Document NM1NrLVjx9O3JNqeE8eQK6Gp

CLIFFNOEWRJDERSPE.YCASE 'TilCmfeb J>iatc:s sSicruxle WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510 Dr. Roy T. Gottesman Director Tenneco Chemicals Park 80 Plaza West-One Saddle Brook, NJ 07662 Dear Dr. Gottesman: October 5, 1977 committees APPROPRIATIONS FOREIGN RELATIONS INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT BOARD COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE RECEIVED OCT 7W rigoitesman Enclosed is a copy of the report I have received in response to my inquiry in your behalf. It is, I believe, self-explanatory but if you have any questions about it, please don't hesitate to let me know. Sincerely CPC/nbd Enclosure Clifford P. Case U. S. Senator COLORITE 019153 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 SEP 3 0 1977 THE ADMINISTRATOR Honorable Clifford P. Case United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510 Dear Senator Case: Thank you for your Inquiry of August 24, 1977, and the accompanying correspondence from Dr. Roy T. Gottesman regarding EPA's vinyl chloride standard and the settlement of litigation involving that standard with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). In addressing Dr. Gottesman's concerns, I will try to clarify some misunderstandings that have arisen about this matter. As Dr. Gottesman indicated in his letter, the litigation with EDF concerned EPA's original standard to control emissions of vinyl chloride, promulgated on October 21, 1976 (41 FR 46560). I should emphasize that vinyl chloride Is a known carcinogen with no known safe level of exposure. The applicable provision of the Clean Air Act requires ERA to prescribe standards for such pollutants at a level that will protect the public health with an "ample margin of safety" (Section 112, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-7). As explained in the course of the rulemaking, that provision might be interpreted as requiring EPA to ban vinyl chloride emissions entirely, which. In turn, could have the effect of closing the entire industry. Because It Is not clear that Congress intended such a result, EPA Instead required what appeared to be the lowest level achievable by the use of best available control technology (see 40 FR 59534, December 24, 1975; 41 FR 46562, October 21, 1976). The Industry did not seek judicial review of the standard as promulgated, EDF's challenge, however, raised the possibility of a court ruling to the effect that EPA must ban vipyl chloride emissions entirely. Thus, a major objective in settling the case was to remove the cloud of uncertainty that the litigation had placed over the standard and efforts to comply with it. COLORITE 019154 I2 Further, the settlement simply committed EPA to propose various amendments to the original standard, which was done on June 2, 1977 (42 FR 28154). In general, the proposed amendments would require more efficient use of existing control technology at existing plants and more effective control* at new plants. As has been explained quite thoroughly ' .......-.-,,.,nhn^Si EPA has made no commitment whatsoever to ' 'nr the close of the public ie whether any of the -'ubllc health with an "ample ui rftaiccy. I have asked my Acting General Counsel to examine EPA's actions in opposing industry Intervention In the litigation with EDF and in settling that litigation, and she has assured me that these actions were not Improper. EPA opposed several Industry motions to Intervene because they were filed after the statutory deadline for seeking judicial review of the standard, and because any arguments Industry wished to present In opposition to EDF's challenge could be presented in an amicus curiae brief. As to the nature of the settlement with EDF, I do not believe it has prejudiced Industry In any way. As Indicated above. It only committed EPA to propose certain amendments; It does not require EPA to promulgate them. Indeed, EPA could have proposed such amendments even If there had been no litigation or settlement. If any of the proposed amendments are ultimately promulgated, It will only be after full opportunity for the Industry and other members of the public to comnent on them; Industry will be free to seek judicial review of any such amendments If It chooses. Finally, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which ultimately dismissed the litigation, was fully aware of Industry's lack of participation in the settlement discussions and evidently did not consider this an obstacle to dismissal. With respect to Industry's efforts to comply with the original standard, the preamble to the proposed amendments indicated that EPA did not Intend to interfere with these efforts by forcing replacement of control systems that companies had already Installed or contracted to purchase. The same point has been made to various Industry representatives by EPA personnel. EPA has made every effort to explain Its proposal to industry. A joint Industry-EPA technical session was held In Durham, North Carolina, on June 2, 1977. On July 19, 1977, a public hearing was held In which the Industry participated. On September 8, 1977, another meeting with Industry, EDF, and EPA In attendance was held for further discussion of the proposal. All suggestions made by Industry at these meetings or In written contnents submitted to the Agency will be fully considered after the close of the cormient period. COLORITE 019155 3 EPA Is now receiving numerous comments from Industry and other members of the public concerning the proDOsed amendments. Interested parties are certainly welcome to review all Items which have been docketed In the rulemaking. To my knowledge, however, no data have been submitted that Indicate any reduction In the public health hazard presented by vinyl chloride. Because the original standard did not require the elimination of all vinyl chloride emissions, I believe EPA Is justified in reconsidering whether that standard provides the degree of public health protection mandated by the Clean Air Act. Until all public comments are evaluated, however, we will not know what changes to the standard, If any, are warranted. I appreciate your Interest In EPA's programs under the Clean Air Act and hope you will contact me If you have any further questions. Sincerely yours, /s/ Douglas M. Costle Douglas M. Costle f COLOR!TE 019156 II' W& 'l:: A',-" ::;ji 'a ir Pt IA'M` I')''-:., II V'^l. _ KtLLU x l/`X Jii'.Lf - \ ___u . . '^r? *> ; , ^* j * -,. J / 1`XU.C. j^tCc -`-if / V^.i! i#-'i nrl J.kccci.. - |!lr ;p:r i #f< . *!:':& 1/: XSjXOc .8.v ||11,- '.Ssrttacp^ 1f ll'lfc; COLOR!TE 019158 ri: ` COLORXTE 01915* COLOR!TE 019167