Document evd7VjDB33rVq0k2zz5vX95Ee

CHICAGO PAIKT, VARK1SH AMD LACQUER A55DC1ATICH 5 i 11 i I7|0 ) 3 N. Di a iio k n Si. Ciiic a i. o. luiiiiiii f> u I- ii April 3t, 1972 KencriiUe Richard J. Daley Kayor of the City of Chicago City Hall Chicago, Illinois Dear Mayor Daley: The purpose of this letter is to request that the compliance dates of the recently enacted Chicago Ord inances fixing maximum permissible quantities of lead and other heevy metals in paint, be extended. Kanufaeturers who thought that they probably would be able to meet these ordinances now find that they eannot do so, at least within the time fixed in the Ordinances. Manufacturers find that swan if they add no lead, as such, in the manufacture of important Interior paints, tests show lead in batches, in varying amounts, wall above the permissible amount under the Ordinances. Lead, therefore, gate into paints through natural contamination of tha raw materials, rtgardlass of the source, over which the manufacturers have no control. They have no way of removing tho lead in tba manufactur ing procaaa. Manufacturera find that several Important interior paint products, not eaamptod aa of July 1, 1973, juat cannot be manufactured to moot the Ordinance, and will therefore not he available in the Chicago market. Im addition, testing procaduras presently available arm not uniformly accurate. Tor instance, one manufact urer submitted samples of a siagle batch to throe diff erent testing laboratorlaa, including tha Health Depart ment of the City of Chicago, and got throe different readings which varied widely. The highest reading was .7% by the City of Chicago. The task of trying to determine whieh cans of paint in tha manufacturers' warehouse inventories, let alone tha inventories in the retail stores, should he re-labeleJ is staggering, and cannot be done by July 1, 1973, continued... 0007-SWP-036681 l N21884 Ctuuco Pair.L Vimish int) Ucqwr fosouMn Letter to Honorable Mcherd J. Baity cor.t'd. p*j 2 Unless the compliance dates i:i the Ordinances are postponed, itnv important paints will have to be taker, off t!.e r.arktt ty the retail dealers, at a substantial financial less to them, which we do not believe is justified, i specially in view of the action taken hy the Coxrtisrioner of rood and Drugs of the Federal Government subsequent to enactment of the Chicago Ordinances. On Karch 8, 1972, the food and Drug Administration adoptad a regulation banning tha ahipeant in intarstate eonirce of paints containing lead in ananas of: (1) O.Sl aftar January 1, 1973, and (2) 0.06% after January 1,19?. The regulation does not ban tha aala of paints containing nore than thosa amounts; it mtraly bans tha shipment of such products in interstate commerce aftar those dates. Thus, paints which contain higher percentages of lead, manufactured prior to those dates ,say continue to ha sold. ' . It is apparent that tha tiling of the Federal Regulation was based,in part, on the following conclusions of tha Cocmlasioaer which appeared in the Federal Register: < (1) In the Federal Register, dated Koveaber 2, 1971, tba Commissioner stated, in part: "While there era numerous reports of serious injury and even death resulting from the ingestion of the dried film of eld formulations of paints eentalning high levels of lead, the Cemmiaalower ia unaware of any similar resorts aa ~ a result cf inaastion of saint conTsinina 1 nercant lead or lesa." tsmohaals added) (2) In the Federal Register, dated Kerch 11, 1972, the CeaBiaaloner stated, in part: "Although paints and ether surface eeating eateriala eentalning lead do net Sresent aa imminent- hazard to the public ealth.............eetion must bo taken to minimise the health basard to future stnoratlona." (emphasis added) . ' f Faint is an eeononic neessalty, and ainee nedern day paiata do net present an iaainent hazard to the public health, the paint industry should be given a reasonable opportunity to eliminate lead from paints to the extent possible. It eannet do so within the times specified in the Ordinances. As wo have shown before, it takes tins to find a satisfactory substitute for lend in point, ir.: a great deal of tine to adequately test paints coda with aubatitute material before going into produetien. Tha industry ham not had suffieient time to do this. . continued... 0007--SWP--036682 I l 0007-SWP-000117999 D"a9 Pain!. Virnch and Li:;uef Assertion Letter to Honorable Pichard J. Daley coat'd. Page 3 We have seen a copy of what ve understand will be the fori: of the Kennedy Bill that the Senate Coer.lttee will rccemser.d be adopted by the Senate. While it adopts the site cur.pli.nce dates as is specified in the f.D.A. Regulation, it also will require that the Secretary of housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Secretary of Health, Education and Walfare, shall conduct appropriate research on multiple layers of dried paint film containing the various lead compounds cocnosly used, in order to ascertain the safe level of lead in rtsidential paint products, and tube it to Congress, within 9 months, his findings, together with his recommendations es to legislative changes which should ha made to carry out his reconcendations . This, wa submit, is what should he done. Existing legislation, including the Chicago Ordinances, has , been enacted without the benefit of such scientific research to support the legislation. The retail paint dealers, particularly those who have stores only in the City of Chicago, are "running scared." They do not know how much lead or othar heavy matala is in each can of paint on thair shalvaa, and thus they do not know exactly which products can ha sold without re-labeling. They see that they are going to have a substantial Inventory of products that cannot be sold In the City of Chicago, ell of which will become distress merebandiaa, and rasult in very 'substantial losses to them. The dealers and palntars art faarful of tba liability to which they art exposed by tba ordinance. Aa wa hava triad to explain, compliance with tbs Ordinances is not a simple re-labeling Job. Kanufecturers are working with their dealers but vary few dealers sail only one brand of paint. In addition, from time to Tima, dealers change their sources of supply but continue to carry ovar remaining invantoriaa from the termor supplier. Kany . dealers sail products of out-af-stata manufacturers, soma of whom ara juat baglaning to laare about tba Chicago Ordinances. lama painting contractors have largo invantoriaa of paint on band, bought wham tba price was right, and they have problems similar to the paint dealers. They ere also ceneerned about tba quality of paints that will be available for uaa after July 1. They have become used.to using certain types of paints and ara fearful of using newly re-fornulatod paints that have not baan adequately tested. continuad. 0007-SWP-036683 l 0007-SWP-000118000 Cfciujo Pant. Vjrr-s.'i and Liefer AssKiai.cn Letter te Horerahlt- Richard J Ealcv ccnt'd. Pc < We .therefore, respectfully request that the two Ordinances be ur.er.deJ as follow* 11) Amend Cl* !er 70-17. ?h and 250. eha:;i:.g the ef/ef.ive date of - uly 1 , 1977, as thertln specified, to January 1, 1973; (2) Ar.er.d Chapter 78-17.206 by changing the effective date of January 1, 1973, as therein specified, to July 1, 1973; (3) Amend Chapter 100-23.3 by changing the effective data of July 1, 1972, as therein specified, to January 1, 1973. He are not certain that the paint industry will be fully able to neat the suggested new dates of compliance, but vs assure you thst it is our express desire to do everything that ve can to aliainata as nueh lead as is possible from our paints, and at as aarly a date as possibla. rro/dt Respectfully submitted. CHICAGO PAIKT,VARNISH l LACQULR ASSN. General Counsel 0007-SWP-036684 t l 0007-SWP-000118001