Document 15jV4wVYGw4pvxpZjn66QOyGq

eQUriADKE NV|RONMNTAt . HCALTH INC Mr. Milton Freifeld ,, January-Jl97j^i;. Page I will be happy to discuss this with you by phone if you have ' any questions or require additional information. We greatly appreciate ' the opportunity to serve MCA and sincerely hope.we will have additional / opportunities in the future. Sincerely, . i'Cl &Q Richard (_; Davis RLD/jpm * Enclosure MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION By Milton Freifeld see 2-1456 I o; 1 t EWS ~ The key seems to rest on whether or not jinogens do have or do not have a threshold effect. RfCKlVFn SCP ft 1977 If they do not have, then EDF's position sooner or later will prevail re "aero emissions" goal. If they do have, the threshold muse be determined and reg COMMENTS Of THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND ON THE PROPOSED AHEHOMENTS TO TilC FINAL EMISSION STANDARD FOR VJHTL CHLORIDE M2 FctlotAl Hauls la c 2SIS4, June 2. 1977) ulations promulgated to limit emissions below such ambient level. V'. On October 21, 1976 (41 Fed. Rot,-. 46SGO), pursuant to 112 of the Clean Air Act as amended, the Admjnistrator promulgated National Emission Standards for tl.c hazardous^. :*ir pollutant vinyl chloride. On November 19, 1976 thc^ Environmental Defense Fund IEDF) filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the O.C. Circuit for review of those standards, as part of a settlement which led EDF and FPA to sove to dismiss the review petition on March 24, 1977, the amendments under consideration wore proposed. The proposed amendments represent a true compromise................ between what EOF could have pressed for In court and the existing standard. Section 112 of the Clean Air Act requires that emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, such as vinyl chloride, bo set 'at a levol which in tha judgment of the Administrator provide* an ample margin of safety to protect the public health from such hazardous air pollutanti.* It clearly requires a hcalth-linkod, not a technology-based standard. Yet, Inconsistent with the statutory requirement, tha original standards were hated on what EPA believed industry eould accomplish with best available technology. In the Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement, EPA BFA - EDF claims Chat the proposed vinyl chloride regulations consti tute a less stringent standard Chan it could have Insisted upon from Che coutc ijt-the litigation which it instituted. Actually EDF could not have pressed Che court to change the original regulations to set an immediate zero emission limitation. The court is only empowered to decide whether EFA's regulations were arbitrary and capricious. At best from EDF's standpoint EPA could have decided that the first ruelmaklng was arbitrary and not In accordance with 6112 of the Clean Air Act. Such a ruling would have voided the regulation, and EPA could then, If it chose, have begun another public rulemaking proceeding in-which It would presumably be an impartial arbiter of consents from all concerned. As it stands, however, the proposed standard is the result of coercion by one party with a particular point of view and acquiescence by the EPA (It seems significant to note chac EPA has never allowed such an unseemly settlement where Industry has in the first instance filed a court challenge to a regulation promulgated by EPA.). In effect the proposed regulation In this instance has been dictated by a private party, and this is con trary to the Clean Air Act which has delegated impartial rule- h-- UT jb n n n 'si -2- WWW -ii .f'"Mil's &W in ^i$r?f i "v, './ i '*:iV j! v j:: -:V rccognizcd that vinyl chloride Is An "apparent n.-n-Ux-e.yhoJO pollutant* which creates * risk to public health at all levels. Had the case gone to trial. Cor would have taken the position that $113 resulted a zero emission standard, the only standard adequate to provide the required margin of safety for a non- threshold pollutant. Instead, EDF settled for a comprotilj.a which establishes a goal of rare emissions nnd requires industry to move one step closer to that goal. y ~ The now standard would not require the installation ot completely new technology. Industry is not being asked to crop existing technology. The revised limits can bo achieved through the inproved operation oC existing technology permitting full amortization of the Industry's investment in dontrol tech nology. This should be viewed in contrast with the proposal of the Mew Jersey Commission on the Incidence of Cancer that any industry emitting one of some seventeen substances reduce emissions to zero or stop producing. Not only will there be no shut-downs required by these amendments, but the industry will.be able to continue its growth under this compromise. ; j The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (SPI) has attempted to portray this settlement as some sort of private agreement between EPA and CDF to promulgate a revised emission standard, largely bucauso they were excluded from tho settle ment negotiations. There is no legal requirement that an intervener in a ease be permitted to participate in settlement CO in n L4 58 -3- negotiations. Industry searched for Such u legal precedent ... but was unable to find one. Industry has now had ample oppor BFA - While EDF's claim that Industry will have the opportunity to challenge In court any final rulemaking which may result from Che proposal In question is true, because of the way 6112 is tunity to comment on the proposed amendments at a meeting from which EDF was excluded, public heoring, and through written comments. It should be noted that EDF was also excluded from the industry*EPA scxsicos which led to promulgation of the drafted anyone opposing the proposed rule bears a heavy burden of showing with particularity In the rulemaking proceedings why the proposed regulation Is improper. In shore it Is anomalous that EOF, a single public Interest group, has not only avoided this burden In Its litigation of the original regulations through a settlement agreement with EPA, but also It has been original standard. It should alJo.be noted that despite - " 1: industry's exclusion from settlement negotiations, eof'c v ^ able to shife this burden to those parties opposing the new regulations which it has dictated to EPA. attorney kept industry well informed of the outline of the proposed settlement at all stages. . rinally, if SFI and its members are unsuccessful in persuading EPA to revise the pro- poced standards beforo promulgation, they can always petition the Court of Appeals for review of the standards. . , t... At SPl'e reguest, a public hearing was held by crA on July 19, 1977 to receive public views and suggestions on the proposed amendments. EDF would like to address the major points in opposition to the proposal raised by SP1 at that hearing. The primary areas of interest seemed to be: (1) U,a .absence of new data since the existing standard was promul gated to justify a revision of that standard, (7) the offset ;I policy, (3| tho cost of compliance, and (41 the degree of improvement resulting from the amendments. In addition some inapposite comments were made concerning the energy consequences of certain emission reductions. EOF believes these amendments arc. sound, representing .progress toward El'A'x goal Of zero emissions, and urges tlicir promulgation. LO n C_n n -a > ' l 0 \ . HfCElVPn SEP :;fl COMMENTS OP THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE TONI) ON THE PKOPOSKO AMENDMENTS TO THE rtMAL EMISSION STANDARD lOH VINYL CIIIOKlI'f ' <42 Federal Houlstnr 7S1S4, Junc'2, 1977> TVS - The key seems to rest on whether or not or do not have e threshold effect. nogens Uo have If they do not have, then EDF'a position sooner or later will prevail re "sere emissions" goal. If they do have, the threshold must be determined and reg ulations promulgated to limit emissions below such ambient level. `f On October 21, 197C (41 Fad. ncy. 465G0), pursuant to $112 of the Clean Air Act as amended, the Administrator .promulgated National Emission standards for the hazardous^. .air pollutant vinyl chloride. On November 19, 197C the' Environmental Defense fund (EDF) filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for review of these standards. As part of a settlement which led EDf and FPA to move to dismiss the review petition on Mc.rrh 24, 1977. the amendments under consideration were proposed. The proposed amendments represent s true compromise -............. between what EDF could have pressed for in court and the existing standard. Section 112 of the Clean Mr Act requires that emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, such as vinyl chloride, be sot "at a level which in the judgment of the Administrator provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health from such hazardous air pail utnitis." It clearly requires a health-Unhod, not a technology-bnsod standard. Yet, Inconsistent with the statutory requirement, the original standards were b.-icud on what 11'A believed industry could Accomplish with best available technology. In the Standard Support and ilnvi ronmuntal Impact SLmement, EPA BFA - EDF claims that the proposed vinyl chloride regulations consti tute a less stringent standard than it could have insisted upon from the court lp-the litigation which it instituted. Actually EDF could not have pressed Che court to change the original regulations to sec an immediate zero emission limitation. The court is only empowered to decide whether EPA'a regulations were arbitrary and capricious. At best from EDF's standpoint EPA could have decided Chat the first ruelmaking was arbitrary and not in accordance with 112 of the Clean Air Act. Such a ruling would have voided the regulation, and EPA could then, if it chose, have begun another public rulemaking proceeding in-which it would presumably be an Impartial arbiter of comments from all concerned. As it stands, however, the proposed standard is Che result of coercion by one psrty with a particular point of view and acquiescence by the EPA (It seems significant to note chat EPA has never allowed such an unseemly settlement where Industry hes in the first instance filed a court challenge to a regulation promulgated by EPA.). In effect the proposed regulation In this Instance has been dictated by a private party, and this i9 con trary to the Clean Air Act which has delegated Impartial rule- 10 I h- in .Co n on -A- I. Absence of He* Data The sose prevalent conmont by industry has been, "lieu could KPA change the vinyl chloride standards when no new information has been developed?* There are several responses to this, firstj EW bolievoa the original standards did not ................... HLK comply with the law, sill of the Clean Air Act, and so no Basis? Not so. net/ information is required to amend tho standard to briny it in closer compliance with the law. Second, some signl-A.................... HLK 1 Which? Must be specific. ficant test data was either not available at promulgation'or, as. with Dr. Ccsaro Mnltoni's latest experiments, only became available shortly before promulgation, not allowing time for full consideration. EOF wculd like to retrace and update the state of medical................ ^DK knowledge concerning vinyl chloride which, under the Clean Air Act, is to serve aa the basis for EFA?s regulatory actions. It should be noted that no data, developed either before or after promulgation of the existing standard, indicates that This paragraph states that data Indicating a safe level of vinyl chloride hae not been developed. To date, the literature supports this statement. A "no effect" level for vinyl chloride has not been demonstrated In laboratory animals. Current epidemiological studies of workers exposed to low levels of vinyl chloride lack a sufficient latency period and a sufficiently large number of workers. any level of.exposure to vinyl chloride but zero ppm is safe. ...... HLfC * In 1970 Professor viola presented the results of a pilot Bequest for negative data dose-effect curve is Indicative. epidemiology hasn't found any Also experiment which showed that rats exposed to extremely high concentrations of vinyl chloride (30,000 ppm) developed tumors Vy and carcinomas. Pour years later the D.P. r.oodrlch Company provided the first report, based on employee deaths from angiosarcoma (livot cancer), which confirmed that vinyl chloride was n human carcinogen, significantly, not all of ....... HLK -- Evidence? In fact, all did. bj I m n q- n Witt life?: ; V >; (i- I the vinyl chloriUn/polyvinyl chloride plant employees vho have 'i dled from nnglon/ircocu, were exposed to high concentration* of . vinyl chlori<l. Of the fifteen occupation ca.-.cs confirmed cm anfjiouArcosui of the liver l>y pathologists nt the national CDK - (Comments on entire page) The discussion of epidemiology of workers exposed to low levels of vinyl o .de focuses on only 4 Individuals, two of when may noc have been exposed tothe compound. Toxicity of low Incidence (such as carcinogen icity linked to low levels of chemical exposure) emerges only after wide and prolonged use in a very large number of subjects. In the 4 cases cited, Che angiosarcomas were confirmed but noc the cause of the malignancy. Ocher causative factors might be Involved and should be considered and evaluated. .. Cancer Institute, one mrl:cr vat; nn accountant employed at a . . ... HLK - Hot confirmed. ,! i-W--. ;= vinyl cloth plant and another operated a machine which^applied . HLK w-iWot 'confirmed .. polyvinyl clilocldc to cleotL'ic;il wires ns insulation. .Vhesc two tiorlicrft were exposed to levels between 1 and 12 ppx-,^.!. i gn i- ficnnLly lower than levels to which other polyvinyl chloride .- workers were exposed. Thorn have also Kinn two confirmed coses of niKji.orsarcema . .... HLK - Not so. In individunln who had renitlcd in tho vicinity of industrial . 'vinyl Chloride emission cotirccv, and were probably-exposed to ' s* W; i-'i levels lower than those to which workers vcrc exposed. 11>oy :*ignify tlic rluk associated with living near a vinyl, chloride : plant, but for two reasons they way underrepresent the total ... ... HLK - Speculation. . ' nnmticr of coiwiimlCy ccjtcfi. first, tlvcy both lived in Conneeti- vjljlf; illfS I'.1:-. - ,V' '.cut, a state which probably lias the best cancer detection -'.proijrau in tho country, lienee, it is very possible many more .. eases exist which have been either undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. .. HLK - Speculation* *The hunt of Ancio cases has been so thorough in 1975, that every case recorded on a death certificate has gone to CDC. reifonil, snu must consider tho laccncy period of 10-20 year* 3/ for angiosarcoma- in light of the fact that not only is the plenties industry only seventy years old, but n great deal of Its growth lias come recently -- at ton percent a year from ^ 196? to 1974. tto may only he seeing Lhc hog1nnInn of a cnncof Bullshit. HLK. epidemic. :* > is it,. . v ' . :r ; Thorc is nice i drnei which i r.di c:< L<-r. nn<} i osn rconj is not the only health i'll.); associated with vinyl chloride. Angiosarcoma ncrvcil an a "murl-cr d i r.c.r.nis," its rarity nlluw- ' J11-y a causal connection with vinyl chloride to he easily drawn. Studies also point to vinyl chloride as the causal orient in . the development nC concur of the lung, the lyn-f.hilcs, and the . i` 4/ central nervous system or. well a*. the liver." In addition. '... . Dr.1 1`otor Infnntc. currently with IIJOSII, liar, observed on uterus, rate of serious birth defects < tc rn togciu-si n) in resident, in HLK - What kind? CMC - Reference 4 should be checked for accuracy and interpretationreview of the report by Infante was written by Or. HeMahon fc and is attached. HLK - His papers have been discredited by CDC. Infante is an inecey Ohio counties with plants emitting vinyl chloride.'" Also, .mutagenicity wr.s indicated in studies by or. F, dnserron of NIKIIS, on tJiu effect of vinyl chloride on Salmonella -- liver microsorao syuteain. A highcr-than-normnl rote of stillbirths and; aiscarringou among the wives of vinyl chloride uorhrrs nnd BEST AVAILABLE COPY /a' high Incidence of abnormal chromosomes .iwon^ the \/orl;eru themselves liavc boon observed. '<' Some-imnoL-tant- ir.r-.i data uji: made public just as CFA wac HLK - Not so - This paper shown to have been speculative. promulgating the original standard nnd wav not have boon fully .. HLK - Let EPA SO state considered. Other data not available at the time the regulation:: HLK - What? were promulgated has cornu to light end sorvus as an additional basis for EFA to amend the csisting standard to reflect th health risk posed by lower level:; of vinyl chloride. Each group..HLK - Source? of,'tests indicates vinyl eMorido induccu cancer at extremely lw concentrations. Professor violu first noted these offoets 1/ t 10.000 ppm. |iy Juno of 197-1, Dr. Cos are lUltoni, in the j r:*;- ' ! ; ill- , ' ! ' / , .V rj >,-Ui " . -;W . >:v ,! i: 0M:. ji ! I- !i' i-.| : < : :! L\ z !! cxperlncnts which originally established the linJ: between vinyl chloride and cancer, reported that angiosarcoma had liccn produced in rodnnts by inhalation of as little ns AO ppm in V sir. Just ns the original vinyl chloride regulations were promulnatcd, Dr. Hnitoni reported the i.iiductlun of nutmary ..... 1/ carcinomas in rodents at levels of 1 ppm. All of tills data wnc at least available to fiPA prior to promulgation, tliougllj there was probably not enough time for SPA to fully consider Dr. Ilaltoni's data. Completely new data has since become^...... available from tests performed by Professor F. raloyenova at the Institute of Hygiene and t.'utrition in Sofia, nnlgaria. Profossor rc&loyanova found that vinyl chlari.de exposure at 1 ppm 9/ induced carcinomas in both rats and nice. ................................................... . Rather than pointing toward die existence of a threshold for. harmful effects, each test with vinyl chloride indicates that almost any level of exposure contributes to the development of cancer. TJie addition of the new scientific evidence further Justifies the amendment of the existing standard. It might even be said ETA has a duty under the law to amend the existing standard to reduce the level of vinyl chloride to which the public is oxposed, based on evidence which continues to indi cate vinyl Chloride is a non-threshold carcinogen. II. Offset Policy Under the proponed amendments, ttcforc an existing plant .... could expand or a new plant locoto near an existing site. CDK - The data generated by Dr. Maltonl and Dr. Kalqyanova are cited as memos, not published reports. As such these data represent prellmlary results from Incomplete studies. Appropriate consideration and meaningful evaluation of these observations await completion of the experimental work and publication of final reporta. Preliminary results of ex periments do not constitute scientific eyldence. HLK Not competent. HLK - Just the opposite - A dose effect relation is seen. EWS - Awkward i fO i see -II- rcductioua would hove to be achieved r.'- not incroauc iri total vinyl chloride u-- ' policy ia neocnsory bccnuoo. as FJ*A 10/ ground docujicnts, on tod to ion stand'*''* cannot prevent the total amount of vi!/ from n parties Inc faci11 ly (con lucre"'; :' ' ' there he exp.msi.<*n or a non plane hull*. people live within five miles of oniLti'-'l s not be adequately protected if no tlioii'P*' levels of exposure. A clustering of Wt' site could triple or even quadruple tli; *"' tion produced by just one plant. Anoll*"' provide nn incentive' for industry to eh**'' * which will be rewarded by permitting eh'*'' construction. Tito offset |>olicy also ropresentn " 4 * alternative approach could liave been a * a given radius. CDF. however, felt till*: position and did not pursue it. though v been legally supported. It should be eagdiasitcd that thru 'i'*'- not now. tPA has already developed a sIf11 regulating new construction in area* wh>< attained the primary air quality standai the objective is the same: no inefbaui* , '.d be no Tills offset r).c lioclt- /ry nature released ...'a sliould . mllion / a`nd vftu Id i- '.*n g.o overall o'! the came ..r coticentra- . ia to s *.echnology, EWS - By avoiding being specific. EDP maneges to create an lupressic that growth or expansion could < or might create an unhealthy situation - . An ..,:icy within . .j' csonablc *. could have EWS - This Is Inconsistent with EDF's **ro~*`lak to health position. Offset permits continutatlon of vtilch EDC contend It necessary sm*chl"8 less than zero emlssl Lo protect health. u;.,iroach is for . >........................ EWS - It _ls new having been In effect results ere not yet known. for less chan a year, its , i^.-.h cases, . vela of BEST AVAILABLE COPY -1- a pollutant which presents A health threat at existing levels. ,SPI cu9<joscs that applying this policy to a niiwile chemical would be substantially diffarent without saying in whai w.-.ys. EOF feels the major difference, tluit this policy involves a single, confirmed human carcinogen, offers move support Llian . .. even nr.n-coQplylng air quality regions for pollutants which a<Q not necessarily carcinogenic. ' As a first ctep in implementing this trade-off appro^eft, A facility which planned CO expand would have to calculate the total emissions from the existing operation. It the existing plant were not already in compliance with the present standard, the total emission figure would have to be adjusted to reflect parmissebld'cmisslons from the existing-facility once, it is in compliance- Zf. however, the emissions froia the plant are below the emission limit Applicable te it. the pro posed rule* would give the source credit if it maintains its emission levels at the time a new plant is added or expansion undertaken. It is through early compliance and continued reductions that additional capacity can be added in a given goographlc area. Of course, degradation from levels for which credit was given will erase the credit and prevent expansion or new construction. <| 1 major source of cqiscioAe from controlled vinyl chloride and,polyvinyl chloride plants are fugitive emissions. The original standards require either npeclfie amission limits or EWS - Implies a no threshold effect. EWS - (Comment on entire paragraph) If a new facility ta the some size as the existing one and yet emission* from the old plus new cannot exceed Che old, is chls not ultimately going to Lead to tero emissions? see 2-1466 -JO- Uic use oC certain technology to control these noucces. Inductions in fugitive emissions will offer A Menas of earning credit under tlie offset policy iu the same way ............................. EWS - Are fugitive emissions consistent from one time at another? reductions in other areas would. doubt it. Two oclhods of calculating credit would i>c avaiiuulo ..................... EUS - (Conent on entire paragraph) Great reliance on the "graphite to each pLanl. iC a baseline level for fugitive ewissione approach. could he ikssurod or estimated, assuming compliance with f existing standards, any demonstrated reduction could be ute^- at* credit under the Offset policy. Deference should be qtven to industry's estimates of fugitive emissions because of the great incentive to be accurate, h low estimate would nlndec future expantlon and a high estimate of cmicrioitr; would bo harmful publicly. Alternatively, the ogierator of plant should l>o able to isolate a particular source or sources of fugitive emissions, demonstrate that they Comply with existing standards, measure or estimate emissions from them, and pro ceed to reduce those emissions. Any such reduction would be transformed into credit. i fugitive emissions have become the primary source ot ....... EVS -- Has chis been established? emissions Crum vinyl chloride plants, tot EPa lies been unable to tackle the technical problem of how these can be further reduced. One of the principle benefits of the offset policy > .will be to force industry to address the problem of how to 'control fugitive emissions. Any technical innovation will l>e rewarded liy permitting further expansion. It is likely, in see 2-146^ tact, tfi.rt luqiti'.c cr.l<?: 1 or.i reductions will lo tnu source of such cfdll. Once r.ew tccl'-noloiyi' has been developed uuj tested, it could I'd r'and.ted for the whel industry, thus c.o\*inq one cup closi-r Lu the- purpose ol fill ol the Clean Air ................. EHS - Only the first Innovator Is rewarded. All similar sources oust thereafter use by regulation. By definition, such reductions cannot be used for "offset" purposes. ACC -- protection of the public health. r Of cntiu1. a ''xviilL/Mcr always hss t'.v c;-t ion of con- ................................ EWS - Kay not be a viable option. structing a "gr.'*:i lacld" plant, that is. a plant at an entirely nv* ill*'. Thirs would prevent further concrntratlot ! c*f vinyl chloride c.wiionc in an area where r.uch caissien's ire c;*7n i r<`= a*- curtcntiy poking a potential health rial.. I.'utun11 ;, u,,, now *.|(uc-n fiold* plant could he aub)ccl to the.standard? for l,rml r.uw ;.t; 111 t.ltn. Unfortur-.iu-iy, M>: ha* taken a lalrly negative attitude ............... bout loprovn 7 tho 'level c( Vinyl chtoi ide Knitted ften plants. ti'.Ur than atteapilfi^ to k*v toward the loner possible lovule. it has opposed any changes- Tlio offset EHS - It Bight also be said that EDF adepts a negative attitude toward economics, technology and nedicsl data. l-plicy vill pruvido imluf.cry the ineentivw it io obviously lucking to ir-prove control tectmoloqy. That is why the offset policy ij central io iht-se proposed aeendrents. It will also piovidc th' 1 rit:c;*t i vw lor tudjttry to offer cconotarc support ....................... to fiiu*. _j;h at the Houston Research Company, which are EWS - Does EDF have a stake In research firms? research Is uniapartaoc. Who does the capable ol icrrjopii-'i nw.- control technology, like the oiow;. IfV. piococt. citiiuut wconcelc and technolocieaI support fron Industry, flrtr. T.i.ni V: ilou :'e.-i pcf-'.iieh cannot afford to develop new tt-ehnolvsy. see 2- 1 46S III. Cost of compliance sn atlempcs to make cost control Issue* even though the statute CI'A operates under requires regulations based on protection oC health and not cost and technology concerns. To nay that Congress did not intend $112 to force plants to close, as SI*I contends, docs not necessarily imply no economic burdens should be placed on Industry. In fact, industry has", offered no cost estimates, possibly because the proposed '?' amendments vote designed to mako use of existing technology and equipment for the most part, making additional costs minimal. In their July 19, 197? statement, Sl't estimated that ;vinyl chloride emissions will be reduced by 0.1 lb/hr for typical suspension plants and 0.02 Ib/lir for typical dispersion resin plants, citing Table 4.3 of the Standard Support Document, SPI goes on in a footnote to mention that the Table referred to does not actually use those figures. The footnote indicates the Table actually lists delusions as sera (in which ease no new controls would be required and so the'cost would'be zero as well). We do net see either figure supported by the Table. In fact, the Table suggests a minimum of.4.4 lb/hr and a maximum of 7 lb/hr subject to further reductions. Those figures would suggest that instead of costing $12.20 per pound of vinyl chloride removed per $10,000 expended, it would only be $.01 maximum. Those are both nice, but.mcanlngless figures. The only relevant figure is the S', -13- increase in the cose per pound of polyvinyl chloride. An additional expenditure of $10,000 in a typical site poly* vinyl chloride plant only represents seven one-1liour.liulLUn of a cent increase in eh* cost per pound of producing vinyl 1_3/ chloride. in the post. cIr: plenties industry liar, demon - str.ucd its ability, in cowplyihg with emission regulation;, to pass on costa without any significant economic harm to, the industry. Vherc is every reason to believe this wil'iic the cauo with these regulations. ! y/rOiout any support, hr. Holbrook of Sri states lUat tho coot of building a new plant, required by the offset policy if existing emissions cannot: bo reduced, will be SiO million greater than expanding output at i-n existing plant. This figure might contain unnecessarily negative assumptions, such as locating plants in isolated areas ae opposed to existing industrial parfcc whore non-plastic industries arc located. This difference could result in exaggerated shipping costs and omission of additional economies. In the absence of further documentation and coagiarison of coats, these figures arc without value, for instance, an investment of considerably . less than $10 million in control technology nay be able to reduce existing emissions enough to add tlic additional capacity needed under the offset i<olicy. see 2-m ~?o A-' I;.;, -1 IV, Enorgy Consumption FIOF ha* taken an active role iA tlie problems of energy.......................... JAM - The EDF has apparently ndt read or does not understand the guide lines Issued by the FEA /see FR 29642 (19772.7 attached. The supply* supporting conservation end increased efficiency vs efficiency goals are set not only on a general Industry basis Methods of assuring a continuous supply of energy In the future: (chemical) but also by subelaas. In the SPI testimony the target for the entire chealcal induacry uas cited. If we look In sore He ere aomcwliat confused by SPi's use of the I'CA industri.il 14/ energy efficiency targets as an excuse for not adopting , ! detail* we find that the target for SOC 2869 (the class which includes VQ1) Is 1S.9X after allowing 1.5X for environmental and other government regulatory action*. It Is obvious chat the EOF costrol* technology for t.lve oxychlorination proccsn. PEA v ^ officials wc have spoken to Indicate it was never KMA's indent could single out any specific process and clsla that Its increased energy consumption een be counterbalanced by some other proceas with even greater Improvements. The Improvements envisioned by to restrict EPA'x ability to impose licnltli protective eair.sion Increased energy consumption must Justify the increases In energy requirements and It Is the position of SPI that thsy do not. requirements on industry. The iet*Ortimj form used to determine industry's progress toward the targets even separates change;: in energy consumption due to government requirements so firsts * will not bear any onus for excess energy coi.xumptiqu required ' u/ for compliance. Even more ing.orto.it is the fact that PEA guidelines apply to an entire industry, srl attempts to apply ... these to a single process within only a segment of that industry. This misses the point of the targets, which is to give Industry tl%e. choice of how to achieve increased efficiencies. A minor increase in energy use from one process simply does not justify discarding the standard, sei't comments also present unsup- I ported figures indicating th energy required for control of tlfe oxyehlorlnation process is greater than EPA originally estimated. Yet. in tlo preamble to the proposed amendments, EPA-states that the adoption of a recycling and oxygen Teed system eliminates the supplemental food problom. This is because' JAM - The EOF also has not understood the comments relative to the in crease In ensrgy requirements to meet a S ppm emission limit for the oxychlorlnatlon reactor. The SPI testimony (also that of Shell's) stated Chat the operation of on oxygen-recycle technology system requires a 71 increase in energy over Chet Of the EFA's typical air feed oxychlorlnatlon plant. This matter was discussed with EPA at the June meeting In Durham (which la part of tha public record). The EPA aceted ec that time that they had not .; realized this and would Investigate the metter further. In fact, the EPA has discussed this farther with Shell (and perhaps others) on at least cwo occasslons. These telephone discussions ere also part of tha public record. The SPI testimony wss simply pointing out that, la the support document-for the original standard, the EPA rejected the use of incineration to control the oxychlorlnstio veot because it required an Increase of 6Z In energy consumption. Since oxygen-recycle technology requires an even greater amount of energy, we fall to see the retlonal for the proposal. The EPA Is simply Incorrect la its preamble statement that the oxygen-recycle technology does not require additions! energy. . see 2-1471 .i ' the effluent ijas .trcau would 1X3 Mora concentrated using I l*e . technology to m it* 1 led In new plant", requiring less energy to reduce emission*. v. liegreu of ymison Wiluct iont rut* believe* the degree of caintion reductions resulting ............. JAM . froa the propound amandinenc* J3 significant enough to justify their proaulgution. Uut tins actual extent of reduced oaissionu wliicli result froa the pro(>osed aaacndiaeiits is less li^sor^eiit - Again EOF has failed to review the data as presented by EFA., EPA has claimed, la its proposed regulation, that there will be aa emission reduction of VCH from new typical slae oxychlorinaclon plants of 11.6 lb/hr. Using the data presented by EFA la Its Support Document, it can be seen that this reduction will come solely from ehe proposed new standard from axychlorination vents. than the (act that they represent progress toward EPA'*.goal .of tero emissions -- the only level adequately protective Of ...... 'human health. EWS - Again EDF assumes a threshold. SPf maintains inconsistent positions in its prepared ..statement for the July 19 hearing on the quantity of umlsnions ''reduced. On ono hand, it is recognised that even with the JAM - On the other hand, EFA has also proposed that the allowable - existing standard, EOC purification and VCH formation plants will Imvc emissions of 2.5 lb/lir excluding any emission* from the oxychlorlnation process or fugitive emissions. Dy lowering emissions from other sources in a VCH plant be reduced by 50X. Again, from the Support Document, the data shows that this la a meaningless proposal because the EFA has stated that there are no (aero) emissions from these other sources. Whet SPI attempted to point out is that the EFA's table showing "zero" from these other ! allowable emissions from 10 to 5 ppm, a 1.25 lb/hr reduction sources is not precisely correct cad thee the emissions nay be about 2.3 lbs/hr. With the proposed 50Z reduction, mlxlmua'of J. would result. Yet SPI then goes on to say any reduction under I r | ; the, proposed amendments would como solely from ia^roved con' 1.2S lbs/hr might be realized and that this figure is Insignif icant. - ` V trola gn the oxychlorinntioaa process. This ignores the 1.2$ lh/hr reduction attributable to other parts of the process. SPI also .... .suggest* that there only be a 10 ppm limit on the osychlorination 'process. The 0.9 lb/hr reduction from 10 to S ppm limie, which .this would preclude, is not insignificant. Also considering JAM - Nowhere la the SPI testimony was It suggested that e 10 ppm limit be adopted for oxychlorlostion vents. SPI simply pointed out Chet the EPA has published data in ita original support'document showing the impact of s 10 ppm limit. The EDF's statement that 0.9 lb/hr reduction Is "not Insignificant" demonatrates that they have little understanding of how to measure Impact. i see 2-1472 -16- tho auhvcantla 1 reduction required to reach 10 ppm. it docs not Keen umluly difficult, especially at the design stage, to, adapt lho technology to a lower listit. Industry has expressed a great deal of concern over the 1 offset policy as s isesns of reducing community exposure to vinyl chloride. 3n its July 19 comments, SPl chore to focuSr attention on the impact of the policy on annual ambient loylc from vinyl chloride plants at distances of five sales. * '(Despite repeated requests, KOF has not received a copy of the dispersion study conducted by names and Honre. That study conspicuously does not consider the affect of single plsnt expansion which probably causes .a greater increase In dmbiwnt lavals than eortain combinations of plants.) Scientific analysis of the process of cancer indicates that even carcinogens * at low doses, with levels in perts per billion, mo^pose a 16/ health risk and thus constitute a legitimate concern of - CPA. It should be recognized that by examining annual levels, instead of stxrter timo periods, and distances of five miles, instead of closer.to the plant, a 'best case,* from industry's T.:- . pplnt.of'view, ' is described.-;Figures in the Standard support Statement demonstrate for thosa soma five mile levels, sub- etanilally higher -levels will be found at shorter distances with a ^tremendous difference between short-tern and annual ambient levels even for plants complying with the existing standard. Thdse-figures demonstrate the. value of reducing existing emissions, HLK HLK see 2-1473 -i'l- s1*:' = # 4si$r;;-. :! !*: fl, 1 '. tf?.; t- r.--. ,, ,, _. X-wMb-p.'' . a* done by the proposed Amendments, And the need tor an offset . policy to prevent the Increase, especially of cliort'tcra levels, caused )jy expansion of an existing plant or construction of a new plant. EPA's ambient level estimates, based on disper sion modeling for large polyvinyl chloride suspension/ it/ dlsi>or*ion plant aro: 'I rime CofU.cn trati on ................ EWS - Models are notoriously Inaccurate. Any noddling data should be checked against actual metsureaent*. 5-lciut Bvcruyo mMxim* 24aKour vcr*<jc mniiu inul ivera^ mxIm 12 ppm 0.68 pt>M 90 vtb Other leodnling dono by CPA at greater distances to determine . . the saxiaua aabient levels produced L>y e cluster of four ethylene dichlorldc - vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants complying with the existing standard produced the following 1*/ figures) Concentration S-minute average maxima 24-hour average maxima annual average HsiM J.l ppm 0.5? ppal 9? ppb These figures strikingly demonatrate that for tl*e snnual 5saibient levels in the parts per billion range cited by Sfl, '. short-tens levels in the parts per million range eould occur. In.face, for plants comolvlnw with the pristine standard it - The data giveD In Table 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, end 6-6 of the "Support Document" (which la Chat used by EDF) shows the maximum sc one given point VCM concentration for the various tyJIH! ol VCM or PVC plants and has nothing Co do with the average exposure of persons living within five miles of e plant. The proper data to use (If one wishes to use CPA data) Is that contained in the "Quantitative Risk Assessment" document (December 1975). This report shove for uncontrolled plants that persons' living as close as 1300 feet from a typical PVC plane, the annual average expoeure level is about 300 parts per billion (ppb). Those living five miles from this plant have an average annual exposure of 4 ppb, with an overall average for all persons living within five miles of 17 ppb. For plants controlled to the existing standard, the average annual exposure of all pereons living within five miles of a plant is about 2 ppb. Those exposure levels are so far from the OSHA allowables that the CDF testimony should be dis missed for Its Isck of candor. is possible that saibient air concentrations will exceed the maximumallowabla occupational exposure established by the .'Occupational Safety and health Administration (OSIUI) of a 5 ppn i/ celling averaged over a fifteen minute period. that the proposed standard would have less chsn s 0.1 ppb effect on I EPA' has, felled to aval. >te this lnoact. Furthermore, the CDF he* missed the point of Che SP1 testimony j* which was to challenge the validity of the results of the CPA's,, calculations In the "Risk Assessment" document. The Dames, end Moore study shows that the annual average VCM concentration within five miles of a controlled typical PVC suspension or dispersion' plant was less than 0.25 ppb rather Chan the 2 ppb cited by CPA. Also, the SPI testimony offered data (again in Dames and Moore report) the average annual concentration within the five mile r^lys. The SlC 2 - 1 4 *7 4  There is reason to liclicvc rat cinogcnn pusc ft threat to human hcnltli ftt slightly higher exposure levels over a ruls- .. lively brief period n( time. Ttiic 1c significant because . ,. . ' ' control of point aourcas, vbeev emissions are to lc reduced ' by vncHtllf under tlic proposed urm'iidMenks. Juix, according to ; ! 20/ rA ft disproportionately largo Lu^tact on reducing choVt- ccra Ambient levels. Tlic tftbloo above rieiaonstrace tlie llheli* ' hood of high iliort-ierm awblunt level* even when annual g ambient levels arc much lower. Ilcm-c, if rhort-icu-a exposure . to a carcinogen pones a risk, the significance in terms of protecting health of any reductions under the proposed asw.iid- stents is greater than ticxac nunborx night indicate. That ft greater threat iaay exist from short-teun exposure to losevbat higher ambient levels of vinyl chloride is con' . slstcat with current tliewtioa ot chonicftl carcinogenesis. 21/ One theory pro(oces that cancer is induced in a single cell. , l'-. , This EO-callcd `one-liIU* nodal implies tliat the total dosage ; and not the length of exposure dwteminns whether cancer will I' be induced. TIiuii n tingle exposure to vinyl chloride could conceivably cause cancer in the poinjiation surrounding vinyl . {. chloride plants. hnotlier tiurory, known as tire multi-hit or Multistage node!, suggests that a single cell must undergo a serious of changes'before itc..n generate a tuner. This i.theory, also suggests that exposure to slightly higher conccn - trations, nven of short duration, m-iy pose n threat, Tlic wifc -fc, a*1- EWS -- What la the source of this allegation? JAM - The EOF raises the question regarding the effect of short ten exposure to higher Levels of VCK. I will leave comment on this to the Medical group. What the EOF has done, however, is six "apples snd oranges" by citing data frewa the "Support'Document" in an atteapt to rebut the SPI testimony concerning the average exposure of persoas living within five alles of VCH-PVC plants. HLK - Only a theory, and not a good one at that. Son carcinogens at one concentration are essential for life, at a second ex: CDK - References 21-25 should ba checked for accuracy snd interpretation. The first sentence of the first paragraph on this pegs (16) should be referenced. The discussion of theories of chemical carcino genesis Is selsctive, Incomplete and cursory. Again, references 21-23 should be checked in order to determine accuracy snd appropriate interpretation. see 2 - i 4? S :Kc i&f; # r; ^` : "/ ,,\ oC Crump, et al. ties this all together by cheulng that Boat models Ot carcinogenesis will luva a linear doec-response relation at low doses, assumin') tlvere are already carcinogens .^. prceont which set In conjunction with the specific carcinuvcn ,l! under study. Ily combining those theories, an intcrusting conclusion is reached? short--tern exposure to a chemical carcinogen at slightly higher levels than are ncirually. pffcscnt presents a potentially signiilcant risk at cancer. As^Aic standard Support Document points out, this iii Just the tyis ' of exposure which will be mor.t aifected by the proposed 1i .t 1 amendments. i`. ' / Scientific evidence for other carcinogens rieaonstrilsi ... that the risk of actually developing cancer following only a -! ' ,V,' l>rief exposure is very real. In tha ease of asbestos, wotkers l; ; who were exposed for only one month showed substantially */ i]1 increased rates of lung cancer. Persons living outside : ^i...asbeutes plants, with low level exposures for only seven years '....or Less, developed mesothelioma, six extre sly race cancer ,,. . / .associated with asbestos exposure. The. risks of shert- v.term and low dose exposure to a carcinogen are not Just theoretical, and constitute a subatantial basis for regulation. -V especially since |U2 requires protection be given with an ^anplQ margin of safety from just these types of threats to v health. W ':'fV ULK - Not so. CDK - The first sentence of this paragraph should be referenced HLK - Not VQ1. see 2-1476 -20- EKposurc to even snail dose* ot vinyl chloride ujt be ................. viewed in context. First, individual cciponxcs to carcinogen* vary and Chore nay Iks people who will bo flufCCptiblo to carolno^cna lov levels. Iluncc, even slight reduction in vinyl chloride levels could reduce the incidence of cancer. COK - The discussion on this page argues (or an Investigation of cheaical interaction, potentiation and ensyme Induction (all needed) but does not argue for long-term Inhalation tests of low levels of vinyl chloride as might be expected from Che first sentence. Also. UPA cannot ignore the fact that people *ve subjected l*ft Mny other cliosicul exposures, such as to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCtis) . Half uf the U.S. population is teHevedt' HLK - Also tobacco. to hjv* Accumulated 1--1 ppm oC reps in the i r Catty tissues. .......... HLK - Not VCM. These compounds arc similar to noT and other chlorinated peaticides. Their .ccaJjolii;i activate, specific liver ensywe tyileia, enabling the liver to Mie readily aetaliolite such chcic.il, as vinyl dilstUa. Th* presence of PCBs and eertala ; ; pesticide residues In our bodies nay render us store susceptible * to cuncet Ccoe e qiven doeu ot vinyl chloride then otherwise `would be predicted. Thcro nay be ether additive effects of carcinogens which again would make low dose exposure, or J ..HLK - Very Speculstlve. ! n/hlgltor dose exposures over a short-term, store dangerous chan they.would initially seem. ................................... : VII. Availability of Interim Emission Limits EOT recognizes that some plants stay experience particular . difficulties in meeting the standards under the proposed amend. pants. EPA has also recognised tills and has Included a relief - valve. A particular plant which, despite a full effort, is unable to coaply may request an interim emission limit lower see 2-147 -21- j than that required by the proposed amendments. riants are given one and onc-h.,l years ta determine how they will cenq.ly. This Is a reasonable amount of tlmo to develop projections < to whether compliance will be possible, before installation of equipment !>oqins. Hup Irclievus specific criteria woulil not .... bo Appropriate for granting interim limits Itcc&uvc the'Admtnistrator will ba considering problems applicable to A specific . plane. Wu assume plant operators will have no difficulty;............................. EUS - Is it safe to make such an assumption. Can EOF speak obtaining such interim limits if, even with their best Wort*. authoritatively for EPA and other activist groups? compliance will be impossible. Issuing n interim limit will tmra a important impact on tlo urrovA(2in^ community. It if tlieraforo cxtrmmaiy '^important that at Ifast a public meeting bo held to. enable .................... EHS - This seems inconsistBt with the above assumption. .'.'interested citizens and groups to present their position and challenge, where appropriate, industry's basis for an interim '.limit. Of course, confidential and proprietary information need not be revealed. Kph has an ample record of protecting -such information. There is no raason not to have tlie non- 'confidential information subject to public diseussloe. contrary ... EHS - la the public am authority on health and control matters to say ; .to SPI-S belief, there am many responsible citimns, environ- hothiag about technology and economies. , ...mental and civle groups, which could contribute to such a ; process and possibly oven aid Industry .by suggesting Alternative .`processes and procudurea- lunt'es epp has done with respect to .... '* Bb9Ve*tlng the ozone-OV process as an alternative control . '^technology. -_ EUS - Had EDF adequately demonstrated chia technology? Juet a gleam la Houston Research's eye. Or is It 'J - _ 'L a 7 B -22- i ERF had been extremely disappointed viclt the atance 'industry hit tafcen in trying to reduce the levels of vinyl chloride, human carcinogen, released into the enviroment, Tho:flexlbllity of the interim emission standard in these proposed amendments points out the real purpose of the ` aaandMiits -- to have industry, with tremendous technological expertise nt its disposal, try harder. Only with their .' if' expertise and cooperation can El'A's goal of toro emissions ever be achieved. ... EVS - VIII. Conclusiona EDF supports the proposed amendments to the national Emission Standard for vinyl chloride. As we have pointed uut. the Initially mandated reductions simply do not go far enough Coward compliance with tits liv. These proposed embedments . represent an important first step towards achieving CPA's goal of zero omissions and may have a significant affect in protecting public health by reducing short-term exposure to higher doses'vhich tha current standard allows. The proponed amendments will also result, in a substantial reduction In Omissions from now sources which must comply with the reduced emission levels before operation is permitted. Finally, and ;perhaps most Important, the offset policy should encourage . the developsscnt of Lccliitology which will ultimately permit a AV^tantial reduction in fugitive emissions from existing sources, as well as preventing residents of rc*s surrounding ` r.~- is unattainable in prscl SC tlviuyl chloride plants fro* being cvposcd to levels ot vinyl V chloride two or three Limes those of just 4 tingle control led plant in their area. As wa stressed at the July 19 hearing, tliese proposed represent a coMpromiso. Industry will he. able to comply without the necessity of developing new technology. ' The public health will receive a greater degree ot proutcl ion, >' closer to that envisaged by tlx.- Clean Mr Act. CDF supports tlte promulgation of these 'amendments. sue 2--1480 footnotes (C ' .'J. P.C. Viola, A. Hiqotti,. A, Caputo. Oncogenic Response of 'v Rat Shin, l.unqs aiiJ noncii to Vinvi ctiloiiilc. jl c/JJCUt . I&SiEAkai blt-tl'`j "(lla7in-------------------1------------------------ '2, U.S. Kuvironmenta1 Protection Agency (HaihiAtjCgn, D.C.), Scientific and Technical Assessment Report, on Vinyl CUlnrido, pp. TTa-IVSTlunc, la'/C| . '.a. ibi.i. 'l.'; R, J, Hjkwcillcr, ut al., Neoplastic high Among Xorteej. ' Kxnor.cd to Vinv) Chloride, 2/1 AMhl. N.i. hUWJ. cci.v-H irhyr-------------------------------------- 7 J. P.F. Infante, Oncogenic and Hutaqcoic Rinks In Communities " : with Folwinv > Tillor iJe Product: on f.ici I1 l ie . jiYs-Jinn. N.Y. ACM). SCIENCES 19-57. S. J B.I. Cattleman, Statement to the U.S. ml regimental Protection Agency on tl<c rronoued Uatiiwinl Emission Standard ior VtnyT Chloride, i'cb.'J, fi. et pp. 0-7. ,,'|Jv Cessre HAltonf And C. Lafeeine, carcinogenicity liioacsays i . of vinyl Chloride: Research Plans end early Results, 7 SiW'L kiistXudi'TRI-^O'J-(Ili741. i*r' 2,i Kemp from He. vernc Mfho, Scc'y to or. H.w. Johnson. B.P. Goodrich, Akron, Ohio to Dr. Peter Infante, NIOSll (Nov. 11, 19761. "ff. j|' ?.Vt -' Mm from Dr. Edward J. Fairchild, II, Associate institute Director, Cincinnati operations, NlOSll to Chief, Technical Evaluation and Review Branch, Office of Extramural Coordi- nation and special Projects, He: Update In formation on ,iV Vinyl Cfclorido (Jan. 3. 1S77). 10. , U.S. environmental Protection Aqcncy (ncct-nrcli Trlniwjlu Park, H.C.), Pt.iiKlard SuiHW>rt and Environmental I tract .i5i . Statement: emfgmon s-taml-ini for Vinyl Chloride. PP- 2-26 <. msi.------------------------------------------------1----------------------- ,U." Ibid., pp. J.15.V IS. 41 Fod. R?y. .21 (Dee. 21, 197G] . jfr; ,x- $10,009 f ISO lillion lb/yr, (9? SSF.IS Table 1-1. -2S- 14. : 42 Fed. Beg. 29642 (1977). 15. , 42 Fed. Iieg. 72BJ1 (Juno 28, 1977J . Ui '' K.S. Crump, ec *)( Fundamental Carcinogenic Processes end : Their In>I icatIon* lor l,ow lwsc Risk nvscssmehC: it caMCLI: '\wrSiiAlicii 29VJ-J!*Ji (1976) J ----------------------------------------------- 17. Standard Support end Rnyironiwntsl tmnact Statement. nmra note L(J, rutiles 6-3, 6-4, C-`4`------------------------------------------------------ --*_-- U. Ibid.. Tnl>lo 6-4. 19. 119 Fed. (leg. 3SB30 (1974). { ' . 20. Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statnwcnt. tufira ..note nr: at C-_21*. 1 21 H. Arlcy and N. Iverson, On tha Mechanism of CKperiMrikal . -Carcinogenesis, 31 ACTA PKrl`6/.. HlChbtilXl. Sti(nT"li4-fTX 22. - ,C.C. Drown. Mathematical Aspects of Pose-Response Studies In Ca rc(nonanesis . file Concept of Tlu-etliolde, 33 WCOESSy :;^,4S (1976). * --------------------. 23. "X.S. Crump, et el,, supra note *16. 24. 'V'IuJ. Selikoff, AuUostos Disease in the United State*. :,;4 REV. FR. HAt."SeF. 7-24 UJ7> .--------------------------------------------- 2 S., '.Env1 ronmenta 1 Defense Fund, Petition for Emergency Action 'Under 5303 of the Clean Air Act to Aiiato Asbestos Pollution : , ln Hontqowcry County, Maryland. pt>. 7-S (4av~10. 19?7>. ** .'A.-Praussmartn, Chemical Carcinogens in the Human Environment: Problems and Quantitative Aspects. Jj OHCQioCV~t> 1. S7 (19161. \.yy i&\. v^f "