Document pp15xGOYwkq5prmVY56VYOYz6

DAYTCN. OHIO i3Eavu.w.:lek daily NEWS D. 6,203 MAR 1 1 1976 Chemical regulation necessary fowwwmcClarence Brawn In several year* of trying. Congress has bean unable to agree upon a method tor i controlling what chomicala may ; bo manufactured and uaed ' without endangering public health and the environment. Urn only point of agreement aeema to be that tome form of regulation. la needed. The flrat propoeal to control, toxic substances came from the Nixon Admfoiatratioo in 1971. The newly-formed Council mi Environmental Quality had 1 publicbed a report concluding that no method exiated to protect tbe public from haaardoue ' chomicala deapite tbe enactment of legialatiott dealing with air k pollution, water pollution, pro duct aafety and occupational aafety. . At that time, modi of the concern focueod on mercury in the environment. Since then, other chomicala have received attention. One of them b polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), a aubatance uaed in electrical transformers and other pro ducts. Testing has bhown PCB can produce serious disorders In animals and that it persists in the environment and builds up In tissues much like the pesticide DDT. It s easy enough to say that government must protect us bom such dangers, and that's why everyone-Including tbe chemical companies--agrees that something must be done. It's not 1 , t. o easy to agree on what approach to toko. YOU COULD, for example, decide to go all the way in banning every substance that could conceivably have an adverse effect mi human, animal or vegetable life. But this would Ignore nil other considerationseconomic or sodal-and would put in tbe hands of a few bureaucrats the opportunity to destroy put of our economy and deny us access to many chemicals which have improved our standard of living.. . As an opposite second pos sibility, all chemical marketing decisions could be leftto industry in the hope that tbe companies would bo responsible about environmental and safety con siderations. But it seems unlikely that today's Congress and federal bureaucracy will let tbe US return to a total lalaaesfaire economic system. . A middle course would be to control the use of toxie substances which have demon strated harmful effects, but do so with reasonably, attention given to such factors as jobs and coats to consumers and taxpayers. No government regulation is free. Taxpayers must fund tbe additional government bureau cracy and consumers must absorb the added coots placed on industry. In Congress now are three bills which would deal with toxic \ substances. The moot stringent Is being considered in the Senate. A measure that is very similar has been approved by a House subcommittee and will go very soon to the Commerce Committee, on which 1 servs. THE THIRD BILL was introduced by the subcom mittee's ranking Republican Thursday. It embodies the recommendations Of an inter- agencya Administration task force, including the Environ mental Protection Agency and the Department of Commerce. The differing approaches can be illustrated in the important pre-market testing requirement. The Senate and House sub committee bills require manufactures to notify EPA 90 days before the chemical is placed on the market and allow EPA to extend the waiting period for another three months. EPA ean then order tooting of the new substances. The AdministratioR-hpproved differs in that ia requires EPA to prepare a Ust of chemical substances which poee a substantial danger and than require manufacturers to pre market test only those products which are potentially dangerous. This distinction is important because it focuses the attention of the regulators on the dangerous substances and eliminates much costly an (Continued on page 037195 HONS Chemtcaf Pr '{Continued from page 9) | unnecessary testing on the great' ; majority of products where do | danger is expected. ' 1 The Manufacturing Chemists Association, which does rec ognise the need for toxic ' substances regulation, estimated that the Senate bill would cost the chemical industry $358 , million to $1.8 billion a year. Even the federal General Accounting Office put the cost at $100 to $200 million a year. This cost would translate into a drop 1 in the gross national product, a lost of foreign trade income, fewer future jobs by some 20,000 to 80,000. and increased pressures on inflation. AS WE SEEK to protect the public from hasardous chemicals, we must consider the effect these costs and massive new red tape would have on the many smaller companies which make up ao 1 touch of the chemical industry. $ , .> Many of the safety studies could cost in excess of 500 000 For a amall company doing up to $20 1 million in business, that is a big burden. ` | Killing off the small companies could only lead to less | competition as the market is 1 taken over by big conglomerates which would more easily deal , with the myriad levels of [ government regulation. This was already happened in many over-regulated American industries where big government 1 has lead to big business and big ! labor. While the public health must be guarded, total oontrol of our lives by a "Big Brother" type of government is not the answer. ' As we look for a solution to the toxic substances problem, we must be as wary of thooo who would plunge ua Into 1984 as we are of thooo who would return ua to 1894. HONS 037196