Document O3on7D012YRwyKVLzwN9rqdQe

Vtrto Oftnkol Compony 15990 N. tartar's Landing Hd. Port Offica Bex 19029 Hourtonjaxat 77224 Phone (713) 531-3200 y A ri .. /flSDs August 7, 1984 Mr. H. R. Hall City of Corpus Christi 13101 Up River Road Corpus Christi, TX 78401 VISTA Dear Hubert: As ve discussed, enclosed is a technical bulletin detailing FDA approvals for Vista ALF0L Alcohols and Material Safety Data Sheets for ALF0L Alcohols 16, 18, 1416, 1418, and 1618. Please contact me at 713/531-3445 if you have questions regarding this information. Director, Industrial Hygiene ajo Enclosures cc H. Halpert w/o enc. vvv 000016373 Thomas G. Grumbles To \1\ >ClV\Q_\(^ q\ VVe. \e* fconoco) VVV 000016374 THE SOAP AN The Bureaucracy A Tug-of-War on Toxic Chemicals k Times Drawing By Radlngar By PHILIP SHABECOFF Special to Tha New York Tbnea WASHINGTON, July 27 -- Some what gingerly, the Environmental Protection Agency is stepping onto the turf of another Federal agency in order to protect workers from toxic chemicals. The E.P.A. has decided to enforce the provisions of the Toxic Sub stances Control Act to control work place exposure to hazardous sub stances when the Labor Depart ment's Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which has jurisdiction over workplace hazards, cannot or will not act on its own. The health and safety agency, as well as the Office of Management and Budget, have reacted to the E.P.A. demarche without conspicuous enthu siasm. The toxic substances law, enacted in 1876, gives the environmental agency broad authority to control risks to health and safety from toxic materials. But the Occupational Safety and Health Act assigns to the Labor Department agency responsi bility for controlling workplace haz ards. Complaints on OSHA In theory, at least, the environmen tal agency can refer information on workplace hazards to OSHA, which would then act to protect workers from those risks. But Congressional, environmental and labor union critics have com plained that OSHA has been ex tremely slow to regulate workplace chemicals. Since the agency was formed more than 10 years ago it has regulated only 24 new hazardous sub stances and its pace in the Reagan Administration has been even slower. Earlier this year, Senator Robert T. Stafford, the Vermont Republican who is chairman of the Senate Envi ronment and Public Works Commit tee, along with three other members of that panel, wrote to the E.P.A. Ad ministrator, William D. Ruckels- haus, urging that the toxic substances law be brought to bear directly to regulate chemicals that threaten workers. Meaning of a Memo The E.P.A. and the Labor Depart ment's health and safety agency are working on a memorandum of under standing that would decide which agency has jurisdiction in a given case. But the environmental agency is moving ahead on its own while the agreement is being worked out. In an internal memorandum writ ten earlier this month, the E.P.A. said it would refer chemical prob lems to OSHA when occupational ex posures constitute all or most of the hazards, when workplace exposure standards would be sufficient to pro tect workers and when it believes the Labor Department agency has "suffi cient resources to address the prob lem within a reasonable period of time." The memorandum added, "E.P.A. will not refer a chemical problem when it determines that the Depart ment of Labor cannot adequately ad dress that problem." Alvin L. Aim, Deputy Administra tor of (he E.P.A., said his agency would "fuzz" the overall issue of what it will do when OSHA declines to act on an E.P.A. recommendation that workers be protected from a particular chemical. Different View at Labor Dept. But the internal memo seems quite clear about what would happen. If the Labor Department does not act on such a recommendation, the memo says, "E.P.A. will then assess the costs and benefits of regulating the chemical" under the toxic substances law "and, if appropriate, commence rule making." The view of the environmental agency's authority appears io be sub stantially different at the Labor De partment. A Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor, Patrick R. Tyson, who was in terim head of OSHA until recently, said that "E.P.A. can get into any area it wants" in carrying out the toxic substance^ law. "If F..P.A. decides a substance presents an unreasonable nsk and there is an occupational exposure, they will forward the results to OSHA," he continued. But after that, Mr. Tyson said, only OSHA has the responsibility of decid ing what, if anything, to do about regulating the chemical in the work place. A Third Party Speaks There is general agreement that the environmental agency has the right to ban a new chemical before it is put on the market, even if the chemical's intended use is primarily in the workplace. The Office of Management and Budget, which often acts as a middle man in matters affecting two or mure Federal agencies, has taken no stand on who should regulate workplace ex posure to toxic chemicals, according to Edwin L. Dale Jr., spokesman for the budget office. Mr. Dale added, however, that the budget office, which in this Adminis tration has taken the lead in seeking to reduce Government's regulatory impact on industry, was aware of the "jurisdictional discussion." in the particular cases of specific chemicals now being considered, he said, it seemed to those in the budget office who were familiar with the issue that leaving workplace regulation with OSHA was more "sensible."