Document 7MDYQLmgqmY6djaLywaoXDaJe

"The response was very poor" NPCA Representative Warns Against Ostrich Tactics By Lorry L. Thomas ON JANUARY 13, 1971, President their non-volatile content) and pro Nixon signed into law, "The Lead- hibited their use on residential struc Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act,"tures constructed or rehabilitated with a bill supported by the National Paint' the use of any federal funds. Our main and Coatings Association. Most of the concern here was to see that exterior Act's provisions dealt with the primary uses of lead-based paints, that do not problem of old heavily leaded paints present a hazard, were not restricted. found on the walls of dilapidated The one per cent lead limitation was housing. not thought to present a problem since Like everybody else involved, we are it had been recommended for interior anxious to see that the cause of lead paints since 1955. paint poisoning is eliminated. Part of Shortly after the passage of this bill, the bill, however, covered modern however, the one per cent standard "Lead-Based Paints" (those defined as came under an attack led primarily by having more than one per cent lead in Congressman Ryan of New York. Al most daily articles began appearing in Larry Thomas is a cornual for the National Point and Coatings Asso ciation. This talk was prooontnd to tho Management Group of the New York Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association at Its January moating. the "Congressional Record" demanding that the paint industry "Quit poisoning children by getting the lead out of their products." No facts, just a lot of pure emotional appeal. American Paint Journal J This eventually lead to a "CitizenInitiated" petition signed by Mr. Ryan and others, calling for the Food and Drug Administration to issue govern ment regulations under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. These would ban (except for trace amounts) all lead from paint products packaged in house hold containers. The FDA began checking into this and found that there was no record of any children being harmed by the use of one per cent lead in paints. It did discover, however, that it was now technologically feasible for the paint industry to produce interior paints at a .5 per cent lead level. Therefore, in the interest of providing a greater mar gin of safety, the FDA proposed an alternative to the Ryan petition. Its approach would make any paint or other surface coating containing more than .5 per cent lead a ``Hazardous Substance" under the Federal Hazard ous Substances Act, requiring special labeling to prevent product misuse. Both the FDA and the Ryan petition were published together in the Federal Register of November 2, and 60 days were given for interested parties to comment. As you may know, we ur gently requested all our members to comment supporting the FDA proposal. We believe that this proposal will get the job done and without unnecessarily burdening the paint industry with in tolerable standards for lead content. We asked our members to comment not only on these proposals, but on the pro posal to implement the part of the "Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Preven tion Act," affecting us. Comments sub mitted on these are presently under consideration by the Federal Bureaus involved. In the meantime, some other developments have come to our at tention. First, NPCA has presented its posi tion in regard to two ordinances before the Chicago City Council. One would prohibit the use of any paints or other substances containing more than 0.03 per cent lead by weight on all interiors and possibly all exteriors of residences. Another would set up tough labeling requirements for both the products not meeting the standard, and those that do meet it. Also, we learned last week that Con gressman Ryan and Senator Kennedy have proposed amendments to the "Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Preven tion Act," both of which call for a re duction of the one per cent lead level in paints to a 0.06 level. It's certain from this that there's going to be more government control over the use of lead, and perhaps other heavy metals in paints in the not-toodistant future. This is true at the local as well as federal level. Unfortunately we do not know at this time exactly when these regulations will be imposed, and how tough they will be. The FDA received many comments, including a statement from the prestigious Ameri can Academy for Pediatrics claiming that the use of anything over 0.06 per cent lead in household paint production poses a hazard to children. We in Washington are making every effort to see that when these regulations are finalized they are sensible and realistic, and provide adequate time for orderly compliance. What, then, are the paint manufac turers responsibilities in this regard? Perhaps the best way to point some of these things out is to consider the role your trade association is playing here. When you're talking about government regulations, an association can no longer afford to react with a predict able "They can't do this to us" attitude. We at NPCA must fully understand our industry's problems and its strong points in order to play a knowledgeable role in communicating its position to Congress, federal agencies and the gen eral public. Management performs an important function when it keeps its Association February 28, 1972 47 ,-__ircxxx ---........ LIA 25026 posted as to how certain government regulations affect them and when and if they can meet the standards set out in the regulations. Perhaps even more important Is for management to help make sure that "what its association is saying industry is doing, reflects pretty much what industry is doing." One of the things that has really hurt us in regard to the "lead" problem is that serious questions were raised as to whether, as the Association claimed, the paint industry was adhering to a voluntary one per cent lead standard for interior paints. Listen to what Dr. Vincent Guinee, director of New York City's Bureau of Lead Poisoning Control, had to say about this: "I'm in favor of the industry stand ard. The disappointing aspect is that the voluntary standard has appeared to be accepted by the industry. But it was violated by a number of paint com panies, including some of the biggest ones. This invites governmental regu lation where there need not be any, if they do their own policing." As you can see by this, even though the so-called "tests" made on our prod ucts were selective and incomplete, the claims based on them have been very damaging. In a situation like this, when our credibility has been damaged, and when there is some evidence that voluntary standards are not working, it's mighty tough to hold a position that government controls are not nec essary. Another point here is direct involve ment in government proceedings. We asked our members to submit com ments directly to the federal agencies proposing regulations regarding the use of lead and other heavy metals in paints. We especially needed support of the FDA proposal, since it is reasonable and would provide uniformity for label ing of goods in interstate commerce. The response was very poor. This hurts the Association by casting doubt on whether we are representing the views of industry. Not only that, but the government could seriously question whether our industry is really con cerned with what they're doing. This, I believe is an impression none of us wants to see created. If the FDA pro posal fails, in favor of more restrictive and unnecessary regulations, paint manufacturers will be forced into an expensive change in the manufacturing of their products--and for no good rea son. None of us wants to see this happen. Finally, it's up to both the Associa tion and industry not to take an "ostrich approach" in matters such as we've been discussing. If we bury our heads in the sand, expecting the social and economic issues making new de mands on us somehow just to go away, we may be in for quite a shock. We could raise up our heads just in time to be "steamrollered" by new, and even tougher, government controls than the ones we're faced with today. Enterprise Paint Appoints Caprel Chicago, Feb. 23 --Enterprise Paint Manufacturing Company, a divi sion of Insilco, has announced the ap pointment of Wil liam T. Caprel as purchasing agent. Mr. Caprel joined Enterprise in 1970 as an as- Williom T. Caprel purchasing agent. He was graduated from Elmhurst College, Elm hurst, HI., with a B.A. degree in busi ness administration. Mr. Caprel is a member of the Chi cago Paint, Varnish and Lacquer As sociation. American Paint Journal 1 LIA25028