Document 82qnvJBM7bKZD7NJ3obw6GKBk

1991 PROPOSED HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL BUDGET H/H 40 April 6, 1990 HEALTH AND PRODUCT SAFETY PROGRAM This program provides the focus for health related components of legislative and regulatory issues. It is also responsible for all benzene activity and legislative and regulatory issues pertaining to SARA Title III, Hazard Communication, Worker Protection, TSCA, and CERCLA spill reporting. The program serves as an initial screen or scoping body to evaluate health-related issues that serve as the foundation for regulatory decisions and standards. Finally, it performs independent review of government issued health assessments of petroleum related products (e.g. ATSDR, IARC, etc. documents). The base case budget of $1,200K is a lower level of funding than that for 1990 ($1,425K.) At the base case & 30% level ($1,700K), additional needed research for toxicity testing of chemicals, SARA Title III, and worker protection issues is included. TABLE OF CONTENTS Budget Summaries Strategic Plans: Health/Toxic Issues, Rules SARA Title III Emissions Worker Exposure & Health Benzene Page 1-6 7 9 11 13 DTH 000034249 H/H 40 1 April 6, 1990 HEALTH AID PRODOCT SAFHTT PROGRAMS TOPIC (OPT. 1) BASE-CASE $K (OPT. 3) BASE CASK +30% UNCONSTRAINED* HBALTH/TOXIC ISSUES/ TEST RULES 150 375 700 SARA TITLE III EMISSIONS 275 375 915 WORKER EXPOSURE HEALTH 75 250 520 BENZENE 700 700 1050 DIOXIN 0 TOTAL 1,200 TOTAL REQUESTED BT PROGRAM GROUP. 0 1,700 0 3,185 I)TH 000034250 H/H 40 2 NEEDED RESEARCH NOT INCLUDED IN BASE CASE (Descending Priority) April 6, 1990 1. Toxicity Testing of Chemicals 2. Emission Factors - Waste Water Streams 3. Compile Workplace Exposure Data 4. Response to Occupational Medicine Issues 5 Spill Exposure Monitoring & ProtectiveEquipment TOTAL * PROPOSED DELETION TO MEET OPT. 2 LEVEL. $K 225 100 50 25 *100 500 DTH 000034251 H/H 25 3 April 6, 1990 1991 BUDGET MATRIX - HEALTH/TOXIC ISSUES. RULES PROJECTS BOSE CASE REQUEST 1. REGULATORY RESPONSE FOR HEALTH EFFECTS. Consultants win be retained to assist in ravlawlng selected toxicological prof lias and othar health and environmental affacts mattars and for praparing advocacy commants to raspond to ragulatory Inltlatlvas. 2. TOXICITY TESTING OF CHEMICALS. Tasting will ba conductad on Individual compounds and mlxturas of Importance to the patrolaum Industry to provide data Input to government development of health based standards. Considerations will be given to Innovative test1ng/research approaches. ( SK ) REQUESTED BUDGET 75 75 total base case OTHER PROJECTS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES 1. ADDITIONAL TOXICITY TESTING OF CHEMICALS. Continuation of 2 above. TOTAL BASE CASE * 30% siso 225 $375 DEPT. MEAD HESD HESD DTH 000034252 H/H 25 4 April 6, 1990 1991 BUDGET MATRIX - SARA TITLE III EMISSIONS PROJECTS BASE CASE REQUEST 1. LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY RESPONSE FOR SARA TITLE III ISSUES. Providesfunding for consultants to assist in analyzing regulations/1egisi at 1 on and in praparation of position papars. 2. SARA TITLE III EMISSIONS (BAGGING OATA).Furthar rafina amission factor data obtained in Phasas I and II of tha fugitive amissions factor project by obtaining actual mass amission data (component bagging.) Incorporate data into revised amission factor equat1ons. () REQUESTED BUOGET 75 200 OEPT. HEAD hESD TOTAL BASE CASE OTHER PROJECTS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES 1. EMISSION FACTORS - WASTEWATER STREAMS. Oevelop factors for air emissions from wastewater streams applicable for Title III reporting. S275 100 HESD TOTAL BASE CASE 30* S375 DTH 000034253 H/H 25 5 April 6, 1990 1991 BUDGET MATRIX - WORKER EXPOSURE AND HEALTH PROJECTS BASE CASE REQUEST 1. RESPONSE TO WORKER PROTECTION ISSUES. Analyze and respond OSHA Initiatives and legislative davalopmants re occupational safety and health including respiratory protection standard, exposure monitoring, medical surveillance etc. to ( SK ) REQUESTED BUOGET 75 TOTAL BASE CASE OTHER PROJECTS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES 1. WORKPLACE EXPOSURE DATA. Gather all existing available data from member companies on workplace monitoring and exposure to benzene and other chemical substances. Perform a comprehensive summary and analysis of data. 2. RESPONSE TO OCCUPATIONAL WEDICINE ISSUES. Items include literature reviews, workshops, and/or consultant support to address Issues such as biomarkers, neurotoxicity, immune disorders, employee assistance etc. 3. SPILLS EXPOSURE MONITORING AND PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT. Develop air monitoring methods for evaluating worker exposure during oil spill cleanup. Identify personnel protective equipment having permeation data and prepare reference manual. TOTAL BASE CASE 30* PROPOSED DELETION TO MEET OPT. 2 LEVEL. 175 50 25 *100 S250 DEPT. HEAD HEAD HESO HESD DTH 000034254 H/H 25 6 April 6, 1990 1991 BUDGET MATRIX - BENZENE PROJECTS BASE CASE REQUEST 1. Biologically Basad Banzana Risk Assassmant. (Cox Associates) Develop a biologically basad benzene risk assessment to reflect results of ongoing research and changes risk polIcy. in 2. Regulatory and Legislative Response. Additional reports and studies for regulatory and litigation responses. Conferences to present research findings. 3. Cellular Toxicity of Benzene (Dr. Richard Irons, University of Co 1orado) Multi-year program to determine the cellular toxicity of benzene and its metabolites and the relationship of the toxicity to benzenes leukemogenic effects. A. Metabolism of benzene (CIIT) A multi-year program to Identify metabolites of benzene in animal models, the pharmacokinetics of benzene metabolites, and mechanism of metabolite toxicity. TOTAL BASE CASE TOTAL BASE CASE 30* ( SK ) REQUESTED BUDGET DEPT. 100 HEA0 100 250 250 HEAD HESD HESD S700 $700 DTH 000034255 H/H 40 7 April 6, 1990 TOPIC: HEALTH/TOXIC ISSUES, RULES (N/M) ISSUE/IMPACT The increasing pressure to reduce health and environmental risks associated with petroleum industry products, processes, releases, and disposal methods cannot be overstated. Recently proposed Drinking Water Standards, Corrective Action (RCRA 3004(U)) requirements, and RCRA Toxicity Characteristics (OTC) activities underscore the fact that the Federal Government will attempt to maximize public health protection by minimizing petroleum contaminant levels. The key to determining the allowable level in the air, land, or water is the health effects caused or suspected to be caused by the compound. EPA and other entities conduct health effects reviews on many compounds. The health effect review results in a judgment of the potential hazards associated with the chemical which then guides the extent of action to reduce exposure. Thus, the industry's ability to affect the process of determining clean-up levels is heavily dependent on our ability to participate in the compound's health review. Activities to address the toxicity of chemicals and products include: o EPA health effects reviews compiled in IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System), an on-line catalogue of EPA risk assessment and reference dose (RfD) information. o The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies compounds with respect to carcinogenic hazard. o EPAs Office of Drinking Water sets Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for many chemicals in drinking water which are used as clean up standards for RCRA and CERCLA programs. o The Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry (ATSDR) compiles data on compounds. These compilations form the basis of recommended research needs. ATSDR also conducts health assessments on all the National Priority List (NPL) sites and other sites. Impact on the industry could take several forms. The most significant problem is that health based standards are used to justify more stringent clean-up requirements, and as a consequence, raise the cost to the industry. The industry must also bear the expense of follow-up groundwater monitoring and other related technical requirements. OTH 000034256 . C 8 April 6, 1990 The increasing number and availability of compound specific activities could also influence the number of toxic tort cases and their potential outcome. STRATEGY OUTLINE I. REGULATORY Objective - To monitor and critique information provided by others on the potential health effects of petroleum products and related chemicals and to develop new information as necessary. A. Research 1. Publish API research in peer reviewed journals. 2. Conduct toxicology studies on products and processes important to the industry to influence the development of health based standards. B. Response 1. Review and critique ATSDR tox profiles for chemicals of interest and respond to generic issues such as procedures for health assessments, health studies. 2. Examine available alternative methods for estimating human health risk assessment for direct application in the standard setting process. 2. Respond to efforts to revise cancer guidelines and/or OSHA and state agency use of carcinogen classification schemes. a. Respond to emerging issues such as chemical hyper sensitivity syndrome, use of biomarkers etc, by conducting literature reviews, workshops and consultant critiques. C. Networking Maintain liaison with EPA, AICH, CMA and others on the above issues and conduct cooperative efforts as appropriate. DTH 000034257 H/H 40 9 April 6, 1990 TOPIC: SARA TITLE III (M/M) ISSPE/IMPACT In 1991 the availability of three years of data from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) will likely fuel legislative and regula tory initiatives under Title III of SARA. If trend analyses show little in the way of reductions, the scheduled reauthorization of SARA may focus on prescribed remedies to attenuate emissions. In this case, the data may also be used to justify additional air toxics legislation such as those proposed by Congressman Waxman. On the regulatory front, the continued reporting of unrealistically high values could provide the impetus for rulemakings to increase the number of chemicals reported, reduce the triggers for reporting or expand the industrial sectors subject to the rule, or impose unnecessarily stringent control technology (e.g., maximum available control technology or "MACT"). Additional pressure for change is being generated by state and local agencies deluged with Sections 311/312 information, which the EPA does not assist them in evaluating. Any of these legislative or regulatory initiatives will increase compliance costs for the industry. Moreover, perceptions that the industry has not already exerted a major effort to reduce emissions can sustain the public impression that the industry is a major part of the environmental problem and not a party working for its solution. STRATEGY OUTLINE I. REGULATORY To ensure the information reported under Title III of SARA is valid, reliable, and in a useful format,; to foster appreciation of the limitations of some of the TRI information vis-a-vis assessing needs for emission controls; to assist emergency response agencies in using existing right-to-know and emergency planning information to meet their response planning needs. A. Research 1. Continue development/refinement of emission factors for calculating emissions from fixed and fugitive sources. This involves collecting leak rate bagging data from member companies to use in further refining fugitive emission factors (Phase III). Additionally, ascertain if it is possible to develop better emission factors for fugitives from waste water processing. 2. Conduct a comprehensive measurement and monitoring study that measures both refinery emissions and actual upwind/downwind concentrations at the fenceline. DTH 000034258 H/H 40 10 April 6, 1990 3. Conduct a thorough study regarding how Title III data is used, and what is being done by both member companies, as well as chemical companies to reduce emissions reportable under Title III. 4. Examine exhaustively the state and local actions which have arisen regarding Title III and potential modifications these entities might advocate during SARA Reauthorization. 5. Prepare materials (e.g., video tape) which will serve to inform EPA regional, state and local Title III entities about API's unique approach to reporting under Sections 311 and 312 for production operations; these materials will discourage additional regulatory requirements by demonstrating safety and environmental controls already in place. 6. Conduct a study or studies of member companies to determine each industry sector's cost of compliance with all major provisions of Title III, particularly Sections 311, 312, and 313. B. Response 1. Monitor and analyze developments in legislation to reauthorize SARA or use Section 313 data for other uses, or expand collection of Section313 data beyond manufacturing. 2. Continue to support existing reporting alternatives, options and exceptions particularly those that pertain to expansion in reporting requirements (substances, trigger levels or parties subject to reporting). C. Networking 1. Work cooperatively with CMA, PMAA, IPAA, SIGMA and regional oil & gas associations to identify areas of common concern, as well as those issues that are unique to the petroleum industry. II. PUBLIC OPINION Oil industry facilities are incorrectly perceived as one of the major contributors to air pollution and global warming. Our products are used in combustion processes which do contribute to these concerns. The industry needs to realistically assess these concerns. DTH 000034259 H/H 40 11 April 6, 1990 TOPIC: WORKER EXPOSURE AND HEALTH (M/M) ISSUE/IMPACT In an effort to accelerate the regulatory process, OSHA is expected to promulgate a series of generic rulemakings, including medical surveillance, exposure monitoring and methods of compliance regulation. Concurrently, it is likely that the Agency will continue to pursue the refinement of the permissible exposure limits (PELs) contained in the revised Z-Tables for individual and classes of substances. In particular, further refinement of petroleum products, including Stoddard solvent and petroleum distillates, is possible. Additionally, Congress is considering two types of innovative legislation: (1) notification of employees of occupational disease risks and medical monitoring privileges; and (2) enactment of "Whistleblower protection" to prevent discrimination for reporting unsafe or unhealthy work conditions. Such legislation could deny employers Fifth Amendment due process rights and provide workers the "right to refuse to work." STRATEGY OUTLINE I. REGULATORY The industry will proactively attempt to shape the course of OSHA's generic rulemakings by developing model medical surveillance and monitoring programs and technology transfer or substitute mechanisms. This action will result from: (1) the extreme difficulty of reversing the anticipated regulatory course; (2) the negative associations that will stem from attempting to delay or stonewall these proceedings; and (3) the secondary gains that can accrue from attempting to take a leading role in promoting worker health screening methods. A. Research 1. Collect and analyze existing company data on total hydrocarbon and benzene- employee exposure for use in responding to legislative/regulatory developments. 2. Sponsor a workshop for addressing employee personal protective equipment and monitoring concerns for petroleum spills and OSHA's Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response regulation. B. Response 1. Respond to proposed rulemakings on medical surveillance and employee exposure monitoring; 2. Analyze final rules on respiratory protection and point of compliance; if appropriate, plan and conduct seminars to increase member company . understanding of new requirements; DTH 000034260 H/H 40 12 April 6, 1990 3. Monitor and analyze developments in legislation pertaining to reauthorization of the OSH Act, employee notification and Whistleblower protection. C. Networking 1. Keep lines of communication open with ORC, CMA and NAM, particularly if API decides to take an active role in shaping acceptable approaches to medical surveillance and exposure monitoring; II. LITIGATION If decisions are made for the petroleum industry to become the role model, any new litigation must be carefully evaluated for consistency with the proactive position taken on medical surveillance and employee exposure monitoring. III. POBLIC OPINION If the industry adopts the active stance advocated above and attempts to set the standard for the new worker protection initiatives, this could have positive public relations ramifications. Satisfied employees could serve as emissaries to the community, fostering a more positive view of the industry. A DTH 000034261 H/H 40 13 April 6, 1990 TOPIC: BENZENE (H/H) ISSPE/IMPACT Benzene is the chemical in petroleum products that is driving new health and environmental regulatory actions. These include Federal air and occupational regulations, groundwater clean up standards under CERCLA and RCRA, and waste management practices under RCRA. Benzene is the primary justification for the removal of aromatics from gasoline. These actions have multi-billion dollar impacts associated with them. The petroleum industry needs to develop a sound scientific basis for assessing the risks from benzene. Current information is sufficient to establish the nature, but not the extent, of the hazards from benzene exposure. In the absence of information on the extent of the hazards, governmental bodies make conservative assumptions which overestimate the risk and result in needless regulations. The overall goal of this program is to gain a fundamental understanding of the health effects of benzene and the extent of human exposure to benzene to adequately protect workers, customers, and the general public. Further, this information must be developed in a fashion which will be acceptable to regulatory bodies. STRATEGY OUTLINE I. REGULATORY The Benzene Task Force will sponsor research which will ensure that the methods used by EPA and state regulatory bodies to establish safe levels of exposure to benzene are technically valid and cost effective. The Task Force will seek to insure that the regulating bodies utilize reasonable policy interpretations of environmental statutes in setting environmental control requirements by the following efforts: A. Research 1. Develop an accurate, scientifically supportable model for benzene leukemogenic effects. 2. Define a threshold benzene level that would establish safe exposure levels in the workplace, ambient air, and water. 3. Develop a more realistic approach to assessing individual and population exposure to benzene, broadly applicable for regulating toxic air contaminants. DTH 000034262 v/tf /,Q Apr ^r B. Response 1. Develop of alternative estimates of leukemogenic potency for defining safe levels of exposure to benzene in regulatory actions under the CCA, CWA, and RCRA. 2. Redefine maximum exposure to revise current policies of worst case exposure analysis. 3. Work to develop a consistent approach for regulation of benzene under all statutes. C. Networking 1. Work cooperatively with CMA, WSPA, and others to conduct benzene research and convey the result to the appropriate agencies. II. LITIGATION To continue the development of a record supporting the industry's contention that current benzene exposures, both in the workplace and in the community, do not pose a significant health risk by: Providing material generated under the research program and regulatory response to the Office of General Council for use in appropriate litigation activities. III. PUBLIC OPINION To provide perspective on benzene risks in ambient air and water for communicating toxic release information to the public by: Preparing public advocacy documents for company use in communicating "right-to-know" information on benzene emissions to communities. Develop better information on the levels of benzene in the environment and the sources of .benzene exposure, including the relatively minor role industrial air emissions play in human benzene exposure. Develop clearer understanding of benzene risks in the scientific community by publishing the results of API research on the toxicity benzene and the potential for human exposure. DTH 000034263