compromise nears on toxic substances
TRANSCRIPT
Afterward, if Congress feels wrong decisions were made, then it is appropriate for Congress to call NSF to account."
GAO in its review of MACOS finds many of the same deficiencies noted in the Moudy report and has come up with similar solutions. Its recommendations include making the awarding of curriculum development grants more competitive, perhaps through the use of formal requests for proposals, maintenance of files by NSF to show the reasons for support or nonsupport of a grant request, and ensuring that reasons for publisher selection are valid and documented.
GAO also says that NSF should make sure that disclaimer statements are included on all materials to avoid any implication that NSF endorses a project just because it supported its preparation or implementation. GAO still is in the process of investigating other NSF curricula programs, but NSF already has begun implementing many of GAO's recommendations.
Both reports are certain to be discussed at NSF's fiscal 1977 authorization hearings early next year, if not before. And although it is unlikely that Congress will require NSF to get out of the curriculum development business, NSF's implementation activities may be sharply curtailed or even abandoned. Congress already has deleted all money earmarked for such activities from NSF's fiscal 1976 budget. And the report by the Senate Appropriations Committee on NSF's fiscal 1976 appropriations bill discourages future NSF implementation activities. The committee says in its report that "the federal government should not be in the business of marketing curricula developed with tax dollars nor in the habit of funding efforts by developers to do the same."
Janice R. Long, C&EN Washington
Compromise nears on toxic substances Toxic substances control legislation appears to be gaining momentum in Congress. Later this week, the Senate Subcommittee on Environment is scheduled to resume its markup session. And late last week the House Subcommittee on Consumer Protection & Finance held markup sessions on its bills, including H.R. 10318, a compromise bill sponsored principally by Rep. Bob Eck-hardt (D.-Tex.), and apparently calculated to parallel more closely the tough Senate version. However, whether all this action will result in Con-gressionally passed legislation by the end of the year is far from clear. Indeed, some key committee staffers expect the issue to spill over into the second session.
In any event, the Eckhardt bill, which is cosponsored by Rep. William
DISULFIDES *tert-Butyl Disulfide tert-Dodecyl Disulfide
CIRCLE 27 ON READER SERVICE CARD
Nov. 17, 1975 C&EN 25
The Performance
'Company /
PHILLIPS
66
Petrochemical and Supply Division PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004 Phone: 806 274-5236
Typical Purity
MERCAPTANS (THIOLS) wt. % *Ethyl Mercaptan 99 + *iso-Propyl Mercaptan 98 *n-Propyl Mercaptan 99 +
iso-Butyl Mercaptan 98 *n-Butyl Mercaptan 98 sec-Butyl Mercaptan 97
*tert-Butyl Mercaptan 98 *n-Hexyl Mercaptan 96 *n-0ctyl Mercaptan 98 *tert-Octyl Mercaptans 96
tert-Nonyl Mercaptans 97 n-Decyl Mercaptan 95
*n-Dodecyl Mercaptan 92 *tert-Dodecyl Mercaptans 97 *tert-Tetradecyl Mercaptans 94 *tert-Hexadecyl Mercaptans 82 *Mixed Tertiary Mercaptans 94-98
Cyclohexyl Mercaptan 99 +
S U L F I D E S Methyl Sulfide 99
*Ethyl Sulfide 96-99 η-Propyl Sulfide 96 tert-Butyl Sulfide 97
*n-Butyl Sulfide 97 •These Petro-Sulfur Compounds are available in commercial quantities.
OTHER P E T R O - S U L F U R C O M P O U N D S : If you don't see what you need above, let us know. We'll be happy to discuss your specific requirements.
M I S C E L L A N E O U S Ethylenetrithiocarbonate
*Ethylthioethanol *2-Mercaptoethanol
POLYSULFIDES tert-Butyl Polysulfide
CYCLIC S U L F O N E S 3-Methylsulfolane 3-Methylsulfolene
*Sulfolane *Sulfolene
PHILLIPS PFTRO-SULFUR
COMPOUNDS As a leading supplier of petro-sulfur compounds, Phillips consistently provides the highest quality products while continuing research to meet special needs.
Vectaire NEW GENERATION OF
LABORATORY FUME HOODS FROM HAMILTON
Hamilton proudly introduces a new and contemporary fume removal system for your laboratory.
• Minimum Energy Consumption.
• Meets more stringent codes and standards.
• Super safe baffle system—cannot cut off exhaust.
• Minimum noise pollution.
rftasrz^iOTL, //v/?{/sr/?/£s TWO RIVERS, WISCONSIN 54241 TELEPHONE 414/793-1121 DIVISION OF AMERICAN HOSPITAL SUPPLY CORPORATION
See Us At The Chem Show - Booth 2 7 2 4
CIRCLE 45 ON READER SERVICE CARD
at the Chem Show... see how to
avoid filtrate fumes
The new FLUID DYNAMICS Backflush-able Filter*. This closed system eliminates disposal problems common to plate and frame filter presses.
^Patents Pending
See us at Booth 4208, adjoining our sister company, Filterite, Technetics Division, Brunswick Corporation.
U-OJ DYNAMO
P.O. Box 10, Cedar Knolls, New Jersey 07927 PHONE (201) 539-8100 TELEX 136350
M. Brodhead (D.-Mich.) and Rep. Lionel Van Deerlin (D.-Calif.), represents a significant move on the House side. In the past, the House has veered toward a less stringent version than the Senate's and has made for difficult compromise.
Earlier this year, Eckhardt, Brodhead, and Rep. John Y. McCollister (R.-Neb.) each introduced bills separately on toxic substances control. Brodhead's was the most stringent and McCollister's the least and more to industry's liking. But with H.R. 10318, McCollister was left with practically no manuevering room in markup sessions last week.
In many ways, H.R. 10318 is more stringent than the Senate working draft of S. 776. For instance, both versions authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to require the testing of any new or existing chemical if there is reason to believe that the chemical may present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment and that test data are needed to determine whether such risks do or do not exist. But, under H.R. 10318, EPA may require testing solely on the basis that the chemical is or will be produced in substantial quantities, or if it enters or will enter the environment in substantial quantities, or if there is or will be substantial human exposure, or if it is closely related to any chemical known to present an unreasonable risk.
Further, the Eckhardt bill does not provide for EPA to make a risk/benefit analysis before deciding that a chemical does present an unreasonable risk, as is provided for in the Senate working draft. And H.R. 10318 establishes a seven-man government advisory committee (consisting of representatives from EPA, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Council on Environmental Quality, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Cancer Institute, and National Science Foundation) to prepare a list of chemicals and mixtures that should be given priority consideration for testing. (In contrast, the Senate working draft requires EPA to come up with a list of 300 chemicals for priority testing.)
H.R. 10318 also has adopted the Senate provision that gives EPA the power to make immediately effective orders that would keep a new chemical from reaching the market without any prior rule making or hearing. And it goes beyond the Senate working draft in that it authorizes EPA to regulate manner and method of disposal of a chemical.
Provision for criminal penalties also is more stringent in the House bill. It considers criminal any failure to notify EPA of adverse information concerning a chemical, whereas in the Senate version, only the willful or intentional suppression is considered to be criminal. D
CIRCLE 40 ON READER SERVICE CARD
26 C&EN Nov. 17, 1975