Chlordane deal ruled illegal.Chlordane chlordane (klōr`dān): see insecticide. deal ruled illegal Last August, the Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), independent agency of the U.S. government, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. It was established in 1970 to reduce and control air and water pollution, noise pollution, and radiation and to ensure the safe handling and announced its signing of a voluntary agreement with Velsicol Chemical Corp. of Rosemont, Ill., to immediately cancel registration -- and therefore the right to legally sell or use -- chlordane and heptachlor heptachlor: see insecticides. , the most widely used termite termite or white ant, common name for a soft-bodied social insect of the order Isoptera. Termites are easily distinguished from ants by comparison of the base of the abdomen, which is broadly joined to the thorax in termites; in ants, there is killers (SN: 8/15/87, p.102). In a supplemental, Oct. 1 agreement with Velsicol (sole maker of those termiticides), EPA EPA eicosapentaenoic acid. EPA abbr. eicosapentaenoic acid EPA, n.pr See acid, eicosapentaenoic. EPA, n. said it would allow the firm to sell off its existing stocks of such chemicals for legal use through April 15, 1988. Ordinarily, the pesticide-cancellation process is long and costly. EPA decided to trade off its permission to sell existing stocks of the carcinogenic carcinogenic having a capacity for carcinogenesis. chemicals in exchange for an agreement by Velsicol to voluntarily cancel its pesticides -- thereby reducing the time and cost of pulling those chemicals from the market. However, last week a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the Oct. 1 agreement was "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of [EPA's] discretion." In his ruling, Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer said that federal law permits the selling off of existing stocks of a banned pesticide only if doing so "will not have unreasonable adverse effects on the environment." Since EPA did not show that continued use of the termiticides would have no such adverse effects, Oberdorfer said the agency had no right to allow continued sales. EPA, which has not decided whether to appeal, is concerned about the ruling's implications. Explains agency spokesman Al Heier, this "surprise" ruling would appear to eliminate a bargaining chip that has proved useful in encouraging the speedy ban of particularly toxic chemicals. |
|
||||||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion