substance with a 100-year GWP of 1730 (Ref. 36). As a
result of its ozone-depleting effects, the Montreal Protocol and Title
VI of the CAA led to a phase-out of CTC manufacturing in the United
States for most non-feedstock domestic uses. EPA did not evaluate the
effect of this rule on ozone depletion. In addition, while the Agency
understands that the use of CTC is expected to increase to produce low
GWP HFOs, replacing many of the HFCs with higher GWP, EPA did not
evaluate whether emissions of CTC would increase because of this rule
and the overall

impact on the GWP emissions. In other words, EPA did not evaluate if
the possible increase of CTC emissions with a GWP of 1730 would offset
emissions of the HFCs replaced by the lower GWP HFOs manufactured with
CTC.

C. Benefits of Carbon Tetrachloride for Various Uses

    CTC is primarily used as a feedstock in the production of HCFCs,
HFCs, and HFOs. Other conditions of use include regulated use as a
process agent in the manufacture of petrochemicals-derived and
agricultural products and other chlorinated compounds such as
chlorinated paraffins, chlorinated rubber and others that may be used
downstream in the formulation of solvents for adhesives, asphalt,
paints and coatings. Requirements under the Montreal Protocol and Title
VI of the CAA led to a phaseout of CTC production in the United States
for most non-feedstock domestic uses in 1996 and the CPSC banned the
use of CTC in consumer products (excluding unavoidable residues not
exceeding 10 ppm atmospheric concentration) in 1970.
    According to data collected in EPA's 2020 CDR, between 100 and 250
million pounds of CTC were produced or imported in the U.S. in CDR
Reporting Year 2019. Eight sites were reported as domestic
manufacturers of CTC in 2020 CDR. According to private databases,
between 2017 and 2021 there were up to forty possible import/
repackaging sites dealing with small volumes of CTC (Ref. 4). Most HFCs
do not require CTC for their manufacture. However, CTC is used as a
feedstock to produce HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc. As stated in the 2020
Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride, the production of HFC-245fa
and HFC-365mfc accounted for 71% and 23%, respectively, of total CTC
consumption in 2016 (Ref. 37). More recently, industry has expressed
particular reliance on CTC for HFOs, such as HFO-1234yf, which are
replacing some of the HFCs currently being used (Ref. 38).
    CTC is a major feedstock for generation of lower-GWP alternative
fluorocarbon products in the United States (Ref. 26). EPA anticipates
that many entities currently using HFCs with higher global warming
potential will transition to alternatives with lower global warming
potential as requirements under the AIM Act take effect. The
manufacturing of CTC is predicted to increase as a result of the
transition from HFCs to lower-GWP HFOs that use CTC as a feedstock,
such as HFO-1234yf used in motor vehicle AC and HFO-1234ze used in some
types of aerosols and foam-blowing agents.

D. Reasonably Ascertainable Economic Consequences of the Proposed Rule

    1. Likely effect of the rule on the national economy, small
business, technological innovation, the environment, and public health.
    With respect to the anticipated effects of this rule on the
national economy, the economic impact of a regulation on the national
economy generally only becomes measurable if the economic impact of the
regulation reaches 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) (Ref. 39). Given the current GDP of $23.17 trillion, this
is equivalent to a cost of $58 billion to $116 billion which is
considerably higher than the estimated cost of this rule. EPA
considered the number of businesses, facilities, and workers that would
be affected and the costs and benefits to those businesses and workers
and society at large and did not find that there would be a measurable
effect on the national economy. In addition, EPA considered the
employment impacts of this proposal. For businesses subject to the
WCPP, including the ECEL and DDCC requirements, and prescriptive
workplace control requirements, EPA estimates the marginal cost of
labor will increase. This may lead to small negative employment
effects. Costs of prohibition are not quantified, and there may be
employment effects proportionate to the extent to which CTC is still
being used in the prohibited conditions of use.
    EPA has determined that the rule will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. EPA estimates that the rule
would affect at least four small entities, and that the cost would only
exceed 1% of annual revenues for one of these small entities.
    EPA expects that the proposed rule will not hinder technological
innovation. Innovative applications of CTC in recent years have
occurred in the production of HFOs. The regulatory options with
requirements for certain conditions of use, including processing as a
reactant in the production of refrigerants (such as HFOs), are not
expected to inhibit innovation since they permit the continued use of
CTC with appropriate controls. With respect to those conditions of use
where prohibition is the requirement in the proposed regulatory action,
EPA did not find evidence of ongoing use of CTC and thus there are no
expected effects on innovation.
    The effects of this rule on public health are estimated to be
positive, due to the avoided incidence of adverse health effects
attributable to CTC exposure, including adrenal and liver cancer.
    2. Costs and benefits of the proposed regulatory action and of the
1 or more primary alternative regulatory actions considered by the
Administrator.
    EPA is proposing to prohibit the manufacturing, processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of CTC for the following industrial
and commercial uses: industrial and commercial use of CTC as a
processing aid in the manufacture of petrochemicals-derived products;
industrial and commercial use of CTC in manufacture of other basic
chemicals (including chlorinated compounds used in solvents, adhesives,
asphalt, and paints and coatings) except for use in the elimination of
nitrogen trichloride in the production of chlorine and caustic soda;
industrial and commercial use of CTC in metal recovery; industrial and
commercial use of CTC as an additive; and industrial and commercial use
of CTC in specialty uses by the DoD. EPA is also proposing to
explicitly prohibit processing into formulation, mixture or reaction
products in petrochemical-derived manufacturing, which is the upstream
processing condition of use for one of the prohibited industrial and
commercial uses. EPA did not estimate the costs of prohibiting CTC in
certain conditions of use because reasonably available information
indicates that those conditions of use have been phased out. There will
therefore be unquantified costs only to the extent to which CTC is
still being used in the prohibited conditions of use.
    EPA is also proposing a WCPP, including an ECEL of 0.03 ppm in
combination with DDCC requirements for: domestic manufacture; import;
processing as a reactant in the production of HCFCs, HFCs, HFOs, and
PCE; repackaging of CTC for use as a laboratory chemical; recycling;
incorporation into a formulation, mixture or reaction product in
agricultural products manufacturing and other basic organic and
inorganic chemical manufacturing; industrial and commercial use of CTC
as an industrial processing aid in the manufacture of agricultural
products; industrial and commercial use in the elimination of NTC in
the production of chlorine and caustic soda; and disposal. Industry
would bear monitoring, PPE, and notification and recordkeeping burdens
and costs associated with the ECEL. While companies may comply with the
rule using engineering controls, when estimating costs and benefits the
Economic Analysis assumes firms will provide PPE to employees when

monitoring thresholds are exceeded. EPA estimated monitoring results
based on a log normal distribution estimated from the median and 95th
percentile 8-hour time-weighted average exposure outcomes presented in
the 2020 Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride. PPE, recordkeeping,
and monitoring costs after initial monitoring vary by industry and by
projected initial monitoring result. Industry is expected to incur
planning, recordkeeping and PPE costs associated with DDCC
requirements. Industry would incur costs associated with developing an
exposure control plan, performing inspections, documenting efforts to
reduce exposure and occurrences of exposure, respiratory protection and
dermal PPE, and training on the use of respiratory protection and
dermal PPE.
    EPA is also proposing to require dermal PPE in combination with
comprehensive training for tasks pertaining to the use of CTC in a