Document rx7anQ4dRZeG3oQO6JRmeZnGV

' SECTION C - FLOOR BRIEFS d' TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT OF 1976 HR 14032 H.Rpt. 94-1341 .V ^ * - Moot Action! Scheduled for this Tuesday, August^lO. Opea rule with one hour of dehato. Floor Managers: Reps. Murphy (D-N.Y.), Eckhardt (D-Tex.), and Broyhill (R-N.cTT Majority staff: Janie Kinney, X57790, and Martha Tatterson, x54901. ority staff: Nancy Nord, x52963. Min Bill Summary: This bill would give the Environmental Protection Agency new authority to require chemical companies to provide pre-market notification of new Chemicals and new uses of existing chemicals, to require the industry to test these chomlcolD tor their effects on health and environment, and to control substances pos ing unreasonable risks. HR 14032 is a compromise that has the support of key opponents of past toxic substances bills, including key Commerce Committee Republicans and the Manufacturing Chemists Association, the major industry trade group. The Administration, however, has cone out against the compromise. , Environmental, labor, citizen, and health groups generally support the bill and Will bo backing a Dingcll-Cudc amendment to phase out polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). - KXTECTED FLOOR AMENDMENTS Plngcll-Cude: Reps. Dingcll (D-Mich.) and Gude (R-Md.) will offer an amendment to phase out PCBs over the next two and a half years. The amendment includes exemp- tiono for human health and safety reasons. Dingcll contact: Libby Davis, x5/i071. Gude contacts: Bill Chandler and Kon Antipa, x542A4. . - Specificnlly, the amendment would: - Call for EPA within six months to begin prescribing PCD disposal methods, as well at label warnings and instructions on processing, distribution, use and disposal. - Provide a ban within one year on the manufacture, processing, and distribu tion of PCBs for "non-cnclosed uses,*' such as in paints, soaps, and copying ink ton ers. EPA could grant exemptions where there is no unreasonable risk to health or environment. - Prohibit within two years the manufacture of PCBs for "enclosed uses," such is in electrical capacitors and transformers, which account for most PCB usage. Exemp tions could be granted to producers or users making good faith efforts to develop, elibstitutcs and when the use of PCBo is necessary, for public health and safety. An example of such a necessary use would be for electrical equipment used in deep mines, Where PCBs* flnmo-rctnrdnnt properties may be essential to prevent explosions. * Prohibit the processing and distribution of PCBs within two and a half years for these enclosed uses. The same exemption would apply here as above. - Subject all imported PCBs to the same restrictions. The bingell-Cudc amendment has wide support, including the Sierra Club, the leading environmental group on the issue, Congress Match, the American Lung Association, and tho United Steelworkers. Argumentn Pro: The bill has no mandatory implementation schedule which, in View of probable budget problems and political pressures, will lead to years of delay, according to Dingcll and Gude. Thin weakness is particularly acute in the case of PCBs. they nay. CSC We.c.bf{/ GuffcXcn, Auquvt 0, 1976 HONS 050110 Cl This family of chemicals has been'extensively studied and its detrimental ef fects to human health and the environment are well known and undisputed, they say. Hie human health cffcctn associated with PCBs include cancer, reproductive problems, and chronic disorders. Among the adverse environmental and resulting economic ef fects of PCBs is contamination of fish, which in the Great hakes alone, has threat ened to shut down commercial fishing - a $95 million industry - and the area's $350 million sportfishing industry. Despite existing laws to rop,ulnte hazardous substances and the decision of Mon santo Company, the only domestic manufacturer, to restrict production to enclosed uses, at least 10 million pounds of PCBs are known to be entering the environment each year through leaks, vaporization, and spills, and unknown quantities through di rect disposal Into waterways and sewage treatment systems and from imported products tontolning PCBs, according to the amendment's sponsors. , In short, they say the threats arc so severe and the prospect of control so un certain that it is necessary to confront the problem directly. A phase-out also is feasible nnd can be accomplished with minimal economic impnetg, Dingell and Gude say. Monsanto has not only restricted production for enclo sed uses only, but does not oppose the proposed phnse-out, sponsors add. In addition, there are adequate substitutes that are being almost exclusively used in Japan, be cause of on almost complete TCB ban there, and are already being increasingly used in the U.S. The costs of these substitutes are reasonable. If the phnse-out poses any economic problems, according to sponsors, they can bo handled by the amendment's exemption provisions. The criticism leveled against the amendment for singling out one specific chem ical Ignores the fact that it is entirely proper for Congress to sec priorities for action In any piece of legislation, according to Dingell and Gude. And in the case of PCBs, it is essential to set a priority. Arguments Con: The bill's sponsors acknowledge the clear danger posed by PCBs, but will oppose the amendment on the grounds that singling out PCBs is unnecessary and unsound from a policy standpoint. They say the bill already provides adequate authority to deal quickly with such clearly dangerous chemicals and that EPA will certainly make PCBs one of its first priorities for action. QtUnger; Rep* Ottingcr (D-N.Y.) plans an amendment calling for EPA to give preference to non-animal tests in prescribing testing requirements. Ottingcr con tact: Bill Rcinsch, x56506. Ottingcr contends that his proposal docs not ban animal tests nor restrict RPA'* authority in any way. It would simply call for EPA to give priority to nonanlttal tests when they arc adequate and accurate. Ottingcr, who'-fecls that animals should not be unnecessarily used in laboratory tests, points out that there arc now non-animal tests already being used that are cheaper, easier, and quicker, plus Just as adequate and accurate as animal tests. The bill's sponsors will oppose the amendment on the grounds that EPA should not be restricted In any way from prescribing animal tests. If animal tests yield the best data, then they should be used without restriction. Sponsors add that the proposed amendment seems to place animal health above human health. Fuquo: Rep. Fuqua (D-Pla.) plans an amendment to amend the definition of exempt substances to include small quantities of chemicals sold for research purposes. Fuqua contact: Bill Kossl, x55235. Arguments Pro: Fuqua says his proposal would simply clarify the exemption pro visions now in the hill, for small quantities of research chemicals. This is aimed at making sure that the small companion who produce small amounts of research chemicals don't have to conduct expensive testing. HONS 053119 CSC (Ccv.kftf r.uCCcUn, A9, 1976 cz Argument r. Con: The bill's sponsors are expected to oppose the amendment oi grounds that small amounts of research chemicals arc already exempted from key i, qnlrcmcnts. The amendment would go even' further and provide a blanket exemption, vhlch would preclude any control even If these chemicals pose risks. he Florio: Hop. Florio (D-N.J.) plans an amendment to authorize $3 million over 3 years in 75 percent federal grants to help states control toxic substances where EPA determines It cannot take needed action. Florio contact: Linda Katz, x51880. Florio contends that this proposal would provide limited funding to help states when action is clearly needed, but when EPA can't help because of limited resources or other reasons. The bill's sponsors had not taken a position on the amendment at prose time. Other Amendments: Sponsors of the bill expect a Congressional veto-power amend ment and amendments to provide further exemptions for small businesses. They will strongly oppose these proposals. . Besides the constitutional problems, the legal questions raised by Congressional. Inaction, and the lack of a demonstrated need for Congressional veto-power, sponsors Contend that the veto-power proposal would create uncertainty and delay the marketing of chenicnlo, which will only end up in increasing industry and consumer costs. In opposition to small business exemption proposals, the bill's sponsors note that a number of specific exemptions and other provisions have already been put In the the bill to insure that it doesn't hurt small businesses. For example, the pre-mar ket notification requirements do not apply to mixtures, which are what most small chemical companies produce. Further, they are exempted from annual reporting require ments, and EPA has to take into consideration impacts on small businesses before pro mulgating regulations. '* Interest Croup Positions: This bill has the general support of a wide range of environmental, consumer and heallh groups, including the Sierra Club and Environmen tal Action, the leading environmental groups on the issue, Congress Watch, the Con sumer Federation of America, the American Lung Association, the March of Dimes Founda tion, Blue Cross Association, and the League of Women Voters. Sierra Club contact: Linda Billings, 547-1144. Environmental Action contact: Blake Early, 833-1845. CFA contact: Michael Podhorzer, 737-3732. Congress Watch contact: Joan Claybrook, 546-4996. Labor groups generally supporting the bill include the AFL-CTO and the United Steelworkers, the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers, the United Auto Workers, and tha United Mine Workers. AFL contact: Howard MeGuignn, 637-5088. United Steel workerb contact: Bob Hayden, 638-6929. The Manufacturing Chemists Association, the major chemical industry trade group, has .endorsed the bill. However, Dow Chemical and many smaller companies arc still Opposed to the measure. MCA contacts: Tex Williams, 483-6126 and Jerry Kenney, 872-6555. Dow contact: Jim Hansen, 457-1700. Administration PostIon: According to an 0MB statement August 6: "The Adminis tration opposes tills bill. It objects to the requirement for prc-mnrkct notification of all now chemical substances, reporting requirements on substances prior to manu facture, end the bill's unnecessarily broad definition for requiring testing of chemi cal substances." . , Committee Action: Tbc Commerce Committee reported the hill by voice vote June 9 in supplemental views, Reps. Moss (1>-Callf.), Dingell (1>-Mich.), Metcalfe (D-lll.), Ilrodhcnd (D-Mich.), Moffett (D-Conn.), amt Mnguivc (D-N.J.) sny the compro mise contains several serious deficiencies. Dingcll has separate supplemental views ESC Wce.kC.ij KuCCe.-tC.il, August 9, 1976 HONS 058120 Cj on the PCB amendment. In the only minority ^lews, Heps. Devine (R-Ohio) and Collins (R-Tex.) express strong opposition to the bill generally and to many of its major provisions. . Senate Action: The Senate passed a similar bill (S 3149) 60-13 on March 26, titer adopting a Nelson (D-Wis.) PCD phase-out amendment by a voice vote. FEA CONFERENCE REPORT ENERGY CONSERVATION AND PRODUCTION ACT ,. HR 12169 H.Rpt. 94-1392 Floor Action; Vote on passage scheduled for this Tuesday, August 10. Floor wagers will an): the Rules Committee Monday for a waiver on all points of order to .prevent separate votes on non-germane Senate amendments added in conference. Floor Managers: Dingell (D-Mich.) and Drown (R-Ohio). Majority staff: Frank Potter and Peter Hunt, x51030. Minority: Jan Vlcek, x53641. , Summary: This conference report extends the life of the Federal Energy Admini stration ior 18 months, until the end of 1977, as specified in the House bill. The report authorises $235.9 million for the operation of FEA, $20.0 million mord then the House hill. In addition to the FEA extension, Conferees added $570 million over three years for new energy conservation programs, similar to those in the Senate version. The llovse bill had no such conservation provisions, having provided only a $19.9 million conservation budget barely adequate to enable FEA to continue its existing programs fn that area. The report includes $15 million for electric utility rate reform, $2 Million more than the House version. The extra $2 million would go to represent con- umers in utility rate..cases. Sonic Administration-supported proposals to deregulate ell prices were also added in conference. ' " Conservation Programs House conferees accepted the package of conservation proposals included in the Senate bill, with scaled-down authorizations for some programs and operational changes In others. Although the House FEA bill had no conservation measures, the House Omni bus Energy Conservation Act (HR 14205), cosponsored by more than 70 House members, has many of the snmc conservation programs included in the Senate FEA bill. House con ferees Included several original sponsors of the omnibus kill. Energy Conservation Standards for New Buildings (Title III): This provision gives HUD authority to establish building standards to improve energy conservation within three yenrs of the kill's enactment. The authorization of $5 million for this program Is the name amount proposed in both the Senate's FEA bill and the House-passed building energy conservation bill (HR 8650). Hie conferees accepted the Senate bill's federal sanctions on state and local governments not adapting HUD performance standards for new residential and commercial building*. If a ntntu docs not come up with equivalent standards within one year, no federal financial assistance would he available for new commercial or residential construction in that state. The sanctions, which were not In UK 8650, could not go Into effect without Congressional approval. Ckmnervntlnn Programs (Title IV): Conferees agreed to authorize $200 million CSC MccfcC.j GutCef.ui, Aiiguif: 9, 1976 mqnS 058121 C4