Document 50rEmjVO01d621BgGoem6E7X5

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DISTRIBUTION A. J. DIGLIO DISTRIBUTION: A* R. Adams J. J. Ballker 0. T. Barr C. E. Blades R. A. Blomquist P- T. L. Brian 0. J. Bungs C. E. CalIIcott T. L. Carey M. R. Chmura J. L. Cost W. J. Cross E. Donley F. H. Fernengel R. Fleming * H. P. Gallagher H* L. Harwell W. Hoge "Tl clu^ Date MARCH 17, 1976 Subject EPA -- TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL LEGISLATION (Caution, Organization, or Department) VALLEY FORGE iLOealion, Organization, or Oeoartment) H. L. Jaffe R. E. Jones <3. 0. Kramer R. 6. Kunz* J. B Maerker J, E. McEvoy A. K. McMillan T* J. Medovlch J. C. Novak D. E. Pryor H* A. Quigley R. J. Ryan J. A. Saner W. J. Scharle . R. H. Schenck R. M. Yozar H* L. Watson J. T. Wharton Attached for your Information are comments by Russell E. Train, as published Inthe Environmental News, concerning the testing of chemicals In the fight against cancer and othermajor diseases. AP00037039 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. O.C. 20400 OFFICIAL (UliNCII PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE 9390 AN EQUAL PPO NTUN IT Y EMPLOYER POSTAGE AinNo rcci paid U.S. KNV1HONMENTA L BKOTICTION A6CNCV EFA-)11 t f^TL < 'Cf U.S.MAJL -"V f- - /j~i< c- ^TVr^J RECEIVE! } EPA-0PA76959 q795q3000Q07 QQi A J DIGUIQ APCt dir s wjr 5 EXECUTIVE *ALL WAVNE PA 1?407 mar 2 1976 A J. D/GLIO Robinson (202) 755-0344 Fi12waterS202) 755-0344, '> FOR RELEASE AFTER 1:00 P.M., THURSDAY-','. FfilkuARY 26a 1976 \\ -7 i TRAIN URGES PREVENTIVE MEDICINE TO CURB,, CHEMICAL THREAT- lL"jL'ilUl!L" Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Russell E, Train today told the National Press Club that it's time to start testing chemicals, not peSple, in the fight against cancer and other major diseases. He urged the enactment of Toxic Substances Control legis lation that would give "the American people not only the opportunity to understand and assess the risks and benefits of these chemicals, but a decisive voice in sorting out these risks and benefits." Train said that of the more than 2 million known chemi cals, only a few thousand have been tested for carcinogenicity and -- aside from those used in food additives, drugs and pesticides -- only a few hundred have been adequately tested. ."Long after they have been loosed upon the world and the public at large," Train said, "we have learned what an appall ing. wide range of disease and death can be caused by chemicals -- they can attack the liver, the lung, the kidney, the central nervous system? they can cause cancer, infant mortality, and genetic damage. We have learned, for example, that: mercury, lead and cadmium can attack the central nervous system; carbon tetrachloride and chlorinated phenols can destroy the liver; ethylene glycol and cadmium sulfate produce kidney disease; and vinyl chloride and arsenic cause cancer. We have seen our fish contaminated by phthalates, our cattle poisoned by polybrominated biphenyls, and our horses (more) datum li ttiMt It you do NOT with to raeatva Oita malarial a. or It ehang* of Mlrau la naadtd Q (indkata ahan(t, fneludfnt zip coda* FOAM ISIfrf (REV. *.7J AP00037040 , 6" +1 -2- kil.led by dioxin. Fluorides have destroyed forest seedlings, chloramines have killed oysters, and zinc has deunaged our wheat crops. And now the fluorocarbons may be threatening the ozone belt.*" Train emphasized five basic points about chemicals and their effects upon human health: --Entirely new chemicals have been released into the environment over the past few decades with little or no knowledge of their health effects* --Enormous benefits have been reaped from chemical use, and those benefits must be measured in health terms as well as economic. --An estimated 60 to 90 percent of all cancers are the result of environmental factors. Yet of all the chemical agents in jthe-^nvironment, probably only a-very small fraction is responsible for that~Targe~`^Kgife ot cander^ --It may take only limited exposure to contract cancer. . It typically takes anywhere from 15 to 40 years after that exposure for the first onset of cancer to occur. --A large and growing share of the diseases that cripple and kill are caused by "environmental factors." "Our national health care efforts," Train said, "must increasingly stress the prevention rather than the treatment of disease, and effective measures for the assessment and control of potentially dangerous chemicals and other agents before they enter the environment must be a key element in this new shift toward preventive medicine." Train said that after five years of congressional con sideration of a toxic substances legislation, "We still find ourselves without the authority we need to cope with such lqftgafcanding problems as those posed by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)." "Last week," Train said, "it was announced that for the first time in history, the Hudson River will be closed to commercial fishing because it is contaminated by these chem icals. In the Great Lakes, commercial and sports fisheries that are being restored as the result of massive pollution clean-up efforts are now being threatened by PCB contamination. We remain almost entirely unable to discover how harmful a compound can be until years after it has become a rather commonplace item in our everyday life, even a significant factor in our economy." R-5b (more) I" ' 1 AP00037041 -3- Train refuted "industry spokesmen" who claim that toxic substances legislation "would 'cripple' the chemical industry and give the Administrator of EPA hear dictatorial authority over the introduction of new chemical products''* "The only real 'crippling' that is going on/" Train said/ "is the kind which this legislation would try to prevent -- the crippling o who knows how many Americans every year who contract cancer or some other affliction after exposure to some hazardous chemical agent. Nor has it been on the 'neardictatorial authority' of the EPA Administrator that so many such agents are introduced into the environment without any effort to find out what their health effects are, much less let the public have any say about whether or not, or in what circumstances, it is willing to be exposed to them." "I do not think any of us is under the illusion that there is, or is ever going to be," Train said, "any such thing as a simon-pure, antiseptically safe world. I do not think any of us imagines that there is, or ever going to be, a real world without very real risks. But there is absolutely no reason why we cannot -- there is, in fact, every reason why we must -- take sensible steps to exercise some intelli gent and effective control over the risks that we ourselves create. The basic .aim of the toxic substances control legis lation before the Congress is to help us gain that kind of control -- to help us protect human health by bringing down to reasonable levels the risks that chemicals pose while pre serving their benefits. We are not talking, in other words, of getting rid of all risks from chemicals, but rather of finding out what the risks are and, eventually, of removing "unreasonable" risks. We are saying that, whatever we do with these chemicals, we ought to know what we're doing before we do it, and we ought to do it with our eyes wide open." Train said that, had the Toxic Substances Act been enacted five years ago when it was first proposed, "we would be a lot farther ahead in dealing with some potentially very serious hazards; --We would have begun to reverse the spread of poly chlorinated biphenyls which are now destroying some of our valuable fisheries; --We would already have, as we now do not, reliable test information concerning the effects of vinylidene chl ride which is widely used.throughout the plastics industry? --We would have a greatly improved data base for deter mining the extent to which benzidine-derived dyes reconvert to free benzidine, a well-known human carinogen, when these widely-used dyes are accidently ingested or absorbed; (more) II AP00037042 il -4- --We would have taken a number of steps to clarify the chronic effects and, as necessary, to limit exposure to tris 2,3-dibromopropyl phosphate, which has mutagenic effects in microbial systems and is widely used as a fire retardant in textile products, including children's pajamas." "Most Americans had no idea, until relatively recently, that they were living so dangerously'. They had no idea that when they went to work in the morning, or when they ate their breakfast -- that when they did the things they had to do to earn a living and keep themselves alive and well -- that when they did things as ordinary, as innocent and as essential to life as eat, drink, breathe or touch they could, in fact, be laying their lives on the line. They had no idea that, without their knowledge or consent, they were often engaging in a grim game of chemical roulette whose result they would not know until many years later." "It is time we started putting chemicals to the test, not people. It is time we gave the people of this country some reason to believe that, everytime they breathe or eat or drink or touch, they are not taking their life into their own hands," Train said. "It is time that, down here on earth, we took a couple of small, sensible 'steps on behalf of human health and life." #*# R-58 ^rr AP00037043 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DISTRIBUTION From A. J. OI6UO DISTRIBUTION: A. R. Adams 0. J. Ballker C. E. Blades P. T. L. Brian J. J. Bungs C. E. Callicott T. L. Carey M. R. Chmura J. L. Cost E. L. Donley F. H. Fernengel R. Fleming H. L. Harwell W. Hoge o Date MARCH 2. 1976 Subject MCA -- TOXIC SUBSTANCES (Location, Organization, or Department) VALLEY FORGE (Location, Organisation, or Department) H. L. Jaffe R. E. Jones J. D. Kramer J. B. Maerker A. K. McMillan T. 0. Medovlch J. C. Novak Ha A. Quigley R. J. Ryan J. A. Saner W. J. Scharle R. m. vu-iar K L. Watson 0. T. Wharton R. G. Kunz R. H. Schenck D. E. Pryor R. A. Blornqulst W. J. Cross H. P. Gallagher Attached for your Information Is the MCA*s "Special Issue on Toxic Substances" pending bills (S. 776 and H.R. 10318). S. 776 is now out of the Senate Conwlttee. This Issue states the Manufacturing Chemist's position on the legislation and calls for assistance In communicating these views to congressmen and representa tives. We are preparing a draft of a letter on the subject. Its purpose Is for possible use by chemicals group plant managers for mailing to their respective congressmen and senators. /mjv Attachment (320) AP00037044 Q % 1 - Specie,i Issue, ,,,,RECEiver * '1AR i ,m 97oFasf Action Needed T~ Toxic Substances3110/0 Gain Mokate mi "We have a very difficult job at hand to achieve moderate, constructive toxic sub stances control legislation at this late nour in me legislative process.'" Richard E. I Heckert of Du Pont, chairman of MCA's' Special Committee on Toxic Substances Legislation, wrote to MCA member com panies on February 16. Published by Manufacturing Chemists Association February 1976 Industry Position on Toxic Substances' -To succeed "fft ayrranrrtinar.il/ J effective effort bv mem her compar>;*5_of tne Association in communicating :o mem- bfers of l;onaress^utipe^_JafL-mcnerate leais^atio^^Q^^gggsjtignjj^r^jreser.t 1. The chemical industry shares the public's concern with toxic materials and the determination to have adequate protection through industry programs and governmental regulation. 2. The chemical industry, over the years, has developed the capability of producing and handling hazardous chemicals safely and is committed to the principle that its products, when handled responsibly, must be safe for manufacture, use and disposal. 3; The chemical industry believes it should be responsible for adequately screening and conducting safety tests on its new products and the chemical industry accepts this responsibility. 4. A number of companies recently joined to form the independent Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology to screen large-volume chemicals for safety, including their long term effects at low-dose exposures. 5. The chemical industry realizes that more can and should be done, and to this end supports additional constructive federal legislation on toxic substances that will close the gaps in present law and offer greater protection to workers, consumers and the general public. --- 3. The industry opposes unnecessary testing requirements for all new and existing chemical substances without adequate regard to the relative level of risk which may be involved. 7. The industry opposes administrative authority that couid ban the production of a chemical, shut down the plants making it or using it and terminate the jobs involved based on a possible finding that a substance is merely likely to constitute an unreasonable risk i health and the environment without requiring the preparation of economic impact and risk/benefit analyses. 8. The industry opposes rulemaking authority for testing, notification, screening, ban ning or restricting unless based on findings justifying the required action which have been developed in accordance.with fair procedures and which are subject to adequate judicial review. 9. The industry opposes any authority to disclose trade secrets and confidential infor mation beyond what is necessary for carrying oul responsibilities under the act and judicial enforcement proceedings. 10. The industry opposes theuncertainty which would be created by the passage of the pending bills by encouraging duplicative action by different federal agencies and which would permit the Environmental Protection Agency (ERA) to pick and choose among potentially applicable laws (overlapping legislation). ^^ 11. The industry opposes both pending bills (S. 776andH.R. 10318) as unnecessarily broad and unduly burdensome legislation that would not serve the national Interest, is not necessary to protect human health and the environment, is economically wasteful, and would retard innovative research and development for- new products. 12. The McCollister bill, H.R. 7664, as introduced would correct many of the defects cited above, and we endorse the principles of this bill. The Administration has now endorsed H.R. 7664 with certain amendments and the industry is actively working for the enactment of this legislation. onerous bills m me Senate and House In the same memorandum, Mr. Hecxert addressed the smaller member com panies of MCA, urging them to waste no' time in communicating directly with their senators and representatives relative to the potential adverse impact of the Tunney and Eckhardt bills. Mr. Heckert and other chemical industry representatives have been meeting with congressional delegations from various states 'and with individual senators and representatives to present industry's posi tion. The purpose of this edition. thergfgrsJs jo^ow^Sa^^rouna^arncies^na^oaoer^ that you and your firm can use m tne errrsn ra^amend^ughjegisiationjgfij^gjivgi^ For example, all of the material can oe shaped lor use in: Talks with congressmen and senators. Letters to congressmen and senators. 1 Employee publications and bulletin boards. Talks with suppliers, dealers and cus tomers. News releases to local newspapers, newsweeklies and radio and television sta tions. Speeches to local groups such as ser vice organizations. Enlisting the aid of other groups you feel would or should be interested in the subject, such as local or state trade and business associations. The material in this g^bticalinn-Is_(ullv approved as the chemiGahndiisii^aQSihon Chemists Association. Wg-moa-LML-aflU use it promptly as you see tit. _There_are_no relictions on reproduction For additional tree copies, please tele phone John Slavtck. editor of MCA News. Washington, D.C. The number is 202483-6126. AP00037045 1 Legislators Hear MCA Special Committee Chairman I'm pleased to appear before you today to state unequivocally the Manufacturing Chemists Associations views on toxic substances legislation, views which are embraced by most of the industry. t. The chemical industry shares the public's concern with toxic materials and the determination to have adequate pro tection through industry programs and governmental regulations. 2. The chemical industry realizes that more can and should be done and to this end supports additional federal legislation on toxic substances that wilt close the-gaps in present laws and offer greater protection to workers, consumers and the general public. 3. The industry is committed to the prin ciple that its products, when handled re sponsibly. must be capable of safe man ufacture, use and disposal. 4. The chemical industry, over the years, has developed and clearly demon strated its capability of producing and handling hazardous chemicals safely. There have, of course, been mistakes and instances of unsatisfactory performance, and such situations must be corrected and avoided in the future. No matter what fed* eral law is involved, industry must fulfill its responsibility lor the safety of its products. Summery of remarks by Richard E. Heckert, chairman of MCA's Special Committee on Toxic Substances Legisla tion, before a recent New Jersey Congres* eional breakfast. 5. Of concern to us at the moment is the current allegation that industrial chemicals represent a maior factor in recently re ported large increases in cancer within the population. This is slmpfy not the case. When adjusted for age and lung or res piratory cancer, the data show no such increase. .Before specifying the type of legislation which we believe would provide added public protection from toxic'substances. I would like to emphasize several principles which we think should guide your delibera tions on toxic substances. First, the chemical industry has always handled and will continue to handle haz ardous substances in the normal course of its commerce; legislation will not eliminate all toxic substances in our industry such as hydrogen cyanide, vinyl chloride, sulfuric 2 acid. They are the building blocks for other industrial activities and important con sumer products. Second, zero risk in industrial ooerations or any other phase of our lives is unattain able: No one can guarantee that a specific substance is totally sate. Even after exten sive testing, one more test may develop knowledge of a hazardous situation that previous tests failed to disclose. Society has established certain risk-benefit rela tionships for products--for example, with regard to the continued use of cigarettes, automobiles and airplanes--that also apply to decisions on hazardous chemi cals. The question is not how to achieve zero risk; but what risks must society ac cept in order to enjoy the benefits of a par* ticuiar product, and how may these risks be managed satisfactorily? Our nation has progressed through its ability and intelli gence to accept and menage nsks, and I am sure it'wilt continue to do so. Third, regulation of this sort represents added cost to the public whether it is added taxes or higher prices. No one is suggesting that some cost should not be incurred, but rather that these costs should be accompanied by comparable benefits. Support McColiisler Bill We support, with some modification, the principles embodied in the McCollister bill. H.R. 7664. which represents constructive legislation. fThe Administration has now endorsed H.R 7664 with certain amend ments and the industry is actively working tor enactment of thia'legislation.) This bill was in fact passed by the House of Repre sentatives in the 93rd Session. To this ef fect. we support authority to require testing of selected chemicals, premarket notifica tion or screening of new chemicals and significant new uses of established chemi cals. We also support authority lo restrict or limit uses or- ban production of chemical substances. But these are not new principles. They have been embodied in legislation passed by both the House and the Senate in the 92nd and 93rd Sessions of Congress. The new bills (H.R. 10318 and S. 776) differ from McCoilister's as to the scope of discretionary authority that should be granted EPA. Fundamental differences apply to granting and exercising authority for premarket notification or screening and the authority to restrict or limit uses or ban production. For example, one or the other of these bills would permit: 1. Testing and screening requirements for all new chemical substancesand signif icant new uses of existing chemical sub stances without adequate regard to the relative level of risk which may be involved (S. 776). 2. Standards for testing such as, that a substance may merely contribute to an un reasonable risk (H.R. 10318). 3. EPA authority to ban the production of a chemical, shut down the plants making it or using it and terminate the jobs involved based on the vague and uncertain finding that a substance is merely likely to contrib ute to an unreasonable risk to the environ ment (H.R. 1031B) and without requiring the preparation of economic impact and risk/benefit analysis (H.R. 10318 and S. 776). 4. Broad rule-making authority for test ing, notification, screening, banning or re stricting the use of a chemical w/rhouf ade quate procedural rights. Currently, the McCollister bill does not contain many of the objectionable provi sions that are found in H.R. 10318 and S, 776. and is considerably more reason able in many areas, such as testing, pre market notification and regulatory control. Yet McCollister imposes significant new testing requirements and controls on in dustry. 4*t's focus on just a few provisions of the McCollister bill. Tatting Required The McCollister bill requires testing of a_ chemical if the administrator Finds that test ing Is necessary to protect against an un reasonable risk to health or the environ ment. The McCollister bill requires premarket notification of those chemicals likely to pose a substantial danger to health or the environment. The McCollister test does not require a showing of an actual danger, but only that a chemical is likely to pose such a danger or that there is a probability and not a mere possibility. McCollister also requires that the least burdensome controls be imposed to pre sent or sufficiently reduce the risk and ex pressly proposes a hierarchical level of controls including banning but only if necessary, AP00037046 1 VMC&.NEM/S Selected MCA Position Papers Negative Burden of Proof The Issue: Should a negative burden of proof be imposed on the defendant m this legisla tion? Traditionally, a plaintiff must make some demonstrable proof that harm exists or will result. How can a defendant maintain any defense if there is no such need? fn effect, he would have to prove a negative--that is, complete absence of risk, or zero risk. Such a burden is scientifi cally impossible and totally unreasonable. The Senate Toxic Substances bill (S. 776), section 13(e) explicitly reverses the.burden of proof in all judicial proceed ings requesting equitable relief brought under any statute administered by the SPA. administrator. This subsection provides that "where a risk to public health is .. . established, the failure... to prove that demonstrable harm to health exists or will result shall not ... constitute a permissible basis to deny ... relief," The key question, of course, is what is meant by "establishing" a'"risk?" Without further statutory qualification it couid read ily mean "slight" or mere "speculative" risk. And, if the plaintiff cannot have its relief denied because of a failure to prove any harm, what must the defendant do to pre vail? Even the most convincing case prov ing lack of injury might be held insufficient, under the act, to warrant denial of the in junctive relief sought by the plaintiff. It may well be that no defense would suffice, since even proof lhat no demonstrable harm would result might not permit the court to dismiss the case in defendant's favor. The Chemical Industry Supports'. Deletion of section 13(e). The Chemical industry Opposes: Any proposal relieving a plaintiff of the burden of proving at least some demon strable harm and which shifts to the defen dant the negative burden of proving no harm under all possible conditions. Brief Analysis of the Negative Burden of Proof Aspect Of Proposed Legislation: S. 77$ (Tunney): See above. H.R. 1031B (Eckhardt): No provision. H.R. 7664 (McCollister): No provision. Testing Requirements The Issue: The key issue is the scope of discretion ary authority that should be granted in re quiring testing and under what conditions such authority should be exercised. The industry is committed to the princi ple that its products must be adequately tested so that when they are handled re sponsibly. they will be safe-for manufac ture, use and disposal. The Chemical Industry Supports: Allowing the administrator to require testing of selected chemicals when neces sary to protect against an unreasonable risk. The Chemical Industry Opposes: Broad selective testing requirements which would require testing based on merely possibilities as opposed to prob abilities and without adequate considera tion of relative levels of risk. e Use of the nation's limited toxicologi cal testing capabilities for evaluation of low-risk chemicals, thus preempting needed facilities for evaluation of signifi cant risks. The added cost of extensively broad testing requirements and incremental re search and development costs which may lead to drastically curtailed new product development and selection of candidates for such development. Brief Analysis of the Testing Aspect of Proposed Legislation: S. 776 (Tunney): Testing-of chemicals is required whenever the administrator determines that "there is reason to believe lhat a sub stance may present an unreasonable risk." While testing is further subject to the re quirement that testing would be necessary to make a determination whether or not the risk exists, the basic standard is so broad and uncertain as to subject a large number of chemicals to test programs which may not be necessary. H.R. 10316 (Eckhardt): Requires the testing of existing chem- coattruedanptge* Confidentiality The Issue: In enforcing or administering any toxic substances law which requires (he testing and premarket notification and screening of chemicals, it is reasonable that the ad ministrator of EPA have access to data and information that is relevant to his statutory duties. Such data may involve trade se crets and other confidential material not otherwise available to government and the public. The issue is towhatextentcan such information be protected from public dis closure. The Chemical industry Supports: Legislation which protects the conti- dentiality of trade secrets and other infor mation by limiting use of the data to en forcement proceedings or other regulatory proceedings. The Chemical Industry Opposes: Legislation which threatens the confi dential status of trade secrets or other in formation by granting access to the data to persons not associated with the enforce ment or administration of the toxic sub stances law. Brief Analysts of the Confidentiality Aspect of Proposed Legislation: S. 776 (Tunney): Allows, disclosure of confidential in formation if the administrator "determines it is necessary to protect human health and the environment." Provides for disclosure of confidential information to "qualified scientists" if the administrator determines it is in the public interest. H.R. 1Q318 (Eckhardt): Provides adequate protection. If the administrator determines that public disclosure is necessary, the owner of the data is notified in writing 30 days in advance of disclosure so he may protest to the administrator or.seek relief in the courts. H.R. 7664 (McCollister): Provides adequate protection. Limits disclosure to rule-making pro ceedings and court actions. 3 AP00037047 MCA Position Paper: Procedural Fairness The Issue: The administrator is authorized to make regulations winch can limit or prohibit the manufacture and distribution of a chemical substance. This regulatory power is the core of the proposed legislation and must be,exercised pursuant to fair and objective procedures. Disputed issues or fact-must be identified and resolved, the adminis trator's conclusions must rest on findings supported by a complete hearing record, and the regulations must be subject to re view in federal court. In % similar vein, the right of an interested citizen to ensure that the administrator is fulfilling his duties must be balanced against the need to protect the administrator from constant secondguessing. The Chemical Industry Supports: Legislation granting the administrator the authority to issue binding regulations governing toxic chemical substances, even Including the power to ban such chemicals as are found to pose an unrea sonable risk to human health. Legislation requiring such regulations to be based on findings developed from the record of rule-making hearings. Legislation specifying that the admin istrator must allow cross-examination and hear rebuttal evidence with respect to dis puted factual issues relevant to a proposed rule, as Congress required in the recent Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Im provement Act of 1975. Legislation denying the administrator the power to ban a product from the market without either providing a hearing or seek ing a court injunction. e Legislation providing normal judicial review of. the administrator's denial-of a citizen's petition. The Chemical Industry Opposes: Legislation subjecting Industry to the power to ban its products without having the right to rebut and cross-examine the facts upon which the administrator may have retied. Legislation allowing the administrator to rely on information not introduced at the hearing, and thus not subject to examina tion or rebuttal. Legislation permitting the adminis trator to ban or restrict a product, or to issue rules regarding the testing or screening of products, without requiring him to make findings regarding relevant factors. ' Legislation authorizing the admintetrator to ban any substance without a hear 4 ing or without applying for a court injunc tion. based upon his "determination" that a hazard is imminent. Legislation permitting any citizen whose petition for issuance of a rule has been rejected by the administrator to go to court and have a full-fledged trial secondguessing the administrator's expertise. Legislation authorizing citizens to sue manufacturers for alleged violations of the administrator's regulations, rather than suing the administrator for alleged nonen forcement of his orders. Brief Analysis of Procedural Fairness Aspect of Proposed Legislation: S. 776 (Tunney): Grants no cross-examination rights, other than what the administrator in his dis cretion deems appropriate. Contains no requirement that the ad ministrator make findings regarding rele vant factors. Does not require that the "record" on which a regulation is based be limited to written submissions, oral testimony, and other information which the administrator has specifically designated as relevant in the Federal Register. Permits the administrator under cer tain circumstances to ban a product with out a hearing or seeking an Injunction. Allows a citizen whose petition the administrator has denied to have a de novo trial in federal court, thereby turning the court into a mini-EPA required to hear whatever evidence the citizen may wish to offer. Allows a citizen to press his views re garding whether a manufacturer has com plied with the administrator's regulations by suing the manufacturer in court, rather than seeking redress against the adminis trator for failing to enforce his regulations. H.R. 10318 (Eckhardt): Grants the right to cross-examination only if there is a single interested party, or if the administrator determines that ail who want to cross-examine are of one view and can be represented by a single person. Contains no requirement that the ad ministrator make findings regarding rele vant factors. Permits the administrator under cer tain circumstances to ban a product with out a hearing or seeking an injunction. Allows a citizen whose petition the administrator has denied to have a be novo trial in federal court, thereby turning the court into a mini-EPA required to hear whatever evidence the citizen may wish to offer. Allows a citizen to press his views re garding whether a manufacturer has com plied with the administrator's regulations by suing the manufacturer in court, ratner than seeking redress against the adminis trator for'failing to enforce his regulations. H.R. 7664 (McCollister): > e Grants the right to cross-examination only if there is a single interested party, or if the administrator determines that all who want to cross-examine are of one view and can be represented by a single person. Contains no requirement that the ad ministrator make findings regarding rele vant factors. Does not require that the `'record" on which a regulation is based be limited to written submissions, oral testimony and other information which the administrator has specifically designated as relevant in the Federal Register. Requires the administrator to seek a court injunction if he believes an imminent hazard requires the banning of a product without an administrative hearing. Does not permit any person to litigate in federal court the correctness of the ad ministrator's exercise of his discretion in deciding not to issue a rule. Does not permit any citizen to sue any manufacturer for alleged failure to comply with tire act or regulations issued there under. Position on Testing eentiniMd fromp*g 3 icals which" may cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to health or the environ ment." While testing is limited to a finding of necessity to determine whether or not such risk exists, the basic standard is so broad and uncertain as to subject a large number of chemicals to test programs which may not be necessary. An independent, interdepartmental agency is established to recommend test ing priorities which are mandatory unless the administrator publishes his reasons for refusing to require such testing. Such es tablishment of testing priorities that for alt practical purposes are mandatory de prives the administrator of discretionary judgment, H.R. 7664 (McCollister): This bill limits testing to where neces-* sary to protect against an unreasonable risk tb health and the environment, 2SM--2-76 AP00037048