Document NG2k50JVDDOJ94gx2E0Kmb1wg

CENTER FOR POJ.ITJGU. RESEARCH RESEARCH REPORT .____. on 7^)f PCB itontainination of the Food Chain Donald D. Kummcrfcld Director Cl'R Research August 5, 1071 HONS 043244 Table of Contents Page I. Summary 1 II. Outline of the Scientific Problem 5 I. II. 11J. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. Introduction Properties of PCB's Entrance Into the Environment Contamination of the Food Chain Toxic Effects in Fish and Birds Toxicology of PCB in Man Difficulties in Detecting PCB's Toxicity Testing by FDA 5 S 5 6 7 8 8 8 III. Current Federal Activity 10 I. Regulatory System A. PCB's in Foods: Existing Controls U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Drug Administration Control Options B. PCB's in Pesticides: Existing Controls Office of Pesticides - Environmental Protection Agency C. PCB's in Industrial Applications: Existing Controls Monsanto Control Options D. PCB's in IVork Environments: Existing Controls Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA)- - Department of Labor(DOL) Control Options E. PCB's in Air and Water: Control Options Office of Air Programs(OAP)--Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Progrnms(OWP)--Environmental Protection Agency II. Research Status A. Food and Drug Administration B. Department of Agriculture C. Nton.s. alto I). Office of Pcsticidcs--Environmcntnl ProtectionAgency E. Office of Air Programs--Environmont:al Protection Agency Health Effects Source Control . 10 10 10 11 13 15 13 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 10 19 50 30 31 31 31 22 MQNS 043245 P-'lfig - . F. Bureau of Wildlife and Sports Fishcrics--Dcpartmcnt of Interior G. Office of Science and Technology--Executive Office of the President II. Other IV. Summary of Senate Commerce Committee Hearings I. II. 111. IV. Hearings Tuesday, August 3 Wednesday, August 4 Thursday, August 5 V. Summary of House Public Health and Environment Committee Hearings I. House Oversight Hearings II. Tuesday, August 3 .III. Wednesday, August 4 VI. Legislative Outlook I. II. III. IV. Outlook Administration Proposal (HR 5930, S 1478) Spong Amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1971 (S 1478) Muskie Bill (S 573) Other Proposals P.l H 0 22 23 23 24 2t 24 25 26 28 2S 2S 28 30 30 31 32 33 34 MONS 043246 I. SUMMARY Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's), along with DDT and such l.eavv metals as mercury, lead and cadmium, are examples of chemicals that are widely dispersed throughout the environment. PCB's and DDT are similar insofar as they are very persistent chemicals that enter the food chain and tend to accumulate in the fatty tissue of marine life, birds and mammals. Scientific studies indicate the widespread presence of PC3's in many different organisms, including man. Toxicological studies have demonstrated the mortality of marine life with concentrations of PCB's anJ several other studies have outlined the effects on game birds and domestic birds. However, the effects of PCB on man is largely unknown and federal agencies are only beginning to conduct research in tiu.s area. Research Status Monsanto is the sole source of PCB's in the U. S. and has conducted most of the research to determine the toxic effects of PCB's on a variety of animals. Monsanto has also been working on the difficult problem of developing analytical methodology for accurate detection and measurement of PCB's. The firm has been willing to share its findings with the federal government, and the Pood and Drug Administration has admittedly been awaiting results from Monsanto's research in order to guage its own research priorities. On August 5 [this week), Pll\ scientists are meeting to evaluate their existing research program, which has been minimal, at best, but will undoubtedly be expanded in the near future. Several other federal agencies are conducting research on PCB's. The Department of Agriculture does not have a large research capability in this area, but lias been looking at PCB milk contamination and its effects on cows. CPA's contract research HONS 0432**? in this area has been confined mostly to detecting PCB's in human tissues, a program recently expanded. EPA's Office of Pesticides recently acquired a laboratory in Florida which has been working for over a year on the testing for PCB's in marine life. Other laboratories across the nation, operated by the Bureau of Wildlife and Sports Fisheries, have been among the first to detect PCB's in marine life, wild birds and other wiljlife, and will continue to test for these compounds regularly. In order to develop a fedcml policy or program to deal with PCB's and other toxic substances, the Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President, is actively engaged in case work on PCB's to evaluate available information and advise the President. They are evaluating the various research activities on PCB's which are being performed by a variety of federal and private institutions. Regulation Status Inputs into the food chain can come from several directions, many of which arc unintentional and unknown. Thus, several agencies of the federal government currently exercise some degree of control over PC3 contamination of food and the environment. First and foremost is the control over PCB contamination of red meat and poultry, exercised by the Department of Agriculture, and of milk, animal feeds and all foods as exercised by the Food and Drug Administration (HEW). This regulatory authority lias existed for several decades and, in recent years, has served to detect PCB's in poultry, fish, and milk. Preventing contamination of food stuffs, however, is a much more difficult problem than detecting it in food products and animals. The Office of Pesticides of the Environmental Protection Agency (previously of the Department of Agriculture) has prohibited the use of I'Cll's in pesticides, thereby preventing their application to agricultural crops. HONS 043248 The separate offices of Air anti Water Programs of CPA have not yet exercised regulatory control over air and water emissions of PCE's, though the emission of PCB's during municipal incineration will soon be regulated to some degree by particulate standards. Additional restrictions on air and water emissions will be enacted by EPA in the future, but these regulations deal primarily with intentional or known emissions of PCB's-virtually all of which have been eliminated or have been placed under voluntary control. EPA does not yet have authority to control the dis posal of products containing PCB's to prevent runoff into streams and leachate into ground water supplies. By far the most effective existing control over PCB's remains outside the government at the point of origin. Monsanto, sole U. S. supplier of PCB's', lias voluntarily restricted distribution of PCB's to what it defines as "controlled" industrial applications. However, it was a "controlled" application that leaked PCB's in the recent chicken feed incident. This suggests that the monitoring of controlled PCB applications is not completely thorough. Monsanto marketing and monitoring activities will be crucial to the overall PCB control. Therefore, the most important operating controls at this time are Monsanto's voluntary restrictions on distribution and the USDA and PDA ability to keep contaminated meat and food products from the market. legislative Status The Council on Environmental Quality has taken the stand that the current approach to controlling pollutants in the media in which they primarily occur is not satisfactory in regulating widely spread toxic chemicals such as PCli's. As an example, CEQ points out that, even though mercury contamination from industry was controlled using existing water pollution authority, mercury still is being released to watcivays from various smaller sources such as school labs and medical labs. MONS 043249 CEQ argues that control of hazardous substances should concentrate on the substance itself rather than on the media in which it is found, based on the CliQ report on toxic substances, the Administration has intro duced a bill (iiR 5930, S 147S) that would authorize EPA to restrict or prohibit the use or distribution of chemical substances produced in com mercial quantities in order to protect the health or environment. An amendment to the bill has been introduced and Senate Commerce Subcommittee hearings have been held. Senator Muskie has also introduced a bill similar to the Administration bill but no hearings have been held and it is unlikely that they will be held this Congressional session. It is not likely that the Administration bill will pass cither the House or the Senate during this session. 5 ii. ouj'li.m; or nm scnyrinc puobi.di I. Introduction In the last four years there lias been an increasing realization that polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) pose a potential environmental danger. For many years, chemists investigating substances contaminated by l.'Ui' did not know the identity of PCB materials and ascribed then to unknown metabolites or breakdown products of insecticides. Since 1966, scientists have become more knowledgeable about the extent of PCB con tamination. II. Properties of PCB's The properties of PCB's make them potentially significant environ mental contaminants. They have high boiling points, excellent thermal stability resistance to both acids and basic hydrolysis, general inertness and resistance to oxidation. In addition to low water solubility, PCB's share with DDT a high solubility in fats and the ability to become absorbed into mud and other suspended particles. Due to their non biodegradability, PCB's have shown up with increasing concentrations in many species. 111. entrance Into the Environment I'CIi's act like DDT in their passage through the environment, but DDT enters the environment deliberately, primarily as a pesticide, and PCH's enter it principally by accident. Carbonless reproducing paper, plastic film containing PCB's as plasticizers, spent fluorescent light ballasts, coatings and adhesives with l'CB's--all may end up at the local incinerator upon disposal. I'Cli's do not burn readily and are only vaporized. The vapors arc carried into the atmosphere where they collect on particulate matter. Air currents in the lower troposphere carry the HONS 043251 particles worldwide to be finally deposited on the ground by rainfall. The global distribution pattern of PCB's and DDT is quite similar to that of radioactive fallout. Runoff of industrial wastes from dumps is another source. A third source is from manufacturing plants making PCB's where effluents may escape through stacks or ventilation systems or pass through waste treatment plants. Erosion of surface coatings and spoilage of heat transfer and dielectric fluids are other major routes into the environment. IV. Contamination of the Food Chain PCB's enter the food chain when plants and photoplunkton absorb nutrients from the soil or water. Animals cat the plant material and concentrate the PCB in their fat. Carnivores then prey upon these herbivores and on each other and concentrate the PCB even further. PCB's go from plankton in the sea to small fish, to larger fish, to birds which prey on these fish. In each passage through the food chain the contaminant will become further concentrated with little loss. Mien man eats the fish or bird, or when domestic animals eat processed fishmeal, the persistent PCB lodges in the body fat along-'with DUT and other chlorinated pesticides. PCB's that are absorbed by plants (hay, grain foods) are fed to domestic animals with resulting concentration of the PCB. Thus PCB's enter the natural and the domestic food chain and eventually may concentrate in man. The spread and concentration of PCB's in man is largely unknown. HONS V. Toxic Effects in Fish and Birds A number of scientists have conducted experiments, testing for PCB's in fish and birds. The following cases indicate some of the findings. . 1) PCB's at n concentration of 5.0 ppb (parts per billion) caused 721 mortality of pink shrimp in 20 days with an accumulation of 35 ppm PCB. (Duke, T. W., J. I. Lowe, and A. J. Wilson, Jr. 1970 Bulletin Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 5:171-180.) 2) Shrimp exposed to 10 ppb Aroclor 1254 (PCB) for 43 hours, accumulated 1500 ppb PCB, representing a 130 fold concentration. (Reynolds, L. M. 1969 Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 4:12S). 3) Fish-eating birds such as the white-tailed eagle were found to have as much as 14,000 ppm of PCB's. Peregrine falcons from the Cali fornia coast had as much as 2000 ppm in their fatty tissue. (Riscborough, R. W., et al. 1968. Nature, 220:1098-1102). 4) One ppb of the PCB Aroclorc 1254 causes a 20 per cent decrease in oyster shell growth. (Duke, Lowe and Wilson, 1970.) 5) Birds dependent upon fish have suffered widespread mortality and population decline in the north and Baltic seas as well as off the coast of California. (Jensen, S. A. ct al. 1969. Nature 224: 247-250.) 6) Aroclor 1242 fed to chicks produced the same characteristic effects as chick edema factor. "Cross pathology included hydroponcardium, )lydroperitoniuin, enlarged heart, liver and kidneys, and hemorrhage of internal organs. Microscopically the kidneys showed marked tubular dilation and numerous casts." Apparently chickens and hi ids are quite sensitive to residues oi` chlorinated hydrocarbons. (McCune, University of Missouri). HONS 043253 s VI. Toxicology of PCU in Man In man, chlorinated biphenyls act on the skin and have a toxicaction on the liver. The liver lesion is an acute yellow atrophy. The higher the chlorine content of the diphenyl compound, the more tox^c it is liable to be. Skin lesions, known as chloracne, consist of small pimples and dark pigmentation of ex-posed areas. Later pustules develop. (Sax, Irwing, "Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials," Third LJ., Van Nostrand-Reinhold, N. Y., 196S.) PCB's have been found in human fat and in a series of mother's milk samples along with DDT residues, DDT has been shown to be tuinorogenic (i.e. carcinogenic) and because PCB has a similar chemical structure it may be carcinogenic also. (Innes, J. R. M. , et al. 1969. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 42:1101-1114.) VTT. Difficulties in Detecting PCl'.'s It was in 1966 that PCB's were first identified during DOT testing from wildlife samples. Since then, rudimentary testing and analysis methods for separation and identification have been developed. One of the main difficulties in analysis results because of the similarity between DDT and PCB's. In gas-liquid chromatographic analysis it is difficult to separate PCB's from DDT and other interfering compounds due to overlapping. It takes a specifically trained professional to pick out the correct peaks because one PCB compound may contain 4 to S different molecular species and isomers. PDA is beginning development of analytical methods for PCU. Refined methodology is one to two years away. VIII. Tox ic i ty Tos ting by IDA HUNS 043254 PDA has conducted few if any toxicity experiments. Plans have been formulated to work on the teratology (production of pliy.sic.il delects during pregnane)', i.e. Llial idomi Jo) carcinogenesis and mutagenesis of I'Cll's, hut this work will not lie completed for some time. s FDA apparently has relied on a Monsanto two year chronic toxicit test to produce reliable information. This test will be completed in another year. HONS 043255 > Xu III. CURRIAT FhDFRAI. ACnviTY I. Regulatory System A. PCIl's in l-oo.l: Fnisting Control;'. Oiici; PCB's become a direct contaminant of the food chain bv entering; fish, meat, poultry, dairy products and related foodstuffs, they come under the regulatory authority for foods shared by the Food and Drug Administration (HEW) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. II. S, Department of Agriculture Control over PCB's in red meat and poultry results from USIU's autliority to inspect meat and poultry for wholesomcness both before and at the point of slaughter. As provided by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451-460), USDA inspectors can label as "inspected anc! con demned," meat and poultry products which are considered "adulterated" according to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301-392). According to this Act, a food is adulterated if "it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health." (Sec. 402 of 21 U.S.C.). Therefore, in the recent episode concerning PCB's in chicken in North Carolina, USDA adopted an FDA guide line (not an off-tolcrance level) concerning the acceptable level of PCB's in chickens, namely 5 ppm (parts per million) and condemned chickens which exceeded this level. According to the Poultry Inspection Act, once condemned, such poultry carcasses and poultry products must be destroyed, and none of the products can be introduced into interstate commerce. Most meat and poultry inspection is a visual operation, but the Field Operations Division of the USDA (Dr. Victor Berry, 388-4260, Deputy Director, Field Operation Division, Consumer ami Marketing Service) carries out Doth continuous, ami emergency monitoring of poultry and meat tissue. For several .years they have had an ongoing surveillance program to test for chlorinated hydrocarbons in animal tissue. Roughly 5000 MONS 0*3256 meat ar.ii 3000 poultry samples are requested for testing each year for 'chlorinated hydrocarbons. They have been testin;.; spec i f ieal J y for PCli's in red meat and poultry since January, 1971. Selected samples are tested daily from slaughtering plants across the nation. In cases such as the detection of specific contaminants in an area, USDA will carrv out more intensive testing procedures to locate the nature and extort of contamination. Thus in the recent episode of PCB's in chickens, more intensive testing was done in a 10-state area to check for contamination. It is not clear if the continuing analysis of chlorinated hydrocarbons distinguishes PCB's from DDT and other orgnno-chlorine compounds. As for PCB's in milk, the USDA could exercise some control via the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U. S.C. 1621-1627) authoricing grading, inspection and certification of fluid milk as an agricultural product. However," most milk surveillance occurs on the state and local levels. The federal role has been largely advisory, and lias occurred through the FDA. USDA has recently acquired authority to inspect eggs under the ilgg Products Inspection Act (84 Stat. 1620), and 3 number of USDA and PDA spokesmen have indicated that they will be taking a closer look at egg and eg product contamination. The Act provides inspection of certain egg pro ducts by US11A and calls for uniformity of standards for eggs in inter state and foreign commerce. /Any egg or egg product can be found adul terated for the same reasons as meat and poultry. The Act passed both houses of Congress in December, 1970. Food and Drug Administration IDA control over toxic food contaminants is based on the Food, Ihi.g and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301-392) authorizing FDA to prohibit the sale of any adulterated food. FPA can .also prohibit the use of certain food additives or can establish tolerance levels lor the amount to be used. .So far, PDA has published no tolerance level Tor PCB's as a food additive, lienee, in the recent chicken episode, the contaminated chicken MONS 043257 feed fishmeal was condemned on the basis that it contained an illegal 'food additive for which no tolerance was allowed. The contaminated poultry remained under USDA authority which adopted the 1-DA guideline (S ppm) for determining safe broilers. The guideline is not to be con fused with a food tolerance level. It was determined by a special FDA committee of toxicologists and other specialists and was intended for administrative use only, that is, as a means for deciding the fate of contaminated food and not as a public directive to industry concerning an allowable level of additive. FDA set a 3 ppm level on a whole (chicken) tissues basis, and a 5 ppm level for chicken fat. Since the PCB concentration runs much higher in the fatty tissues, the allowabl level was more stringent than if merely a whole tissue limit had been set ' According to Richard Ronk, Chief of Guidelines and Compliance Re search in the Food Bureau, FDA will be looking at eggs in the Southeast grading area exposed to the contaminated fishmeal during the past weeks. He also offered the judgment that PCB's are not as ubiquitous as one would think, and that their occurrence in foods results largely from accidents. FDA has 17 district offices in major cities and over 100 resident posts across the nation where local or regional products arc tested. Each district makes a judgment as to the commodities to be tested. According to Frank Thompson of the Division of Compliance Programs, the Food Bureau docs have a program to cover all pesticides in food, plus a specific program to detect PCB's in the food supply. They also test fluid milk in the various districts for these contaminants, though the state and local authorities have assumed most responsibility here. The Bureau of Veterinary Medicine of the FDA is in charge of regulating animal feed and was responsible for condemning the fishmeal used as animal Coed in the recent, episode. Though they arc mainly responsible for drugs in animal feed (Sec. .112 of the Fond, Drug and Cosmetic Act), they have jurisdiction over sampling and analyzing unsafe MONS 043258 additives in animal feed. According to James 0. Gosling, Director of the EVM's Division of Compliance, they were "on top" of the fishmeal issue when it. occurred. Coni ml Opt ions ' Insofar as PCB's in meat, poultry, eggs, and other products under their jurisdiction arc concerned, the USDA has sufficient authority to control dispersal of the above contaminated products via interstate commerce. Criticism of USDA involves mostly the issue of how they exercise their existing regulatory authority, not that they arc in effectual due to lack of authority. Similarly, the FDA has broad powers over the introduction into interstate commerce of adulterated foods. One control option FDA has not exercised, relevant to PCB's, is Section 406 of the. FIX Act, enabling them to set tolerances for poison ous ingredients in foods which cannot be avoided by good manufacturing practices. This section has never been used, though there was an effort to use it to set a pesticide tolerance level. It is unlikely, however, that any tolerance level could be set for PCB's in foods until their toxic effect on humans is better known. B. PCB's in Pesticides: Existing Controls Office of Pesticides - environmental Protection Agency In 1970, partly in response to complaints raised by Congressman Ryan (D-N.Y.), the Secretary of Agriculture agreed to ban the use of PCB's in pesticides and to cancel registration for pesticides containing PCB's. However, at the time of this agreement, the use of pesticides huj been limited, and Monsanto had already agreed not to market them for these applications. No cancellations were ever issued, since the con cerned pesticide (insecticide) manufacturers changed the composition of their end-product voluntarily. (Pesticide control has been trans ferred from the Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Research Division, to the Office of Pesticides, liPA.) MONS (H3259 C. I'CB's in Industrial Applications: Existing Controls Monsanto In response to discoveries of PCB's in birds, Monsanto Corp., sole U. S. supplier of rCB's (trade-named Aroclor), announced in the surrer of 1970 that it would "restrict sales of PCB's only to those applications where their unique fire resistance properties arc important and writ re it is possible to control collection and regeneration or incineration of spent material." They therefore announced the following actions: 1) Discontinue sales of PCB's for all general plasticizer applications. - August 50th, 1970. 2) Phase out the PCB's as components of industrial and hydraulic fluids where control of spillage and collection of spent material is not possible-- the major part of this program will be completed within six months. 3) Continue sales of PCB's as dielectric fluids for transformers and capacitors, cooperating with customers collecting spent and arced fluid for regeneration and/or incineration. 4) Continue sales of PCB's as fire resistant heat transfer fluids ensuring modification to systems designed to make provisions for collection of spills and leakage. Collect spent fluid for regeneration and/or incineration. 5) Continue research effort to develop alternatives to the PCB's and modify PCB's to make them biodegradable in conventional secondary waste treatment facilities. Since that time, Monsanto reports that all sales of l'CB's to appli cations where the disposal of the end product cannot bo controlled have been discontinued, and that the complete range of fire-resistant hydraulic fluids has been reformulated to exclude PCB's. hurt hennnrc, Monsanto, though it is continuing to sell PCB's for use in closed systems appli cations (e.g., trailsl'oniters, capacitors, anil heat transfer fluids), . . agreed to cooperate with its customers in control of possible em issions from these applications. They arc establishing a service to collect, spent fluids for return to Monsanto to be regenerated or HONS 0432b0 destroyed in a specially designed, high-temperature incinerator. Tins service began operation July 157], Com nil Opt ions A.-, sole U.J. supplier of i'CIi's Monsanto retains the opt,on, at least at present, of controlling their distribution. It may continue to sell PCI! for industrial uses which they say can be controlled, or tbv may voluntarily discontinue all sales of PCB's. Voluntary termination would probably occur if their concern with accidental contamination from remaining uses coincides with development of viable and marketable alter natives to PCB's. Involuntary termination of all sales could occur if UPA is given the authority to restrict the spread of toxic substances through pending legislation. D. PCB's in Work Environments: Existing Controls Occupational Safety 3nd Health Administration (CSKA)--Department of Labor (POL) In compliance with their standard setting responsibility, OSIIA published (May 29, 1971) a long list of recommended Threshold Limit Values (TLV's), including limits for PCB's as follows: Chlorodiphcnyl (42 Chlorine) - Skin 1 mg/NP* Chlorodiphcnyl (54 Chlorine) - Skin 0.5 mg/'P* (''Approximate milligrams of particulate per cubic meter of air.) These standards become effective on Pebruary IS, 1972, though the 1101. can respond to complaints threatening "imminent danger" to health or safety prior to the effective date. Unless these TI.V's arc changed before the effective date, the DOL has authority to enforce them via inspection of employers' establishments and records, issuance of cita tions and imposition of penalties where applicable. According to Dr. Herbert Stokingcr, chief of IILW's Laboratory of Toxicology and Pathology for occupational health, there is no current concern with changing the toxicity stanUardsfor PCB's. Qi,326l kons Control Options CttllA has the option to sot additional standards for PCB's in work environments. The current level has been set to control the develop ment of acne from skin exposure to PCB's. Additional research would be needed to substantiate standards for inhalation of PCB particles. Drinking of PCB's is not considered hazardous, and ingestion of PCB's in foods is already under USDA and PDA control. E. PCB's in Air and Water: Control Options Office of .Air Programs (OAP) - Environmental Protection Agency The Office of Mr Programs is considering the inclusion of PCB's on a list of hazardous air pollutants, which they have authority to control .according to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857, Sec. 112). Asbestos, beryllium and mercury were placed on the list March 31, 1971, and other pollutants such as cadmium, nickel, and PCB's will probably be designated in mid-1972, or as soon as CPA assesses their health effects. If PCB's 3rc designated in 1972, El'A must propose emission standards within six months after listing. Within another six months after proposing standards, EPA must promulgate final standards. These become effective upon promulgation for new sources and modi fictitious of existing plants. Existing sources arc not bound until 90 days after proi.ui]g.il ion. Therefore, airborne emission standards for PCB's may he in effect by mid-i973, according to this maximum timetable. Since I'CB's are used as plasticizers, they may be released when certain plastics and other products arc incinerated. Therefore, they will bo controlled by EPA insofar as they arc an emission from a station ary incinerator. On March 31, 1971, incinerators of more than 2,000 pounds per hour charging rate (municipal-type) were designated as a stationary source subject to standards of performance under See. Ill of the new Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (PI.-604). Particulates and visible emissions will he the first incinerator pollutants to he regu lated. I'CB's apparently do not hum Imt are vaporized and collect on paniculate matter, presumably in incinerator stacks. Therefore, *QNS they Kill probably be regulated by UPA by the ciul of this year if current research shoes them to be a particulate emission. I'.l'A was requested to propose the particulate standard of performance for incinerators by July 29, 1971, but the standard has not been set. By October 27, 1971, the Standard must he promulgated. It will then become unlawful for any owner or operator of a new stationary pollutant source to operate in violation of the performance standard. Under the same Clean Air Amendments (See. lllfdJll]) existing incinerators become liable to similar controls by states once the federal government establishes the new source perfor mance standard. By these avenues, any existing air emissions of PCB's will soon be regulated by the federal government, both as a hazardous pollutant and as an Incinerator emission. Office of hater Programs (OlVP) - Environmental Protection Agency The Oil and Hazardous Materials Divison of the Office of hater Pro grams will probably designate PCB's as hazardous water pollutants before the end of 1971. This office has primary responsibility under See. 12 of the Viator Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 446 et seq.) for control of water-borne hazardous substances, and is charged with promulgating regu lations dealing with the prevention, control and cleanup of hazardous substances discharged into navigable waterways and other waters. The hazardous substances list is long overdue but the final draft now undoi' review establishes three categories of hazardous substances: inherently dangerous substances, such as heavy metals and Class A and B poisons; circumstantially hazardous substances, where tlie amount and circumstances of the discharge will he weighed, relative to danger; and any substance that violates water quality criteria. It is likely that PCB's will be designated as inherently dangerous substances, and any discharge of I'L'B's into waterways will he prohibited. Once designated, the OWP lias three legal options for control of the pollutants: (11 Applying emission regulations i'll hazardous sub stances to industries requesting discharge permits from the II.S. Army HONS 0432&3 Corp.s of Engineers, as required by the 1S99 Refuse Act; (2) Using fee. 10 of the Water Pollution Control Act, which calls for compliance with water quality standards and provides for the issuance of 180-day notices and (long) multi-scssioned conferences for abatement; and (3) Using Sec. 12 of the same Act, whereby regulations and contingency plans for the orcvention and removal of discharges of hazardous materials would be developed by the OWP and the U.S. Coast Guard. It is likely that EPA will exercise both options (1) and (3), since they require less time than option (2). Some form of effluent guideline or standard for PCB's will be established by EPA for use by the Corps of Engineers, and it is likely that no PCB effluents free, any industry will be allowed when the discharge permit system goes into effective operation, i. e., by mid-1972. A regulation and contingency plan for the prevention and removal of PCB's will be developed by the OK? and enforced by the Coast Cua. ' The Coast Guard has already submitted a report to Congress on the responsi bility for the cost of removing such substances and on methods and measures for the prevention of such discharges. A National Contingency Plan for dealing with these discharges was originally promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality in June, 1970. The Plan, now being revised by the CEQ, sought to establish and coordinate a national and regional network of contingency teams and plans to control and remove discharges of oil and hazardous substances. It included provisions for nuclear pollution and required articles to be prepared on "concentrations of potentially hazardous trace materials, including lead, chromium, zinc, arsenic, mercury, nickel, copper and chlorinated hydrocarbons,'' and a description ol` the analytical methods used to determine such concent ra tions. MONS 043.264 10 II. Research Status A. Food and Drug Administration FDA research into PCB's is in a state of flux, perhaps dee to t:._ reccnt episode of food contamination. According to Dr. II. F. Kraybill, As si stmt Director for Scientific Coordination, an interagency meeting will be held August 4 to evaluate the research priorities on PCB's. lie has emphasized that not enough is known of existing levels of i'Cii food contamination and its precence in human and animal organs. Some work has been done by FDA on analytical methods to determine PCB content in various foods. However, according to J. William Cook, Director of the Division of Chemical Technology, they are admittedly not doing much toxicological work on PCB's, since Monsanto is rather heavily involved in this. Nevertheless, the following research programs are contemplated for fiscal year 1972: Polychlorinated Biphenyls and related compounds Teratogenic potentials in chick embryo, hamster, dog and swine Path exam. PCB tcrata Enzyme induction of Aroclor 1260 in dogs and mini-pigs Plant and animal metabolites of PCB and related compounds Enzyme industion of PCB in rats Path exam l'CB: rats Measurement of residues of PCB and related compounds Chemical alteration products of PCB and related compounds Apparently they arc adopting a similar route with PCB's as they did with DDT, though they have smaller expectations for PCB contamination and effects than found with the pesticides. In answer to criticisms of FDA research activity in PCD, Dr. Kraybill would argue that they have limited resources, and that people have been sereumim' more loudly about mercury and heavy metals than about PCB's. FDA's sense of urgency in this re gal'd may change after they evaluate what is known about PCB's this week. MONS U. IVnarlr.i.'nt of Agriail lure Thu Department or Agriculture lias little involvement in rcscurji deal in;; Kith toxic contamination of foods. Most of this is perforat'd by h. A ..nd other research cstabi i shnents. however, Dr. George i r, .; the linin' Cattle Branch, Animal Sciences Research Division, Agi ict. itm v Research. Service, has been conducting a 1'CIS feed in;; exger,in nt with an to delect PCI! levels in milk. This will be completed in September, i!)"i. Of course the milk has been found to be contaminated, but if kept withir. the permissible level of 5 ppm in milk fat (which translates into .2 ppm in whole milk), Dr. Tries expects little, if any, effect on the ecus, lie notes that milk has been taken off the market in various places, often because the animal feed became contaminated with PCB's from the paint inside silos. This is apparently a common problem. Me has published some of his findings, and has another publication pending. C. Monsanto Monsanto has been involved in a number of studies dealing with PCB's most of which will be completed by the end of this summer. Two research efforts deal with the biodegradability of PCB's. One involves a hales shake-flask study to determine which of the isomers in PCB's are persis tent nnj which will break down. In their St. Louis laboratories they have been conducting semi-continuous activated sludge studies, adding nutrients to the compounds to determine the persistent and degradable isomers. According to William B. Papagcorge, Manager of bnvircir.vntal Control, Monsanto also has in progress a continuing program to improve analytical methodology in order to better deal with the wide variety of PCB's anJ their various properties. Monsanto is also experimenting with, animals to gauge the toxicity of l'C.B's. A two-year chronic feeding experiment was initiated for Monsanto by the Industrial liio-tcst labora tory in Chicago, whereby dogs, rats and chickens have been fed 1, 10 and 100 ppm (parts per million) of one of three types of Araclors (PCB's), namely, 1242, 1254, and 12c0. Monsanto is sharing the info mint ion gather 1 rom this with government toxicologists. This two-year study will lie MGNS 043266 completed this year, and Dr. Papagcorgc has indicated that Monsanto is most willing to share all the inlormation tiiey have found. Some results were presented at a meeting of the Society of Toxicology (Medical Collcg of Virginia, Richmond, Va. 23219), and more information on the results o their work will be coming out in a paper later this year. D. Office of Pesticides--Environmental Protection Agency At their Gulf Breeze Laboratory in lise.ainbia Bay, Mori da, I.I'A scientists have just completed nearly a year's work on Arocior 125-1, which was discharged into Escambia Bay via an accidental spill in 1S63 from a Monsanto nylon plant. The PCB's, used as a heat exchange fluid in this instance, escaped from a cooling water ditch. Since then, the fluid used by the plant has been changed. According to Dr. Nelson Cooley of the lab, a wide variety of animals were tested for toxicity, including protozoa, shrimp, oysters and some fish. None of the levels o PCB's in these animals were found to be high enough to be noticeably toxic. Two articles have been published, reporting on these testa, one by Dr. Del Nimmo et al., 'TCB's in Sediments," in a British journal, Nature; and a paper on "Aioclor 1254 in Water Sediments and Biota of Escambia Bay, Florida," by Messers Duke, Lowe and Wilson, in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 1970. E. Office of Air Programs--EnviTonr,tcnt3l Protection Agency Ileal tl) Effects Under a .`>19,078 contract to the Office of Air Programs, the South Carolina State Board of Health in Columbia, S. C. has undertaken an assay of human tissues lor trace metals and I'Gli's. According to ])r. Douglas I. Hammer, Division of Effects Research, (El'A), and pro ject manager for this contract, I'CB's have been found to be a minor image of DDf. That is, where DM' is highest in concentration in rural blacks, PCB's arc highest in concentration in urban whites, reflecting the fact that they arc an industrial (urban) rather than agricultural (rural) contaminant. A new contract was granted to the South Carolina State Board for more extensive continuation of this work. Information on the new contract is available from Dr. Dniester, 1103-75.5-5110. bear.:.- Control The Division of Applied Technology, in cooperation with other 0.1' offices and research services, has been sampling and testing emissions from six incinerators to compile emission data in order to set new source emission standards on particulates and visible emissions free, incinerators. The six incinerators samples were incinerators in IXidc County, Fla., Braintree, Mass., Paris, Dusscldorf and two in Yew York City. (The tests cost roughly $15,000 per incinerator.) All testing and sampling should have been completed before the end of July, 1971, when Hl'A was required to propose emission standards. Air pollution staff have been mostly concerned with gathering data on the PC3 con tent of incinerator effluent. Information on the toxicity of these compounds has been insufficient to justify setting permissible levels of emission. It is suspected that PCB's from incinerators enter the atmosphere as an aerosol, that is, begin as a vapor but end as a solid. F. Bureau of Wildlife and Sports Fisheries--Department of Interior At the Bureau's Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Laurel, Maryland, PCB's in birds have been analyzed routinely for several years. Two publications are available on their research, one of which deals with the identification of structural formulas for 18 PCB's found in eagle tissues. They have also been conducting several two-year studies on the effects of PCB's on reproduction of game birds. They have tested lor all combinations of PCB's and have attempted to measure the toxicity of PCH on four species ol: game birds. According to Dr. I.ucillc Stickcl , Pesticide Research Coordinator at the Center, PCB's were identified in 1966 and they have been aware of them for several years. Several papers have been published on their research activities, but she emphasizes that their evaluation is not vet complete. So far, however, they have discovered no reproductive effects of PCB's, though some evidence of litis has been found in chickens. The Bureau's 1'cst.iciUc Research Laboratory in Columbia, Mo., lias investigated acute toxicities of PCB's oil trout and bluegi 11 s, where 043268 KONS Hr. Richard Schoettgcr has reported that PCB's have a relatively low acute toxicity. Dr. David Stallings of the same lab has been working on analytical procedures for PCB's and will do more work on game fish in this area. G. Office of Science and Technology--fxccutivo Office of the President The Office of Science and Technology is actively engaged in a number of case studies concerning a variety of toxic organic and in organic substances, including PCii's. Their general purpose is to eval uate the information available on PCB's in order to give advice and assistance to the President with respect to developing policies and programs dealing with those substances. Dr. Edward Burger is especially concerned with PCB's and related substances, but has stressed that at this time they are grappling with an information problem; that is, with the problem of not knowing where PCB's are found, and what their effect is. It is not likely that their work in this area will become available to the public. H. Other In addition to the above, significant research has been previously performed on PCB's by the Kettering Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati (Dr. J. F. Treon), and by Professor E. L. McCunc and his co workers at the University of Missouri. Dr. Troon's group investigated acute toxicities of PCB's on animals, and Prof. McCunc discovered the toxic effect of PCB's on chickens. According to Monsanto, between 100 and 150 laboratories have requested material from them on PCB's. A groat deal of existing research activities arc still focusing on analytical methods for determination and identification of l'CH's in the biosphere. ONS 043i69 IV. SlDMtRY OF SENATE COMMERCE COMMiTTIiF. HEARINGS I. Hearings On August 3, 4 and 5th the Senate Commerce Subcommittee or. Fnviron- ment held hearings on S 1478, the Administration's Toxic Substances Control Act of 1971. Senator Spong (D-Va.) introduced an amendment to the bill which was also considered at the hearings. Although the Sub committee is chaired by Sen. Hart (D-Mich.), Sen. Spong presided over the hearings. The only other Senator at the hearings was Sen. Hatfield (R-Orc. Generally,the hearings were low key as environmentalists, administra tion spokesmen, and scientists presented less than dramatic testimony. Industry did not testify at these sessions of the hearings, preferring to wait until October testimony. Sen. Spong did not run the hearings ir. an adversary manner and did not press witnesses on the weak points in their testimony. Sen. Hatfield was largely out of the questioning and oreferred to ask broad policy and general environmental questions. The committee staff, who had written the Spong amendments, did not participate in the questioning although they were present at the hearings. 11 - Tuesday, August 3 The first day of hearings had only two witnesses: Russel Train, the Chairman of the. ['resident's Council on Environmental Quality and Dr. David II. Klein, of Hope College in Michigan. Train discussed the need for the administration bill and cited examples of pollution that could only bo effectively controlled through the new authority of the bill. Train cited I'Cll and cadmium bacai-ds as examples for the need to control the use and distribution of substances rather than control their effects after they enter the environment. Commenting briefly on the Spong amendment, Train said CEQ did not favor the added authority of pre-market clearance, mandatory reporting of le.-ts, etc. as it would make administrative procedures cumbersome. This would HONS 043270 lessen the effectiveness of the enforcement of the most significant hazardous substances. However, Train did say that CEQ welcomed tlie addition of Spong's cititen suit clause. apoag questioned Train on how the act would apply to consider products. Train noted that the bill was not intended to supplant exist ing consumer protection authority and would apply to industrial chemi cal substances generally. Spong revolved the questioning around the differences between the administration bill and his amendments. Dr. Klein, a professor of chemistry and noted expert on mercury pollution, testified that municipal sewerage systems arc faced with large amounts of mercury from normal sewerage that they cannot treat effectively. While CPA and state governments have dramatically cut the industrial dis charge of mercury', nothing has been done for other, overlooked sources. Since this source of mercury comes from batteries, hospital and college labs, pharmaceuticals, disinfectants and various household uses, the proposed bills could provide the authority to control such pollution. III. Wednesday, August 4 Robert I-'ri , Deputy Administrator of EPA, presented testimony in support of the administration bill. Spong asked him about his amend ment provision for citizen suits and Fri said that EPA would accept such an amendment. Robert Riscbrougli, a Research Ecologist at the Iiotlega Marine Labora tory of the University of California presented a detailed scientific paper on PC1S. Mis testimony, for the most part, was objective and fair and did not contain alarmist warnings, lhe gist, of the testimony was that more research is needed to determine why I'CR is connected with certain health effects, and one way to do litis would be through lhe testing procedures of the proposed hills. While he gave examples of the harmful effects Of 1'Cll contaminated rice oil in .Japan, he noted that HONS 043271 it was not clear whether the effects were produced by the l'Cli or by very small a.':.aunts of other contaminants (Lcnzofurans, dibcnzofiiraas, dibenzodioxins). For the most part, Risebrough's testimony was not the type that manufacturers have come to expect from pro-control witnesses, and representatives of Monsanto (the sole manufacturer of PCU in the U.S.) and the Manufacturing Chemists Association liked the low key tone of the testimony and hearings in general. The most dramatic moment of the hearings came during Risebrough's testimony. Sen. Spong released correspondence from the Alabama Game and Fish Division which detailed FDA test results showing PCB contaminated fish 72 times the tolerance set by FDA. The FDA did not release the statistics although the tests were made in 1970. It is presumed that the fish were contaminated by the sewerage discharge of a nearby Monsanto plant. " Again the PCB example fitted into the testimony because its contam ination results from situations where existing legislation is largely ineffective. Risebrough emphasized the need for the proposed amendment to control the use and distribution of chemicals like PCB. An environmental group panel consisting of Harrison U'cllford, a Nader associate; Linda Billings, Sierra Club; Samuel Love, Environmental Action, Louise Dunlop, Friends of the Earth, and Joel Pickclr.er, National Wildlife Federation, also was heard. While presenting separate testimony, all strongly preferred the Spong amendment. Suggestions to strengthen it were offered. Among them were the inclusion of pesticides, extending the authority to exports (both bills exempt exports) and spell ing oat when the administrator of EPA is required to act (rather than leaving it to his discretion). IV. Thursday, August S Dr. Wil 1 jam N'icliol son fromMt. Sinai Hospital, New York test i lied on the. health hazards of asbestos. While noting that only certain uses of MQNS 043272 asbcs'.os present a hazard, the proposed legislation could be helpful iii regulating those instances. Nicholson also said that gaps in knowledge about asbestos tolerance levels and related information could be overcome by systematic testing protocols and procedures, which the bills provide. A public interest law panel, consisting of Robert Hallman, Center for Law and Social Policy; Karin Sheldon, Public Interest Research. Grouv; ' Illiaji: Rogers, Univ. of Washington, Law School; Edward Strobelci, Natural Resources Defense Council; and John Dinealt, Environmental Defense Fund, also discussed the proposed legislation. Generally they supported the Spoilg amendment and felt that pesticides and exports should not be ex cluded from the authority of the bill. A better system to insure objective testing was also suggested. HONS 043273 V. SUMMARY OF HOUSE PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT committee 11!:,\)-;Ixcs I. House Oversight Hearings Rep. Paul G. Royers' (D-Fla.) subcommittee on Public Health and the Environment, of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, held t.wo days of oversight hearings August 3 and 4 on federal food inspection and testing activities. Rogers' primary interest during the two day session was with procedural and administrative questions surrounding current government inspection practices. He and the rest of the subcom mittee exhibited little interest in specific problem areas of food quality concentrating instead on the development of alternative systems of in spection and testing to increase general levels of food safety. II. August 3 The first day of hearings was devoted to testimony by Dr. Claries Edwards, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Edwards' testimony concentrated on the severe shortage of inspectors and money which FDA faces, and indicated that crisis situations, such as the Eon Vivant recall campaign, force cancellation of a large number of already infrequent regular inspections. No mention was made of the PCE problem, cither by FDA representatives or by the subcommittee. III. August 4 The second and final day of hearings considered testimony by lvter Shuck of the Center for the Study of Responsive haw and Hubert Vaughn oi ihe Public interest Research Group. Shuck and Vaughn delivered strung attacks against the current inspection and testing practices carried our by FDA and the Department of Agricul Lure, citing a variety of oceui'ivae.s of chemical or microbiological contamination to illustrate their charges. Shuck, who hand led the chemical contaminant portion of the presentation, devoted approximately 20 per cent of his testimony to 1'CH's, ut i 1 icing horrifying hut largely unsupported examples of the consequences of PCD ingest ion. MONS 043274 Shuck strongly criticized the use of PCii's under any circumstances, lie said that despite assurances from Monsanto that PCE's are not sold for use as pesticides, and that industrial use of the chemicals occui largely jn "closed systems," contamination is a real and continuing pos sibility. 11c cited the Eastern Terminal situation, in which PCii's allegedly were introduced into chicken feed from a faulty "closed system" as evidence that current controls over the chemicals are inadequate. The subcommittee expressed only slight interest in the PCIi situation, except as it demonstrated a need for refora of current inspection ar.c testing practices. Rep. Rogers indicated that he would write a letter to the Department of Agriculture and attempt to ascertain why current procedures were inadequate for the problem presented by PCS contamination. HONS 0^3275 vi. LrcisijvnvG outlook I. Out]ook Thu Administration has introduced the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1073 (.'HR 5930, S 147S), a bill to control the use ami distribution of toxic substances from manufacture through distribution. Senator Spong (D-Va.j ha introduced a major amendment (Xo. 53S) to the bill which would strengthen the control authority by requiring pre-market clearance and a method for systematic testing of existing substances. Sen. Muskie has introduced a similar bill (S 575) as has Rep. Vanik (D-Ohio) (ilR 7-MS). Bills to bun PCB entirely have been introduced by Rep. Ryan (D-N.Y.). Interest has centered around the Administration bill and the Spong amendment. Hearings have been held on these bills before the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, with Son. Spong presiding. Muskie has agreed to delay hearings on his bill until the Commerce committee hearings are completed. There is little likelihood that cither the Senate or House will pass a toxic control substances bill this session. The Senate will resume hearings in October and there is little chance that a clean bill will be reported out in enough time for a Senate vote this session. The House has not assigned any of the toxic substances control bills to a sub committee so there is even less likelihood of hearings, much less passage in the House. It is anticipated that Muskie will not hold hearings on his bill even after the Commerce committee finishes, so only S 1478 and the Spong amendment will be considered by the Senate. The Ryan bills to ban l'Cli production are not expected to attract widespread support. HONS 0432 76 31 11. Atlmini stration Proposal (UR 5030. S 1478) Bills have; been introduced which approach the hazardous substances issue from several angles. The most comprehensive approach is the Ad ministration's Toxic Substances Control Act of 1971 (HR 5930, S 1478). The bill is based on a comprehensive review of the subject by the Council on environmental Quality. The premise of the Act is new. It shifts the hazardous substances issue from media (air, water, food, products, etc.) to the pollutant itself and proposes to empower EPA to control the substance from its initial production, through distribution and disposal. The bill amends the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 1261 et seq.), a labelling law with limited removal and restrictive powers. Tile bill would authorize the Administrator of EPA to; 1) restrict or prohibit the use or distribution of a chemical sub stance produced in commercial quantities in order to p,..ect the health or environment; 2) to request a court injunction in the event of an imminent hazard (loosely defined as a threat requiring immediate abatement) caused by the substance; 3) to issue standards and tests that now substances would have to meet before being marketed; 4) to require from manufacturers, reports on the names, chemical composition, production level, uses and results of tests on the health and environmental effects of the substance; 5) to conduct research, to develop an information system, and to predict and assess capability; and 6) to enter and inspect facilities connected with the production or storage of hazardous substances. MONS 043277 A Toxic Substances board would be established in EPA to advise the Administrator on action taken under the Act. Civil and criminal penalties up to $15,000 and one year imprisonment could be assessed for violations. The bill exempts substances solely intended for export, economic poisons under the federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 155a ct scq.), substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 ct scq.), the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and materials under the Atomic Energy Act of 1951. The Act would not apply to the Department of Transportation's power to establish rules and regulations for the transportation of hazardous materials, nor to the regulatory authority of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 regarding hazards to employees. The Act would also not apply to the regulation of the household use of marketed products which might contain the substance. In cases outside of the Act's authority where evidence of potential hazard is found, EPA is to notify the appropriate federal agency. The Administrator of EPA is also charged to use the Water Pollution Control Act and Clean Air Act in enforcing the proposed Act. Spong Amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1971 (S 147S) The amendment keeps the basic authority of the Administration bill to ccntrol substances through testing standards and usage restrictions. However it tightens definitions, adds a pre-market clearance requirement, makes it easier to apply the testing requirements to existing substance:,, includes provisions for citizen suits and enables EPA to take legal action without going through the Department of Justice. Certification (Pre-market clearance): Manufacturers of new chemical substances must obtain a certification from 1-PA tint the substance has met the test standards. EPA may require the results of the tests :md any HONS 0*3* 78 JJ other information to arrive at certification. The Administration bill has no certification procedure or other check to insure that the required tests have been completed or adequately conducted. existing Substances : The Administration bill does not require that existing substances be tested and meet the promulgated standards. It also docs not provide a method for starting the testing apparatus. The Kpong amendment includes authority for the Administrator of LPA to promulgate test standards for existing substances when he has "reason to believe" that such substances may "pose an unreasonable threat to man or the environment." Both bills authorize restrictions on the use or distribution of all chemical substances (new and existing) to protect health and the environment, including prohibiting sale and use. Other Changes: The recall of products containing the subs wdnee in violation of any standards is added in the Spong amendment, and seizure powers arc provided in cases deemed imminent hazards. The EPA Administrator is given authority to issue Administrative orders against the threat . imposed by imminent hazards, instead of going through the courts. Citizen suits are authorized if EPA fails to act upon a mandatory duty. EPA could initiate legal actions without the Department of Justice. The amendment explicitly gives EPA authority to regulate consumer products containing regulated substances (this was unclear in the Administration bill). III. Miskic Bill (S. 573) The Muskio bill amends the Clean Air Act and Water Pollution Con', rol Act t:o control the use of hazardous substances in m.inulac 1 ured ' products and to require pro-market testing of new substances. The hill is similar to the Administration proposal and includes test standard- a:id reporting and record-keeping requirements. Condemnation and seizure is authorized for violations of standards. Like the Administration bill the Administrator of 111'A can make inspections ,uul enLcr premise.- to u..;...; samp] lu; . MQNS 043279 The bill was cast, in terms of air and water pollution control to enable Muskie to preside over its hearing before his Public Kerbs Sub committee on Air and Water Pollution. The bill is still in executive session end hearings have not been scheduled. The fact that the Adminis tration bill is being considered by the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment increases the likelihood that the Muskie bill will not sec action this session. In fact, Maskie has agreed to withhold hearings until the Commerce Committee is finished with its hearings, which is not expected to be until sometime in late September or early October. IV.Othcr Proposals .. Vanik Bill (HR 7445): Rep. Charles A. Vanik (])-OhioJ introduced the Polluting Substances Control Act of 1971. The bill is similar to the above bills but gives authority to the Secretary of KBV to regulate and require pre-testing of new substances. The bill has not been scheduled for hearings by the House Committee on Interstate and foreign Commerce. Ryan Bills (HR S576, IK 100S3): Rep. William Ryan (D-X.Y.) has been the most outspoken critic of PCB contamination on the Hill. Oil May 19, 1971 he introduced a bill to prohibit the introduction of PCE into commerce except in carefully controlled operations. Both the manufacturer (Monsanto) and receiver would be required to keep records on the quality of PCB used. The Secretary of ID3V would administer the Act. This bill legislated what Monsanto (the sole U. S. manufacturer) has already done voluntarily: restrict the sale and usage of PCli's to closed systems and other environmentally safe uses. Ryan later introduced a bill (HR 1Q0SS) to prohibit the manufacturer of all PCB. This was done after the chicken feed situation convinced Ryan that no certain way to control PCB existed at this time. Both bills HONS 043280 Is have boon assigned to the Commerce Committee, but there is little likelihood that hearings will be held on these specific bills. A member of Ryan's staff said that he kid little hope that the bill would pass. Rather the e.\pee'..:l ion is. that it will spur ads.ini.suativc action to control its and thus make legislative action unnecessary. A lesser hope is that the control provisions would be incorporated into a larger, general toxic substances control bill. *ONS 04321