Document 68bBNG5OvZgj45pvY9mYRZO4

ttnsnu *0<< MU( k01>0 Paul R. Graham - B3NB October 14, 1974 tw* it'. VCM Summary r<(<CNti TO . J. E. * Springgate J. G. Bergomi R. N. Brell P. 0. De Garmo A. G. Hades W. B. Papageorge P. S. Park J. E. Smith E. P. Wheeler B3KA B2SF B3NB B3NJ B3NJ BIND A3SA B3NH A2SA V>' ^ The attached is a report on the VCM issue prepared at the request of Dr. Heininger, /jar Attachment p. R. Graham V* RSV 0014039 Monsanto fM. .**< VLO"T`" p. R. Graham - B3NB id October 11, 1974 uiiiet , VINYL CHLORIDE MONOMER ISSUE - TO Dr. S. A. Heininger ec R. W. Bucknell M. W. Farrar E. H. Fording H. A. Hashbarger df : VCM Summary B3NB R2E B3NA B3NA Two major developments in the VCM issue have taken place in the last several days. By far, the most important news comes from OSHA. However, the FDA have leaked a significant change in their philosophy toward this issue. 1. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION OSHA1s Permanent Standard for Exposure to Vinyl Chloride was published in the Federal Register on October 4, 1974. A brief description of its salient points follow: -The Standard applies to the three major segments of the industry: VC production, PVC polymerization and PVC con version (fabricators). It does not apply to those who handle or use fabricated PVC products. - The Emergency Temporary Standard remains in effect until January 1, 1975. This means that the 50 ppm exposure limit will continue to that date. - On January 1, 1975, the Permanent Standard will, unless stayed by the Court, take effect. - The provisions of the new standard call for permissable exposure limits of: . 1 ppm on a time-weighted average over an 8-hour period, and a . 5 ppm maximum based on a 15 minute average. However, when employee exposure exceeds the permissable exposure levels, the use of respirators will: - .. be discretionary with the employees when the level does not exceed 25 ppm during the period, January 1, 1975 to January 1, 1976. .. be mandatory after January 1, 1976. - A mechanism is included in the regulation to exempt certain plants or plant areas from the regulation. When monitoring RSV 0014040 Dr. S. A. Heininger -2- October 11, 1974 shows VCM levels below 0.5 ppm (action level), the employees, areas or plant are effectively exempted from all provisions of the Standard. This would exclude most of the fabricating industries. Our interpretation of the significance of the new regulation is as follows: - During the 15 month period between now and January 1, 1976, the employer must: . Monitor the VCM level monthly . Provide respiratory protection when the permissable ex posure limit i`s exceeded (use is optional by employees at levels below 25 ppm). Cannister or cartridge type respirators are acceptable respiratory protection. This equipment is much more convenient to use than the un wieldy "air line" type respirators thought to be neces sary before the adoption of this Standard. . Institute engineering studies leading to the reduction of VCM limit to the permissable exposure limits. - OSHA has set a permissable exposure limit which cannot be met, without the use of respirators, by known engineering methods. The cost of developing these methods of control to meet this standard, along with the increased costs for monitoring, record keeping and medical surveillance, will certainly increase the price of PVC over the next 2 years. The Standard seems to have been written with the expectancy of legal action. Suits have indeed been filed by the SPI, Firestone, Hooker and Dow. It is not known whether or not the unions have done likewise. Preliminary input from our friends in the PVC industry (Borden, B. F. Goodrich, Exxon, Ethyl Corp., Uniroyal) indicates no major shutdown nor any intention to delay present expansion plans. No major obsta cles are expected in the fabricating industry -- particularly those in the flexible PVC area. 2. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION By edict from the very top levels, the FDA has changed the wording in their planned regulation on VCM. The regulation will limit the VCM level in flexible PVC food packaging to 1 ppm and in rigid PVC packaging and pipe to 10 ppm. Orig inal information included a 50 ppb limit on VCM which could RSV 001^0^1 Dr. S. A. Heininger -3- October 11, 1974 migrate into the food. This was eliminated because the PDA has no data showing this level to be safe. No problem in meeting the 1 ppm level is expected in flexible PVC; however, a great deal of difficulty is anticipated in rigid PVC appli cations. Sources for the above industry opinions are attached. /jar Attachments P. R. Graham RSV 0014042 NOTES ON COMMENTS FROM INDUSTRY SOURCES ON THE VCM ISSUE B. F, GOODRICH -- Dr. Benj. M. G. Zwicker, Director, Technical Planning " At this point BFG appears to be taking two courses of action relative to this issue. On legal side, they are planning to file a suit for a stay of execution of the "very stringent" Permanent Standard, claiming that the 1 ppm exposure limit was not based on any data presented at the hearing and also claiming that engineering know-how is not available to lower the exposure limit to 1 ppm without the use of respirators. Their suit will therefore claim technical non-feasibility. On the other hand, Zwicker stated that BFG sees nothing in the Standard which would prohibit them from operating through December 31, 1975. They will proceed with plans for increasing VCM capacity.. Technical effort will continue at an accelerated rate in an attempt to reduce the airborne VCM levels to the lowest.possible level. BORDEN COMPANY -- Dr. A. Cummin, V.P., Corporate Technical Director Cummin feels that the regulation is much less stringent than it ap peared to be in the original news release. Borden will continue to make resin with little or no interruption. Work will continue to lower VCM airborne levels. A key provision in the regulation is. the allowable use of cannister-type respirators. Cummin feels that fabricators (Borden is one alsO) will be exempt totally or in part from the regulation. He promised to give me a copy of a Borden re port on the subject on October 14. EXXON CORPORATION -- Dr. J. R. Livingstone, Jr., Mgr, of Research Although Joe is not involved directly with VC or PVC production, he is a key man in Exxon's international expansion planning for plasti cizers and, therefore, has followed this issue closely. He believes the regulation to be stringent but not devastating to the PVC indus try. It will not effect Exxon's expansion plans. FIRESTONE -- (Via Call by A. E. Gray) Although concerned about feasibility of the use of protective equip ment, Firestone said that they are in a better position relative to RSV FIRESTONE (Continued) the Standard than any of the major VCM producers. The availability of PVC will be affected. ETHYL CORPORATION -- Warren Rees# Director of Marketing Ethyl feels that they will have no difficulty in complying with the regulation. TENNECO -- Dr. Toi Aalto. Manager Product Safety Services No problem is visualized through most of 1975. The Standard will not affect plans for their new 230 M pound PVC plant scheduled to come on stream in December, 197 4. Tenneco has also filed suit and will continue to "pull out all legal stops" to get the Standard stayed. Dr. Herb Carr (also of Tenneco) advised of an industry meeting on VCM to be held in Washington on October 11. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY -- Dr. W. Combellick, Director of Fabricated Products Mr. Combellick thinks that the fabricating operations will not be "seriously" affected by the Standard. Studies are already underway to determine which, if any, of the plant areas come under the regulation. ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY -- (Via Call by A. E. Gray) The VCM level on the tile calendars may be higher than the 0.5 ppm action level bringing that part of the plant under the regulation. They are also concerned about its effect on upcoming managementunion negotiations. RSV KELLER AND HECKMAN LAW OFFICES - Counsels for the SPI and Individual Companies The following are the preliminary comments from K&H: "The only comments we might make are that we do consider the OSHA "decision*1 very well written from the point of view of "lawyering" technique. Nevertheless, it would appear that the Administration, undoubtedly influenced by political and image considerations, virtually ignored the lack of any substantial evidence in the Record to indicate that the levels it has set are technologically feasible and will require the imposition of a tremendous burden on those whom the Act is designed to protect, i.e. employees, by compelling a great many of them to wear respirators for extended periods of time. Imposing such a burden on employees is contrary to the spirit of the Act, as is the promulgation of a Standard which sets limits that are technologi cally infeasible to achieve." RSV 0014045