Document 4O2RkOZM703pYDR9RMMgb0E1

R&S 029377 The Vinyl Institute February 21, 1986 TO: VI Manufacturing Practices Committee Roy suggested that I forward the attached material provided by Nat Blackman. As Nat notes, the material describes an Air Toxics Program that Massachusetts is considering. (Vinyl chloride is listed). / MNS/pmb enclosure cc: P. de la Cruz Meredith N. Scheck, ManVger Government & Regulatory Affairs A Division of THE SOCIETY OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY, INC. WAYNE INTERCHANGE PLAZA II 155 Route 46 West, WAYNE, N.J. 07470 (201) 890-9299 4 'l*- BORDEN CHEMICAL DIVISION OF BOROEN INC February 10, 1986 R&S 029378 Vinyl Institute Wayne Interchange Plaza 155 Route 46 West Wayne, N. J, 07140 II Attention: Dr. Roy Gottesman Dear Roy: Enclosed is some material describing an Air Toxics program that Massachusetts is considering, which was sent to me by Associated Industries of Massachusetts. Since vinyl chloride is one of the contaminants listed, I thought it advisable that you be alerted to this and take any appropriate action. Sincerely. NMB/lmm cc: L. Fishbein N. M. Blackman Environmental Affairs Manager 511 LANCASTER STREET. LEOMINSTER, MASS. 01453 TELEPHONE (617) 537 171 1 R&S 029379 ;r t il ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES F MASSACHUSETTS q2 FO'i L5TON 5 i D-n i CSTOM ma ! c17i 2A-11S0 I -ORDER1 CHF.hilCAL I rET ; o it u UEOMIIVSTEH TO: FA: - RE: AIM Air Quality Committee G. Montgomery Lovejcv III AIR TOXICS REGULATIONS AIR REGULATORY REFORM DRAFT POLICY ACID RAIN LEGISLATION February 5, 1986 AIR TOXICS, A CALL FOR INPUT TO DEQE 'The Department" is preparing to move the Chemical Health'Effects Methodology (CHEM)- ana the system to derive Ambient-Air Levels to public hearing.. These represent the "formula"1 the Department will utilize in generating the numbers that your facility will be held-to if you emit-any compound the Department suspects will affect public health!. CHEM and AAL have- been reviewed by two external review groups comprised of toxicologists from around the country. The Depart ment, is accepting comments on their responses to the external, review until February 21st. AIM has a number of significant - concerns with the "formula" and with' the Department's responses. . All Air Committee members who have received the responses should get comments into, me- by February 14th, .and to- the Department by the 21st.' This is.-a. critical point in the process and industry must respond!. ' The- Department is conducting a 6-month internal review of imple mentation issues. .AIM is urging that the implementation plan.be developed with industry input and prior to going to public hearing with CHEM .and AAL. '" ` The implementation issues phase is where manufacturers can have a significant effect upon the upcoming, regulatory program. The goal is to make the requirements equitable and cost-effective while protecting public health. With your companies' technical input this objective is achievable. Request information, prepare your comments, and plan to attend the next meeting of the DEQE Air Toxics Advisory Committee: (more) for a more competitive Massachusetts PLAC DECS 10th Floor Conference Room One Winter Street (corner of Washington and V Boston, Massachusetts nter Streets) AIM MOUNTS EFFORT TO MODERNIZE AIR REGULATIONS WANTS WORKSRLE REGULATIONS FOR KICK AND ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY The AIM Air Quality Committee, with strong representation from the high technology and advanced technology sectors, is aggressively pursuing improvements to the Division of Air Quality Control's regulations. The Air Pollution Control Regulations 310 CMR 6.00, 7.00, and 8.00, originally developed in the early 1970's, were crafted to address the characteristics of the so-called "basic industries" in Massachu setts. The 1980's has introduced a new industrial production profile' which turns over processes rapidly necessitating expedited permit reviews to allow companies to innovate and compete. A task force of the Air Committee comprised of Myron Baker, Northrop Corporation; Stephen Greene, Digital Equipment Corporation; Richard Mannion, Foxboro Company; and Verne Shorten, NTang Laboratories, Inc. have drafted proposals and met with the DAQC urging that a policy be adopted. -' . Responding to this initiative and the need to allocate resources to those air programs providing the greatest public health benefit, the Division issued a draft policy in late January. The policy will benefit companies in-all industrial categories.' The Policy on Plan Review of Small Sources proposes to alter the existing plans approval process by listing categories of processes which they will approve simply by receiving process registration information from the source. .The categories include certain: R&S 029380 1. fossil fuel utilization facilities, 2. research and development facilities, 3. equipment relocations, 4. vapor degreasers. I encourage members to comment on the draft proposal. Copies are available through my office. ACID RAIN BILL PASSED, Regulations Under Consideration1 Senate 1187, ''An Act to Limit Acid Deposition in the Commonwealth" became Chapter 590 of the Acts of 1985. ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF MASSACHUSETTS 4^BOYLSTON street ^TON. MA 02116 OT7i 262*1120 January 21, 1986 J3 CO roo (O CO CO Mr. Eruce K. Maillet, Director Division of Air Quality Control DEQE One Winter Street Boston, KA 02108 Dear Eruce: Members of the business community, including myself, are concerned about a number of issues that arose at the January 21 Air Toxics Advisory Committee meeting. First and foremost, the continuing lack of serious consideration in incorporating manufacturers' comments into CHEM and AAL is quite disturbing. To date, industry comments have been critized and cast aside. The Department continues to highlight the predominately favorable comments, leading all to believe CHEM and AAL are the model in air toxics methodologies. The role of the so-called "advisory committee" is another concern. The Committee had to convince the Department to allow it to comment on the responses to the second external review process. Additionally, there was no idea or mention on behalf of the Division as to the role' of the Committee in the implementation program development phase. I would like to bring your attention to the minutes of the May 17, 1984 Advisory Committee meeting item 5'- (enclosed). The minute: suggest that the Advisory Committee will comment on AAL's and imple mentation issues as the program matures.' The need for ongoing, credibl and independent review of AAL's is great and would benefit the public, business and the Department. The timing of the public hearings on CHEM and AAL is crucial. An implementation plan for the air toxics program must be developed by the Division, for review and input by the Advisory Committee prior to holding public hearings on CHEM and AAL. The significance and potentia impact upon the regulated community are too great for the Department to be given the ability to generate ambient air levels for any compound without holding the Department to guidelines on how to implement the numbers. for a more competitive Massachusetts - D/frft - Mr. Bruce K. Mailiet -2- January 31, 1986 The manufacturing community has pointed out to your office a number of significant implementation issues to be addressed. We are anxious to work closely v.'ith you in providing technical expertise and comment on this critical program component. AIM fill submit comments on the Departmental responses to the second external review by February 22nd. Your consideration of the points raised in this letter v;ould be appreciated. Sincerely, G. Montgomery Lovejoy III, Director Energy and Environment Program EKL/ga cc: -AIM Air Quality Committee v -James Neely, Principal Planner, DAQC -Carol Rowan, Acting Director Office of Research and Standards R&S 029382 R&S 029383 MASSACHUSETTS AIR TOXICS PROGRAM Presented by Paul A. Walker Senior Environmental Engineer Hollingsworth & Vose Company January 15, 1986 Environmental Issues 1986 Associated Industries of Massachusetts .- - T- p- o~ran rn.tir?:v.?:,X,,ciL' Today, I should like to present the Massachusetts Air Tonics Program; provide sene background on reasons behind the development of this program; describe the method to derive acceptable ambient levels; discuss the implementation of the program; briefly compare the Massachusetts program to other states and the federal program; and finally, point out some of the shortcomings cf the method to derive AALs and the Massachusetts air toxics pregram as a whole. i.11 *.tr Industry first got wind of a Massachusetts air toxics policy in October, 1982. At that time, EPA had established final standards for only four air contaminants - asbestos, beryllium, mercury, and vinyl chloride - under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, National Emission Standards for Hasardou3 Air Pollutants (NESHAFS). Because of the lack of a comprehensive federal program, several states, including New York, had set up their cv:n air toxics programs. Given these circumstances, the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) felt compelled to develop their own air toxics policy, too. The fundamental question which, I believe, should have been answered before developing the Massachusetts policy was, "Are there any adverse health effects caused by emissions of air contaminants in the Commonwealth that establish the need for such a program? Rather than answer this fundamental question, however, the Department cited three areas where they felt they need an air toxics program. The first area is responding to sudden and accidental incidents in which high concentrations of toxic air * contaminants are released into the atmosphere; e.g., a train derailment. A second area is handling odor complaints.- And the third area cited by the Department as a justification for an air toxics policy is reviewing applications for approval of new or modified sources which would emit toxics. The Department then proceeded to develop their air toxics policy. One of the first steps the Department took in the development of their policy - and here I should like to commend DEQE for talcing such a step - was to set up an advisory committee consisting of representatives from industry, public interest groups, academia, and, of course, regulatory agencies. The Advisory Committee, which was subsequently divided into three subcommittees, met many times since the first meeting in December, 1982, and attempted to set guidelines for acceptable ambient levels for pollutants of concern in the Commonwealth. Presents t-i on: In my hand is the product of the cany meetings between the' Department and the Advisory Committee - a yellow document R&S 029384 R&S 029385 entitled, "The Chemical Health Effects Assessment Methodology And The Method To Derive Acceptable Ambient Levels", and dated June, 19 So ft this point, let me ash, "How cany cf you have seen this document?" This 400+ pace document, as its title suggests, contain ; two methodologies. The first methodology is called the che: :ical health effects assessment methodology (CKZM). It uses scientific data to assess the health efiects associated with exposure to tOO or so compounds. The second methodology involves a formula to calculate an acceptable ambient level for any toxic air contaminant - a level which the Department considers to be safe and will be protective, of public health with a margin of safety. Let me concentrate on the second methodology - the formula to calculate an acceptable ambient level (AAL). Basically, the calculation entails dividing an occupational level by a series of safety factors to obtain an acceptable ambient level. The first step in the formula is the selection of the "most appropriate occupational level" (KAOL). The possible choices for the KAOL are: OSHA's standard, KIOSH's guideline, or ACGIH's recommendation. As examples, I have selected a dozen compounds. See Table 1. As may be seen from Table 1, for some compounds, the difference among the threshold limit values (TLYs), as the standards/guidelines/recommsndations are Imown, is only a factor of two or three. For other compounds (not listed in Table 1), OSEA's standard/HIOSH's guideline/ACGXH's recommendation vary by factors as large as 100. Thus, the selection of the KAOL for a compound is a critical step. For the majority of the 100 or so compounds listed in the yellow document, the occupational level selected by the Department is the lowest of the standard/guideline/recommendation of OSEA/KIOSH/ACC-IH. Is the lowest TLV the most appropriate occupational level for the Department to select in most cases? Having selected the cost appropriate occupational level, the next step in the Department's calculation for deriving the AAL is to use a factor to adjust time from an 8 hour workday to a 24 hour exposure and from a 5 day workweek to a 7 day exposure. So, the KA.OL, which for cost of the compounds is an S->;cur tine weighted average, is divided by 4.2 ( a 0 '-"no" u r vor 1; week ) since ambient exposures to toxic air contaminants, unlike workplace exposures, may be continuous. Eut is the AAL a 24-hour average as the Department intends to view it, or is the AAL a weekly figure? After adjusting for time, the Department's calculation extrapolates from an adult to a child, since children are QSKA's Standard/HIOSK's Guideline/ACG 's Recommendation vs. MAOL Chosen By Department For Selected Compounds. R&S 029386 Comncvrd OSH/.1 s Standard (ppm) A i iii a A Asbestos 50 2 fibers/cm^ ( Benzene 10 ' Carbon tetrachloride 10 Ethyl acrylate 25 . Formaldehyde 3 Methyl chloroform 350 (1,1,1-Trichioroethane) Phenol . .5 Styrene 100 Tetrachloroethylene 100 Toluene 200 Vinyl chloride 1 mosss Gu're''"e (PF-) ACGIH's (ppm) MAOL (ppa) 50(C) 25 . 25 q 0.02-2 fibers/cm3a 0.1 fibers/ 10(C) 10 10 2(C) 5 5 -5 5 1(C) 1 1 350(C) 350 350 5 - 50 100 1(C) 5 50 50 100 5 5 50 50 100 1 (C) ceiling value a Recommendation depends on fiber type particularly susceptible tc the effects of air pollution, by dividing by 1.75. This factor accounts for the higher ventilation rate per unit cf body weight in a child as compared to an adult. Then, for every one of the compounds listed in the document, the Department applies a safety factor of 10 to account for a non-worker sensitive population. The Department's rationale for doing so is to assure prctsctics for high risk groups (e.g., population exist tor qzz'z zzt every ccnpcunc, cr, for ecxe compounds, is the highest risk group actually the v:orker? If that is the case, should a safety factor be applied to account for a non-worker population? Thus, in the Department's method tc derive ar. acceptable ambient level, the minimal factor applied to an occupational level for all compounds is 73.5 (4.2 a 1.75 z 10). So, for example, if the threshold limit value for a compound were 1 part per millionin the workplace, then the ambient level deemed acceptable by the Department could be no higher than approximately one one-hur.drsth of one part per million, And for many compounds, the AAL could be much lower, because in those cases where all health effects (such as carcinogencity, mutagencity, and developmental/reprcductive toxicity) have not been accounted for, or where there is inadequacy of toxicity data, additional safety factors may be applied in the formula. These toxic effects safety factors, as they are called, may range as high as 100. Consequently, the overall factor applied in the Department's formula to derive an acceptable ambient level for a compound may range from 73*5 to 7350. Here, let me turn again to the dozen compounds I have selected as examples to illustrate this point. See Table 2. How that the Department has derived acceptable ambient levels for 100 or so compounds, initially (but the very same methodology is meant to be used to derive an AAL for any compound), how will these numbers be implemented? As I mentioned earlier, the Department intends to employ the AALs as ambient standards to be averaged over a 24-hour period. The very magnitude of the AALs, however, raises several important issues concerning the implementation of the Massachusetts air toxics program. For instance, what are typical backgrounds for these compounds? Are the backgrounds higher or lower than the AALs? Might natural background be above the acceptable ambient level derived by the Department's method for some compounds? If so, would it make any sense to set an acceptable ambient concentration for those compounds below background? 07 C/D o to to CO CD N/ Another implementation question raised by the very low AALs Is the availability of analytical techniques* Are analytical techniques available for detecting such low concentrations? If not, would it make any sense to establish an acceptable R&S 029388 Table 2. Overall Factors Applied in Department's Formula For Selected Compounds. Comovnd- ilAGL (pp=0 Ammonia Asbestos 25 0.1 fibers/crJ Benzene 10 Carbon tetrachloride 5 Ethyl acrylate 5 Formaldehyde 1 Methyl chloroform 350 (1,1,1-Trichloroethane) Phenol 5 Styrene Tetrachloroethylene 50 50 Toluene Vinyl chloride 100 1 l 'T, (pp=) riya^gsl 1 factor 0.034 3 0.001 fibers/cn-1 735 73 0.0136 735 0.0068 735 0.00068 7350 0.0014 735 0.0952 3675 0.0068 0.068 0.0136 0.136 0.0014 ( * ^ ^ k) 735 735 3675 735 735 R&S 029389 concentration at a level that ia below the Unit of detectability? In the early phases of their program, the Department will not have to address these issues; for the Department has assumed that background is aero and the sole contributor of the pollutant of concern is the source. The Departcent has advised that the program will apply not only to manufacturing facilities but also to dry cleaning establishments, gas stations, etc. In addition, they have decided to rely on modeling, as opposed to monitoring, to determine 'whether or not a source is in compliance with the AAL. Furthermore, the location at which compliance will be determined is the property lime of the source. How, what would you do if the Department claimed that, based on their modeling, the emissions from your facility resulted in a contravention of ambient air standards? Might you wish to monitor background as well as dov:nwind concentrations to ascertain whether or not background was indeed zero and if your source were the sole contributor of the pollutant? Those are some of the questions regarding the implementation .of the Massachusetts air toxics program which will have to be answered at some time in the future. Eut in the tine remaining today let's turn back to the AALs, themselves. Are the derived levels reasonable? Are they too high7 Are they too low? One way of answering such a question for a particular compound is to subject the compound to a nperspective test". Once such test.which I use to help me understand the degree of toxicity of a given-compound is to compare its standard to that of a compound- v:hich is generally recognized as more toxic. Take for example, ethyl acrylate and compare its AAL to those of benzene and vinyl chloride, both of which are known human carcinogens. Referring to Table 2 again, the AAL derived by the Department's method for ethyl acrylate is 0.00068 ppm; while the AALs for benzene and vinyl chloride are 0-0136 and 0.0014, respectively. Does this mean that ethyl acrylate is 2-20 times more toxic than benzene and vinyl chloride? Or, is something wrong with the method to derive the acceptable ambient levels? How does Massachusetts's air toxicsprogram compare with those of other states and the federal program? As mentioned earlier, Hew York has set up their own air toxics program. Their AALs are the contaminant concentrations considered to be acceptable averages at a receptor on an annual basis. They are culdelines; not standards. For most compounds, the AALs are calculated by dividing threshold limit values by a factor of either 50 or 300, depending on the degree of toxicity of the air contaminant. A comparison of Hew York's AALs with the corresponding AALs in Massachusetts for the dozen compounds which I am using as examples, appears in Table 3- Bear in mind that Hew York's AALs are annual averages; while those in Massachusetts are 24-hour averages. If extrapolated to 24-hour averages, Hew York's AALs would be much higher than the R&S 029390 Table 3. lie;: York's AALs vs. Massachusetts For Selected Compounds. Cut3) Cornound Kia Ammonia Asbestos. 24.5 0. 001 fibers/cm^ Benzene 41 Carbon tetrachloride 40.8 Ethyl acrylate Forealdehyde 2; 7 2 Kethyl chloroform 517 (1,1,1 Trichloroethane) Phenol Styrene Tetrachloroethylene 25.9 292-5 91 Toluene Vinyl chloride 510 2.7 Slh 3 60 -- 100 100 -- 5 38,000 10 716 1,116 7,500 0.4 cr p 24~hour average Annual average \J R&S 029391 Conclusjon: annual averages listed in Table 3. On the federal level, in June, 19c5, -PA announced their two-part strategy fcr dealing with tc::ic air contaminants. For sudden, accidental releas; :s, E intends to draw up an acute hazards list of substances cost likely to cause seriou: harm in the event of a large release. For routine emissions, SPA is in the process of completing their consideration of some J{0 chemicals for regulation under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Since Hay, 1985, they have announced their intentions to add the following chemicals to their list of hazardous air pollutants: Chromium - either total or hexavalent Carbon tetrachloride Chloroform Ethylene oxide 1,3 Butadiene 1,2 Dichloroethane Cadmium Trichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene (FEHC) _ And EPA has announced their intention not to regulate the routine emissions of the following chemicals under Section 112: Toluene Chlorofluorocarbon - 113 . Methyl chloroform (1,1,1 Trichloroethane) Acrylonitrile ~ Epichlorohydrin Manganese Chlorinated benzenes Vinylidene chloride Chloroprene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene EPA's reason for not regulating the above compounds generally is that the health risk from ambient exposure to the compounds is not sufficient to warrant regulation. EPA's announcement not to regulate a compound, however, has no effect on the regulation of that compound as a volatile organic compound (VOC) in order to attain the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. Uor does their announcement preclude any state or local air pollution control agency from regulating emission sources of the compound. Hence, EPA's announcements are not likely to have much effect on such states as Massachusetts that have set up their own air toxics programs. In conclusion, I should like to point out some of the short comings of the Department's method to derive acceptable ambient levels and their proposed air toxics program. X believe the Department has not considered the total effect of multiple safety, factors in their formula to derive the AALs. There is double-countins in the method to derive AALs; for example, the application of a safety factor to account for a non-worker sensitive population where the sensitive population is the worx the application cf the sane q ty i'sCwCi** where the occupational i aiffi 1 g, ** ** ^ ** y "^1 n 2 a margin of safety. For many compounds, the result of the application of these multiple safety factors is an AAL that is far too low. With regard to the air toxics program as a whole, I believe that an` implementation plan needs to be drawn up to answer some of the questions raised earlier. In an A.IK meeting with Commissioner Sylva and Assistant Commissioner Kagg in October, 1985, the Commissioner agreed to draft such a plan before going to public hearing on the methodology to derive AALs. Finally, I believe that more action needs to be taken by such groups as E?A and NESCAUM (Wcrtheast States for Coordinated Air Use Management) to assure that acceptable ambient levels and air toxics programs are consistent from state to state. After all, if the acceptable ambient level for a compound is considered safe,, and the AAL is the concentration that will protect public health, then why should that AAL be so different from the corresponding AAL in another state? R&S oto CO 03 CO