Document 2RXyBMqRenyBeNN9kq7dL4d3N

I IIC eiei/ ei me moustry, ir.c. t 355 Ls^'-"ij",/ .-"Pee Nc.vYor-' iJe.v ''or* i C01 <212) 573-9-lCO \ ' '7 1 J ' _ J 7=2 J n *7^ 1 \ r"\ '--! f \ i_ U J4w4 L J tat tt x ^ lr \ > ,. rf r 'Jry r-*'" -31r*\ he--73 ( CTT*' =3 ' ;i-V,vi J* - zr:i y u u -- -.-au Li r--- --B ^ r 1 ,\ 7 l/*1 T^I kd katf Lj C- . J i \Li 7. iJ ii J >r .. V - ` / .r\h( .U. ` APR S ^ 1977 - j| ; " i f n M i f' , itiiifu^ ' j t r*i 1 Vol. II, No. ON THE REGULATORY FRONT SPI Asks Court To Disallow EDF-EPA Proposed Settlement On March 25, the Environmental Defense Fund fEDFl announced it had reached a proposed settlement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its November 1970 petition to the EPA challenging the final emission standard for vinyl chloride. According to the EDF news release, EPA had agreed to cut the existing emission standard from 10 parts per million (ppm) to 5 ppm within three years from the date amendments to the current standard are promulgated ... further, EPA had also agreed to undertake a complete review of health effects data and control tech nology at the er.d of the three-year period to determine if further steps toward a zero emission goal could be taken ... also, the settlement agreement provided that new VCM plants would have to meet the revised 5 ppm emission standard within three months of the date amendments are promulgated ... the settlement proposal was submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for its approval. On March 31, SPI requested the U, g. Court of Appeals to disallow the proposed settlement agreement, as well as to dismiss the EDF case, charging that EDF and EPA had gone "outside normal administrative channels" in an attempt to amend the standards ... the settlement proposal, according to SPI, "would make a mockery of the administrative process" ... SPI asserted EDF was using the implied threat of pro tracted litigation to force EPA into amending the standards, adding "the proper path for the Environmental Defense Fund to follow is to petition the EPA for revision of the standard by submitting new information which could be evaluated and made subject to normal rulemaking procedures, including public hearing". EPA Proposes Rules for Implementing TSCA The March 9 Federal Register carried the EPA's announcement of its first proposed rules for implementing the reporting requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TFCA) ... in summary: VC1898 *o Any firm that manufactures a chemical substance for commercial use after January 1, 1977 must report the substance to EPA for inclusion in an imenlory of chemicals. Any firm that manufactured a chemical for commercial use between July 1, 1974 and January 1, 1977 may report that substance. Any chemical manufactured or processed for commercial use after July 1, 1974 and not on EPA's inventory of chemicals will be subject to stringent Dremarket notification regulations due to take effect in December 1977. Written comments must be submitted by May 9 and a meeting is scheduled for April 18 to receive Oral Comments. SPI Asks for Amendment of "Food Additive" Definition On March 30, SPT filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration (FDAt to amend the regulatory definition of 'food additive" . . . proposed amendment seeks to define when a substance "mav reasonably be expected to become a component of food, " i.e. when it is a "food additive" in objective terms which would make 50 ppb a toxicologically insignificant amount for most materials ... SP1 feels establishment of objective standard bv FDA critically important to entire future of the food packaging industries, particularly in view of recent regulatory crises concerning PYC and acrylonitrile ... these crises arose largely as a result' of FDA's inconsistent inter pretations of the meaning of the terms "food additive". .. FDA is required to take some action on the petition within 180 days. EPA To Study 15 Chemicals On March 22, Douglas Costle, new EPA Administrator announed at a press conference that EPA will investigate 15 chemical substances considered possible risks to environment or public health ... included are vinvlidene chloride, acrylonitrile.' benzene and benzidine. ON THE LEGISLATIVE FRONT In The States On March 24, State Senator John M. Skevin of New Jersey announced publicly he was abandoning his legislative effort to ban production and use of lfi known carcinogens in the state (see YCM-PYC Management Summary. Yol. II, No. 2 for details) .. . Skevin attributed his retreat to organized opposition to the ban and insufficient public support to offset it . .. while the proposed ban on YCM and asbestos and 14 chemicals will not be stricken from the bill, other sections that could he potentially dangerous to the chemical industry in the state remain intact. VC1899 -3 According to SPI Legislative Counsel in California, regulations proposed by the California Department of Health in mid-March in accordance with the Occu pational Carcinogens Control Act of 107G will not "impose any new or added burden on PVC compounders or fabricators" ... In Congress The March 9 announcement hv FDA that it would han saccharin touched off a flood of proposed legislation that could have a great impact on the plastics industry, particularly in food packaging ... as of the first week in April, 21 House bills and three Senate bills had been introduced to either amend the Delanev Clause or otherwise delay imposition of the proposed FDA ban on saccharin. Senator Robert T. Griffin (R-Mich.) has offered a bill to amend the TSCA ... it would authorize the EPA to aid victims of toxic disaster. In the House, Representa tive Bob Eckhardt (D-Tex.) is considering a bill to increase the authority of TSCA. Amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1970 are in mark-up in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ... an amendment introduced in midMarch would transfer to EPA all authority over fluorocarbons not already covered hv other Agencies. #4# VC1900