Document 1y0vKJQ6ozd0DO629KrNzq8R5

ho Society of the lastics Industry, Inc. 355 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212)573 9400 e/ February 23, 1976 Mr. Don R. Goodwin Emission Standards & Engineering Division Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 Dear Mr. Goodwin: Enclosed herewith, on behalf of the Vinyl Chloride and Polyvinyl Chloride Producers Group of The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (SPI), are comments on the Proposed Standard for Vinyl Chloride published in 40 Fed. Reg. 59532 on December^, 1975. As we testified at the ' public hearing on the Proposed Standard on February 3, 1976, we commend the Agency for adopting an approach which allowed an open exchange of information between the techni cal people of the Agency, the industry, and other interested parties. We also support the Agency's utilization cf a Quantitative P.isk Assessment Analysis in determining the appropriate control technology, although as I also testified we believe the Agency did not weigh finely enough the costs against the benefits likely to be achieved in protecting public health. Although there is much with which v; agree, there are also a number of individual statements and assertions in the Proposed Standard and supporting documents which we consider erroneous. The two documents I am. enclosing re spell out our differences are as follows: 1. Comments on the Standard and its supporting documents prepared by the Technical Suhcor.ni tone cf the Vinyl Chloride and Polyvinyl Chloride Producers Group; and 2. Comments by the Healt.h Subcommittee of the Vinyl Chloride and Polyvinyl Chloride Producers Group. SPI-16316 2 We urge the Agency to take these co~-T.cr.ts into account before the final Standard is promulgated; to correct the errors noted in the attached statements; and to weigh more carefully some of the control requirements whose costs we believe far emceed any potential benefit. There were four specific matters raised when the EPA panel was questioning me during the public hearing on February 3. To complete the record, the following comments are respectfully submitted. 1. We were asked by hr. Farmer (Transcript of Proceedings, hereinafter: "Tr." page 63) to comment on "...the uses of PVC and then the possible substitutes for PVC in all these end use applications. " EPA's own reports on this question have already covered the v/idospread and diversified uses of PVC in the medical, construction, applicance, electrical, transportation, packaging and many ether industries. rt lC As to the concept itself, we respectfully submi that substitutability per se is not a valid issue. Firs our legal research confirms Dr. Euzmack's observation that there is no authority in the Clean A.ir Act for EPA to ban selected uses of PVC (Tr. 52). Secondly, under the proposed Standard, the level of VC.*! emissions would be reduced by 95 percent; at such low levels there is no clearly established health risk ar.d, hence, no danger to the public health which must be further obviated. Finally, even given exhaustive investigation of questions interrelating safety, costs, availability of raw materials, production and technological capability, capital investment and other related issues, as a practical matter substituta bility remains an imponderable. Thus, under the circum stances of this case, we do not believe it would be fruitful for EPA to explore these issues further. 2. In response to Dr. Fneiscn's question about dialysis machines, the principal usage of PVC in the extensive tubing which circulates the patier. bicod through the machine. 71) SPl-16317 3. To Dr. Marcus (Tr. 76) I promised to clarify the dates . . when Mai tor. i first informed industry and industry first informed EPA ..." about the preliminary results of Maltoni's inhalation studies with rats. In dustry was first informed at a technical symposium in Bologna, Italy held from April 9 to April 12, 1973. This can be confirmed by Dr, Saffiotti of HIOSH who was in the audience. The USA VCM/PVC industry representatives did not report to EPA; this information was reported to NIOSH as required by regulations promulgated under 20 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. 4. Dr. Marcus also asked (Tr. 82) for a response on SPI1s position regarding toxic substances legislation. Vie generally support the moderate, responsible approach of the KcCoIlister Bill (K.P.. 7664). Finally, we want to re-emphasize our belief that EPA leadership is needed to develop a vinyl chloride health research program under the joint sponsorship of expert representatives from government, industry, labor and other interested groups. A further reason for this approach was provided on the very day of the EPA hearing on the Vinyl Chloride Standard by way of the sensationalized disclosure of a new study relating to whether vinyl chloride is a potential mutagen. The report in question was net available to any of the industry representatives who testi fied at the hearings, nor was it made a part of the record. Instead, it was released directly to the press by the Health Research Group, under circu.mstar.ces which did not permit rational discussion of the information or informed industry comment. T.\e comment ir. more detail on this subject in the attached Comments. -- Thus, while the vinyl chloride a: cnlorice procucors obviously cenev w,.a w raised in the study should be explored fur.. not believe that a press release provides to evaluate the risks involved nor the fu tions, if any, which should be observed. tolvvir.yl he concerns her, they do he best means r. or tree a u-- The producers have expressed their w llir.gness to provide thoi full share cf the costs of join ly-spcr.scred researc in he best interests of the general public and SPI-16318 -/ of the workers directly involved. The questions involved are tGO important to be dealt with by acrimonious and sensationalised debate. Unfortunately, recent history indicates that until the government exercises leadership in bringing all interested parties together, we are all too likely to see more time and money wasted or. disputed research and incomplete or ever, biased discussion of scientific evidence. In closing our wri again want to express r.ppre in which H?A is handling th V.'e would be pleased to rest you might have or which mic comments of others. en submission to R?A, w a tier, for the careful m develcnment of this Sta c. C c n S c c; 3 c* IT C S U C Z. "Z. r. xz Re spentfully s Ralph L. Harding, Jr. President SP1-16319