Document 51D29vwnJEy3nGNd886a4aZ8

HILL and KNOWLTON, Inc. HOPKINSVILLE, KY. KENTUCKY NEW ERA D. 11,500 GDI 2 1974 Vinyl ' Chloride t' . -;;7 r -< i- ' v." v i; . Curb s Ordered *f."'; _ -' N; \v', .. a*. i.t i ; / i .>* ? CHICAGO (AP) -- Plastics^*"^The'stricter regulations for /industry officials quickly de-^ vinyl v chloride, a chemical `nounced and filed lawsuits F5 used in/numerous plastic I contesting new federal safety ^products,' would cover 7,500 standards reducing worker,`/.U.S. `plants 'with 350,000 i exposure to vinyl chloride, a!' workers. Present standards gas that may cause cancer. will remain 'in effect until; II One industry,official called .. January with a gradual, one- F the standards "economically '1 year transition to the tighter runrealistic, technically unfea- standards,1 Stender said. j j'sible,'politically motivated Stender said provisions i-and medically ridiculous." ' '//would allow a company that President Todd C. Walker of 2 cannot meet the standards to [the Firestone Plastics Co., a :ask for a variance or a time [division ofi.the,Firestone. Tire..: .extension. >* ' t ;& Rubbei*;*Co.',' added " in a['[f" At ' least two industrial statement* Tuesday that the-' groups immediately filed standard "puts the vinylcourt actions contesting the plastics industry on a collision' new standards. ^ourse with economic The Society of the--Elastics ;disaster.^More importantly, it *. jndustryrL--Lnc,, ' which 'throws two million jobs down represents more than 90 per the drain, according' to an cent of vinyl chloride and reconomic impact study made ." polyvinyl chloride producers, :earlier this year by Arthur/' filed suit in New York asking 'Little Co.," an' industrial ' ; the U.S., Court of Appeals for "consulting firm. judicial ' review. A separate ." Asst.-U.S. Labor Secretary// suit was filed by the Hooker ;John H. Stender, who had an- /'Chemical Co., of Stamford, nounced the new Occupational Conn. .Safety and Health Adminis- 1 ` After several deaths from a 'tration (OSHA) 'standards `.'rare liver cancer which were 'earlier Tuesday, said some thought to be related to the plants will have trouble handling of vinyl chloride : [meeting the tightened stan-^. were reported, the govern-.' dards, but he added, "This ment in April ordered,.-an I will not cause the industry to . emergency lowering from the shutdown." ' > . <- then-prevailing limit of 500 ----------- - - --^.parts per million to which workers could be exposed. Preliminary tests conducted j in Northbrook, 111., later that ' month showed that test mice ; : developed liver cancer when /exposed to concentrations of 50 parts per million of vinyl J chloride. .._; _ - STTZSZ HILL AND KNOWLTON, Inc. PLASTICS SOCIETY; COMPANIES! .'!2 IHOO "STITT ASK COURTS TO'REVIEW NEW SIOI U.A3H A EXPOSURE STANDARD FOR VCM ~ of liver cancer, indicates that the new standard ds-mo re restrictive than necessary,to. protect the health pf our,-3 workers."' - . ' ........' " -,-,i "nr ` ,li - Washington--A new - iDow also said it has voluntarily.dropped exposure ly adopted worker-exposure standard for vinyl chloridq due to take effect ! Jan. 1975 has drawn fire from the 3 .standards from 500 ppm to 50 ppm and that worker exj po.sure in its plants generally is limited to less than lOppm. industry and resulted: in several .requests to. the courts:- Questioning whether the industry can "develop.the for judicial'review: t-- }r--A * + -.? .il technology to meet the level of 1 ppm and a 5 ppm ceil- The standard--which calls for a 1-part-per-million{ ' ;ing in.the time specified,'' Dow said-it^woidd "seekerem- limit of VCM exposure over an eight-hour working day ; edies through the judicial process." i-,,.;--U':-- and a ceiling of 5 ppm over any 15-minute period-r "does Last month, the Environmental Protection Adminis not'take into account in a practical way the known med tration said it planned to go ahead on developing air emis ical and technological facts.Uithe Society of the Plastic^ : sion standards for VCM despite a recommendation of > Industry contended. ; r '<(! rrr-d < <, ! OSHA's job-health rules, announced 2 Oct. by OSHA's its staff that VCM emissionsjpose "no imipinent hazard" (PCN,23. Sept 74, p 4)."--:---- ~--A-i...,:. ,,1 : head. Assistant Labor Secretary John H. Stender, were published Friday in the Federal Register-(pp 3588 9r,98). tThey include these main points: ......--ii' r- t . * Emergency standards limiting exposure to 50 ppm . are extended^through 31 Dec. 1974 .(they were due to ex- :pire .5 OcQ;ivi"i!f.?''- -T-F. < . -T ' : -A?4." '""'.'r-'A 1 ' As of If Jan., employers must reduce exposure lev els to 1 ppm averaged over any eight-hour period and,,5 ppm averaged over any period no longer than 15 minutes. - .Wearing of repirators will become mandatory on 1 Jan. 1976 for workers exposed to levels greater than the -1 ppm and 5 ppm limits, but wearing of respirators is discretionary before than for exposures greater than 25ppm. - . "Regulated areas" should be set up where concen- , trations exceed permissible, limits, with access, limited to-"authorized" workers. -..ii vmrnrctTiO . Workers may not handle liquid VCM. > " ; : Monitoring and measuring programs are to be set up with "reasonable opportunity for employes or their - representatives to observe these methods and procedures. ' ' Protective garments, respiratory protection devices, > written emergency procedures, employe training and rec- | ord-keeping must be provided. j Release of details of the new standards earlier in .the j week brought'immediate reaction from the industry." SPI and Hooker Chemical Co. asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to carry out a judicial re view of the OSHA guidelines. Firestone Plastics Co., PETRO CHEMICAL HEWS STAMFORD, CONN. W -CIRC . N AVAIL <has joined the Hooker suit in New York and has also filed , its own action at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in ICincinnati: B.-F. Goodrich Chemical Co. and Dow. are , jalso seeking court reviews. ., <. OCT 7 1974 SPI president Ralph L. Harding Jr. said the SPI suit is "simply a petition for the court to review the OSHA standard and examine the important question, of its fea sibility." . ; -l! ' 'T'1 ` He added that "we believe now. as we did when we pre sented our testimony tq_QSHA only two months ago" (PCN, <15-July 74, p i), that "an excessively strict standard can- _not be met by the'industry. We also believe that the stan dard announced by OSHA is so restrictive-that it merits .[immediate appeal." ., > .<< Raymond H. Marks, president of Tenneco Chemicals, tdescribed the new. standard as beyond the capability of .industry to meet.;- ''Every practical effort should be made 'to reduce worker exposure while preserving the industry id the jobs of workers," he said, "but this standard^can- ,no.t effectively serve.either goal." ' ~, Dow Chemical Co. also described the new standard " oj in N as "unnecessarily stringent" and not supported by data presented at the OSHA hearing, observing that "our data, based on nearly 25 years of experience without any cases H* Fr-k