Document e51XoOJ105VX9QwD6rbDp4Zj9

M ciflkbtr 24, 1975 * / yo r ?1 /o. c^\- Kt Linda Aay Offlea of Senator Cherla* Percy Sonata Offlca Building Washington, D, C, 20510 Subjecti Propotad Toxic Subttancaa Act, s.776, and ^Environmental Concarn* ovar the uaa of Polychlorinatad Byphanol* (PCB) Bear He. Aaayt X appreciated your phone call, and the opportunity to prepare tome thoughts for your consideration My basic concern hat to do With preventing one hind of safety ha sard - fire - from be ing overlooked because of another safety hacard - hazardous chemicals. X am suggesting some kind of "Indemnification" pro cedure be Incorporated in 776 to encourage consideration of all safety hasards. Please allow me to give you soma background. A bill Ilka S.776 is probably necessary to assure us that hasardous chemicals can be controlled. My opinion, of course, is that of a user of a chemical and not a manufacturer. There tern to be arguments Important to tha chemical industry regarding the expensive im plications of pre-market testing which X am unqualified to diecuss. As a user of a chemical which has basn identified as potentially hazardous - PCB - X have reviewed the Senate Bill and have tried to form an opinion regarding its implications with respect to the continued uee of PCB in capacitors. Capacitors are electrical component# which are the only pro ducts of our coopany. Capacitors are consumer products found in fluorescent lights, air-conditioners, television sets, welders, end many other hose appliances. The PCB*e used in capacitors are manufactured by only one company in the Western hemisphere - The Monsanto Industrial Coapany of Sauget, Illinois. PCB's (there are 209 different species) were used in many different applications until Monsanto** voluntary restriction to capacitors and transformers imposed in 1971. PCB'c are epeclal fluids which have some very unique properties desirable in the manufacture of capacitors. One characteristic NV 036260 December 24# 1975 H i . Linda Aaay Office of Senator Charles Percy 8heet 2 which is critical to the safe operation of a capacitor is Its fire resistance PCB's do not have a flash point below the boiling point of the fluid* That is, if the vapors are in the presence of a flame or electric arc, flame will not be supported by the fluid. Capacitors are used in electrical circuits where electric arcs can be present during co/qponent failure Capaci tors are also used in appliances where electric arcs or fire occur for other reasons. It is therefore very necessary for us to exercise care before we give up the fire resistant capabilities Of PCB. A number of chemical companies besides Monsanto have been seek ing alternatives or substitutes for PCB Bince we learned of the potential environmental problems The substitutes identified by Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Dow Corning, and Exxon are all fluids which are considered combustible They possess flash points which allow these materials to support fire The Electrical Utilities Company has tested a number of the alternatives in an attempt to find an environmentally suitable fluid for capacitor manufacture The material that we and many of our competitors find acceptable for capacitors is a fluid which has a flash point which will support fire and can be dangerous. In August of 1975, wo had a fire in our factory with this material which, fortunate ly, was not serious This did emphasise the potential problems of manufacture or uss of PCB substitutes* Our customers and the end consumer are accustomed to a capacitor which presents no fire hazard If PCB's are effectively banned for use in capacitors, there will be a gradual transition in the appliance industry to capacitors which present a real fire hazard. This, plus the public's lack of appreciation for the change from a fire resistance capacitor to one which is a fire hazard, could cause untold deaths and property damage. At a time when the Consumer Protection Agency is trying to reduce the fire hazard in television sets and other appliances, it would seem that in soms very special cases, such as this one, the end effect of a good bill to control environmental damage could have the effect of creating more ftonger. Since I am discussing threats to human safety due to fire, let NEV 036261 December 24 , 1975 He. Linda Asay Office of Senator Charlea Percy Sheet 3 me alao mention the physiological threata PCB'a may present to humane. As of this date, we Know of no adverse health effect which PCB's has caused in humans except those associated with the "Yueho" incident in Japan. In the 1968 "Yu*ho'' incident, approximately 1000 persons ingested large amounts of PCB con taminated rice oil. PCB leaked from a heat exchanger into the rice oil* an occurence which certainly supports Monsanto's ban in the use of this material in heat exchangers. Although severe aoneform, dermatitis, and lose of weight resulted, no deaths were reported. Dr. Kuratsune, who has observed these patients for a number of years, reported his findings at the National Conference on PCB's held in November, 1975, in Chicago It is my interpretation of his findings that long term carcin ogenic studies are inconclusive. Studies have certainly shown that PCB's can be harmful to certain marine and wildlife species. The recent studies which showed harmful effects in rats and monkeys were discussed at the National Conference. It la my understanding that significant evidence was presented which Indicates the harmful substance may not be PCB used in capacitors, but other-PCB's or trichlorinated diben sofuran, TCDF. The disturbing possibility presented at the National Conference, using layman's interpretation, ia that there may be a metabolic path in certain humana which can produce TCDF. In either case considerable work needs to be done to determine whether in fact PCB's do pose a real threat to human health. Because PCB's may not be the problem, and because known sub stitutes possess this fire hazard, Z believe Senate Bill S.776 needs to be considered In a different light. You could summarise feelings by saying that I believe 6.776 should contain some pro cedures for determining the Impact on all human safety issues, and not only the environmental and health aspects covered in the bill. I also believe we should consider some provislona in 6.776 to in demnify manufacturers who are fotfeed to use an environmentally acceptable material which creates unreasonably large liability for other kinds of personal Injury or property damagei e.g. fire. ['senate Bill 6.776 could take care of this "Indemnification" isaua In a number of waye. One way would provide monetary indemnifica tion for users of environmentally acceptable materials who create December 24$ 1975 K if Linda H a y Of flea of Sanator Charla Percy Sheet 4 Othar kind of personal Injury or property damage risk. An other way would provide a procedure to make certain that othar eafety hazards ware considered at the sane time environmental regulation were being coneldered. It la possible that Section 25 of S.776 could be amended to allow for such pro cedures. I would guee that the moat serious objection to providing these procedures for analysing tha hazards of substitutes, and indemnification, would be the added complication of the bill. As a email employer, our enployment varies from 220 to 350, I find it increasingly difficult and prohibitively expensive to adequately and conscientiously Integrate the many effects of recent legislation. Making this Integration a required part of the legislation would help. Including some of the ideas I have proposed would immeasurably help the Electrical Utilities Company reach the desirable goals in environmental control, and possibly prevent a serious fire hazard from occurring* I appreciate this opportunity to </lve you my rather lengthy thoughts in this matter. I would be happy to make myself avail' able for further discussion with you. Thank you for your con sideration. Very truly yours, ELECTRICAL UTILITIES COMPANY Richard L, Hauser President < NEV 036203