- Email: [email protected]
Proposed regulation of chlorofluorocarbons
• On the basis of these grants one cannot say that the Fund has developed a profde in environmental affairs;its output in terms of published information has been slim; for example nothing has been published on the study undertaken by Ruckelshaus, a major project as measured by its level of funding. The issues which have been addressed by the Fund are surely important and those responsible for the work are competent. Yet some puzzlement remains as to the criteria for selection of projects. The American East Coast is the main focus of attention with a narrow spectrum of institutions represented; MIT, Brookings, the Conservation Foundation and the German Marshall Fund, are, one suspects, multiply interlocking. There is noevidence that the Fund has made an effort to look beyond these well-known institutions of the American East Coast
Proposed Regulation of Chlorofluorocarbons The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have jointly announced proposal of regulations to phase out nonessential use of chlorofluorocarbons. Two separate but coordinated regulations proposed by FDA and EPA appeared in the May 13 issue of the Federal Register. A public comment period of 90 days began on August 1. Covered by the proposed progressive ban are all fully halogenated chlorofluoroalkanes currently in commercial use, and potential chemically similar substitutes. Only use of these compounds as aerosol propellants, and not as the active ingredient, is affected. Nonessential uses subject to the regulations include personal care products and some industrial spray uses. Currently exempted would be essential medical and industrial uses. Also exempted are registered pesticide products. The proposed regulations would effect a gradual phaseout of different uses, beginning as early as October 15, 1978, and ending April 15, 1979. In a related development as reported in EPL 3:2 (p. 61), the FDA has issued a regulation requiring a warning label on products using fluorocarbon propellants. The regulation goes into effect beginning October 31, 1977. 166
in search of innovative or unusual projects of high quality. The report gives no information about the number or source of applications received. While it does not state so explicitly, the report gives the clear impression that the normal distinctions between grant-giving and operating foundations do not apply to the Fund: while it is not an operating fund (all projects being undertaken by other institutions) it seeks to define its own programme rather than to solicit applications. One suspects that the initiative for a number of the projects came from the Fund rather than from the recipients. The problem of interlocking relationships is further highlighted by a recent publication of the Conservation Foundation on "development controls", clearly part of the problem of land use policy. The book is subtitled "A Conservation Foundation Report from the International Comparative Land-Use Program" but the acknowledgements indicate that the report was prepared for Ross, Hardies, O'Keefe, Babcock and Parsons (a firm of consultants) under a National Science Foundation Grant, and "with support" from the German Marshall Fund. In fact, as the preface explains, the staff of the Fund-financed project was assigned under the supplemental contact to provide the information needed for the NSF contract. This publication cannot, therefore, be viewed as a product of the Fund's activity. There is no reason to impugn the competence and the quality of American East Coast institutions. The difficulty lies in the fact that the Fund's mandate is much broader and that there are issues which have not been pursued - such as the coordination of environmental policies, citizen participation, transfrontier pollution, rural environments, water resources, new technologies, nuclear energy - which have high priority from a European point of view but which may not be clearly perceived from a purely American perspective. One also wonders whether the Conservation Foundation is indeed the institution most competent to undertake alone a land-use study of the dimensions envisaged. A striking fact is the lack of primary European inputs in the environmental area. None of the projects (with the possible exception of the parliamentary exchange, which is, however, different in kind) focuses on areas in which shared European/American issues are the primary concern. Nor can the choice of topics be viewed as particularly imagi-
Safe Water
A new regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency in the USA requires all public water systems to be subject to a uniform sampling procedure to make sure the water is safe to drink. It is the first time that all water systems have had. to meet the same standards. A novel feature of the new law is the requirement that the water supply system notify customers if the standards are not being met. If it happens, the notice to the consumers must explain the nature of the problem, specify the corrective action which is being taken and if appropriate, suggest precautions which consumers can take. Even if the water remains safe but the regulations have been violated the water supply system must notify its customers that the regulations have been violated. In addition, whenever specific health standard is not being attained the water supply system must notify customers by newspaper ads and by notifying radio and television stations. While there is a system of variances, exemptions and extensions possible for individual water supplies, these may not be granted when there is an unreasonable risk to public health and in any event the public must be notified when they are granted. [] native. They reflect some of the issues currently being discussed in many institutions. This would be entirely in keeping with the Fund's purpose if the projects selected prove to be of focal interest in these on-going debates. The German Marshall Fund of the United States received a fifteen-year commitment. Thus any judgement on the basis of five years or only one third of the available time may seem premature. Nevertheless five years is generally considered ample time to establish the Fund's identify and one would wish that in the field of the environment its image were clearer by now. KvM []
Environmental Policy and Law, 3 (1977)
Proposed Regulation of Chlorofluorocarbons The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have jointly announced proposal of regulations to phase out nonessential use of chlorofluorocarbons. Two separate but coordinated regulations proposed by FDA and EPA appeared in the May 13 issue of the Federal Register. A public comment period of 90 days began on August 1. Covered by the proposed progressive ban are all fully halogenated chlorofluoroalkanes currently in commercial use, and potential chemically similar substitutes. Only use of these compounds as aerosol propellants, and not as the active ingredient, is affected. Nonessential uses subject to the regulations include personal care products and some industrial spray uses. Currently exempted would be essential medical and industrial uses. Also exempted are registered pesticide products. The proposed regulations would effect a gradual phaseout of different uses, beginning as early as October 15, 1978, and ending April 15, 1979. In a related development as reported in EPL 3:2 (p. 61), the FDA has issued a regulation requiring a warning label on products using fluorocarbon propellants. The regulation goes into effect beginning October 31, 1977. 166
in search of innovative or unusual projects of high quality. The report gives no information about the number or source of applications received. While it does not state so explicitly, the report gives the clear impression that the normal distinctions between grant-giving and operating foundations do not apply to the Fund: while it is not an operating fund (all projects being undertaken by other institutions) it seeks to define its own programme rather than to solicit applications. One suspects that the initiative for a number of the projects came from the Fund rather than from the recipients. The problem of interlocking relationships is further highlighted by a recent publication of the Conservation Foundation on "development controls", clearly part of the problem of land use policy. The book is subtitled "A Conservation Foundation Report from the International Comparative Land-Use Program" but the acknowledgements indicate that the report was prepared for Ross, Hardies, O'Keefe, Babcock and Parsons (a firm of consultants) under a National Science Foundation Grant, and "with support" from the German Marshall Fund. In fact, as the preface explains, the staff of the Fund-financed project was assigned under the supplemental contact to provide the information needed for the NSF contract. This publication cannot, therefore, be viewed as a product of the Fund's activity. There is no reason to impugn the competence and the quality of American East Coast institutions. The difficulty lies in the fact that the Fund's mandate is much broader and that there are issues which have not been pursued - such as the coordination of environmental policies, citizen participation, transfrontier pollution, rural environments, water resources, new technologies, nuclear energy - which have high priority from a European point of view but which may not be clearly perceived from a purely American perspective. One also wonders whether the Conservation Foundation is indeed the institution most competent to undertake alone a land-use study of the dimensions envisaged. A striking fact is the lack of primary European inputs in the environmental area. None of the projects (with the possible exception of the parliamentary exchange, which is, however, different in kind) focuses on areas in which shared European/American issues are the primary concern. Nor can the choice of topics be viewed as particularly imagi-
Safe Water
A new regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency in the USA requires all public water systems to be subject to a uniform sampling procedure to make sure the water is safe to drink. It is the first time that all water systems have had. to meet the same standards. A novel feature of the new law is the requirement that the water supply system notify customers if the standards are not being met. If it happens, the notice to the consumers must explain the nature of the problem, specify the corrective action which is being taken and if appropriate, suggest precautions which consumers can take. Even if the water remains safe but the regulations have been violated the water supply system must notify its customers that the regulations have been violated. In addition, whenever specific health standard is not being attained the water supply system must notify customers by newspaper ads and by notifying radio and television stations. While there is a system of variances, exemptions and extensions possible for individual water supplies, these may not be granted when there is an unreasonable risk to public health and in any event the public must be notified when they are granted. [] native. They reflect some of the issues currently being discussed in many institutions. This would be entirely in keeping with the Fund's purpose if the projects selected prove to be of focal interest in these on-going debates. The German Marshall Fund of the United States received a fifteen-year commitment. Thus any judgement on the basis of five years or only one third of the available time may seem premature. Nevertheless five years is generally considered ample time to establish the Fund's identify and one would wish that in the field of the environment its image were clearer by now. KvM []
Environmental Policy and Law, 3 (1977)