Document RvOmRKN3ZE85eDYwJqkqw0Ek

U.'v'JLSl/-* ^vc ^ Clao<^jw> V- c'(jj lf/ 7 Ci- Toxic Substances Face New Curbs Under Mouse Bill U.S. Could Require Firms to Test New Chemicals for 1 Inzanls; PCB Ban Voted Mg II WaM.Rtiirrt JorMNAL fito/l Hrporlrr WASHINGTON Moftcling to increased concent over chemical hazards, the House ycKlcnlny punned Icglslalion giving the gov ernment new powers to control toxic sub stances. The bill. piaHNcd on a vote o( lib to 4!i. would require makers of any new clicinlral aulixunce to notify the govern ment 90 days belore starting commercial production and would give federal officials new authority In require makers to test po tentially hittnrdouK chemicals for Uietr ef fects on public health and the environment. Before passing the bill, the House ap proved on a voice vole an amendment that would outlaw the production of polychlori nated Wplwnyl*. or PCB. within two years. PCB*, which nre cltemlculs used to transfer bent In electiknl equipment, have been found to be highly toxic and an apparent cause of Hklit and liver ailments and other mtIouk lUncaxes. Just last week. Mobil Corp. reported whnl could be Ute first PCB link to eanccr In humnna. The Senate passed a similar measure on toxic substance* last March. The next atep Is for the two bill* to be reconciled In a House-Senate conference committee. Twice before. In 1972 and 1974. both houses passed toxic-substance* control bills, but the mea sures died when conference committees were unable to work out compromises be fore adjournment. This year's legislation faces a similar linsard. plus the threat of a possible presidential veto. Health and environmental scares Involv ing such substances as asbestos, vinyl chlor ide and 1*CBs have given the legislation new lm|>etun. Sponsors of the bill even mentioned the mysterious Philadelphia "legion dis ease." whnse cause hasn't yet been found. In arguing that the gwvcnmcnt needs new pow ers to control loxic sulwtnnces. . Current law doesn't authorize the govern ment to require the testing of a chemical's ' effect on health and environment before marketing Supporter* said tire bill is aimed at dosing thin nnd other "conspicuous gaps" tn the law. to protect people and the environ ment from dangerous chemical* The mea sure exempt* food, drugs, cosmetirs, pesti cide* and other substances already subject to federal regulation under Oliver laws. Major provisions of the legislation would: - Ilctjulre mumifurturcrs to give the En vironmental I'lolecljon Agency 90 days ad vance notice of comun-rrlnl production of any new chemical, or :? old chemical being put to a "significant now use." --Aulhojlze the Environmental Protec tion Agency to delay or n.-s'rlct the produc tion of * new clwn.icwl if its heulUi and envi ronmental impact Is unknown and if there Is reason to believe it may be liazardou*. -Require chemical companies to test substances for possible health or environ mental hazards when the Bi'A determines that such testing Is neccxHury. -Permit the agency to prohibit or re strict liie production of chemical* found to be hazardous or to Issue regulations govern ing their labeling, use or disposal. The amendment to ban manufacture oi PCH* within two years was offered by Reps. Gilbert Gudr .It . Md' hiA John Dingell <D.. Micb >, Mr. Dingell said PCB* are "bad, har.ardou*. dangerous" chemicals that accumulate in Die food chain leading to hu man consumption. The Dingell-Gude amendment would or der the EPA to prescribe method* for the disposal of PCBs within six months and would ban the use of PCB* within one year, except in approved enclosures or containers. A total ban on production would be effective two years after the bill becomes law. The 8cnatc toxic substances bill also Included a floor amendment that ultimately would ban moat use of PCBa. Last April, the SPA Issued a recommen dation for the best way to dispose of PCBa. involving a complex burning process. Another amendment, approved 210 to 197. provides (hat either house of Congress may veto within 90 days any RPA rule promul gated under the bill. Backers of (he bill argued against this amendment, saying It might provide President Ford with a reason to veto the legislation. The Prealdenl has ob jected to such a one-house veto provision in previous bills on the ground that it may be unconstitutional. Borne House Republicans asserted that the bill would be ruinous for imsll chemical ooncerns and would Increase bureaucratic regulation of business. They warned that (he congressional veto provision would make the legislation objectionable to the President. HONS 035621