Document RpM2ooLa5qBwdam6nndLava18

LtU U W M o* 5*3 ChemRisk A Division of McLaren/Hart Siroudwatcr Crossing 1685 Congress Sircci Portland, ME 04102 (207) 774-0012 FAX (207) 774-8263 DRAFT REPORT May 3, 1993 ChemRisk has completed a preliminary review of a letter to EPA from Greenpeace dated February 22, 1993. The letter comments on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by EPA (1992) for the expansion of the Formosa Plastics Corporation facility in Point Comfort, TX. In our review of the Greenpeace letter, we discovered numerous factual errors relating to technical points. Greenpeace appears to have misinterpreted some of the sources cited, assumed that data from one Swedish ethylene dichloride (EDC) production facility is applicable to all EDC production facilities, and reached the unsupported conclusion that extreme risks to human health are associated with this process. Concerns regarding these issues are further detailed below. Editorial Issues Concerns regarding editorial issues were raised when, in an effort to verify the Greenpeace's interpretation of information cited in their letter, a search for primary references was undertaken. It soon became clear that certain citations were unavailable, others were misinterpreted, and others were clearly marked by their authors "Do Not Cite or Quote" for reasons of confidentiality or draft status. The cited portions of those references which we have been able to obtain are included as attachments to this letter. Enclosure 1 provides a list of citations that are unavailable from the source identified in the Greenpeace letter, and reports the status of obtaining other references that Greenpeace cited. Examples include: 1) Fisher-Gundlach (1990). The data to which Greenpeace refers on page 2 of their letter regarding Nordic TCDD equivalents, are attributable to Ahlborg (1990) rather than Fisher-Gundlach (1990). The confusion with these citations appears n n i d u & B AHA * ChemRisk A Division of McLaren/Hart May 3, 1993 - DRAFT Page 2 attributable to the fact that Fisher-Gundlach (1990) appears immediately after Ahlborg (1990) in the Dioxin `90 Conference Proceedings. Both of these presentations are enclosed (Enclosure 2). 2) EPA(1992). EPA's Scientific Reassessment ofDioxin: A Status Briefing for the Deputy Administrator is cited on page 9 of the Greenpeace letter, regarding recent scientific conclusions of EPA on the toxicity of dioxin. This document could not be located through EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), although the citation specifies that ORD issued the briefing. Additionally, John Schaura of ORD specified that briefings are not appropriate to cite because they are neither peerreviewed nor published (personal communication, 1993). Schaum also stated that his office had recently received a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for this document, but had denied the request because the document could not be found. Additional information regarding our efforts to retrieve the briefing is detailed in Enclosure 1. 3) Swedish EPA (1992). Upon request of this report from the Swedish EPA, the Agency indicated that they were not aware of any document with that citation. The Swedish EPA did, however, provide a summary of the action in question (in English) as well as the text of the ruling (in Swedish). The Swedish text was translated and copies of the original Swedish text, the translation, and summary are included (Enclosure 3). In the Swedish case, Greenpeace voiced many of the concerns that they raised in their letter of February 22, but the Swedish EPA did not support the appeal. In a number of instances, Greenpeace misinterpreted the cited material. Some examples are presented below. 1) On page 5 of the Greenpeace letter, data are presented on releases of dioxin from the Norsk Hydro Facility in 1991, based on Figure 11.6 (p. 165) of Kamsvag (1992). This figure is included (Enclosure 4). The figure presents flow rates of dioxin between processes in Norsk Hydro's VCM production facility. Greenpeace 66HZ0Z000 ChemRisk A Division of McLaren/Hart May 3, 1993 - DRAFT 'Page 3 misinterpreted this figure to indicate that all rates given are outputs from the entire facility, rather than fluxes between processes within the facility. Figure 11.6 clearly indicates that 0.3 g/year are released to air, 0.04 g/year are released to water, and 0.03 g/year are released with the product, for a total release rate of 0.37 g/year. Greenpeace, on the other hand, asserts that the figure indicates that 3.465 g/year are released. 2) On page 4 of the Greenpeace letter, Kamsvag (1992) is quoted out of context as follows: Unfortunately, there are no publicly available data on the emissions from other production plants .. . but it is our impression that Norsk Hydro's emissions compare well with those of other producers. It is our intention to be among the very best producers in terms of emission standards. (Kamsvag, 1992, p. 22) An earlier portion of the same paragraph - not provided in the Greenpeace letter describes the critical importance of the particular production process and its emissions to the environmental impact of the product. Photocopies of pages 21 and 22 are included (Enclosure 5). 3) On page 8 of Greenpeace's letter, Kramlich et al. (1989) is incorrectly quoted as stating that DREs have not been met when chemicals are present in wastes at concentrations of 10,000 ppm or less. The value actually stated by Kramlich et al. (1989) is 1,000 ppm or less. Greenpeace's technical misunderstanding of DREs is further described later in this letter. 4) Also on page 8, Greenpeace quotes Lowrance's (1992) memo without providing adequate supporting text. This supplementary text is included (Enclosure 6). 5) Lorber (1993), cited by Greenpeace on page 9 of their letter, refers to potential risks to human health associated with emissions from a hazardous waste incinerator. Although the paper is cited incorrectly (the assessment was actually issued by William Farland, Director of the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment of m m m s ona A CbemRisk A Division of McLaren/Hart May 3, 1993 - DRAFT Page 4 EPA), of greater importance is the fact that the quote is taken out of context. Farland's memorandum states on the first page that the Screening Level Analysis "is not exhaustive in its analysis, nor does it characterize dioxin hazards. It should not be construed as a comprehensive risk assessment and should not be generalized to other sites." The next paragraph goes on to say, "We have used conservative, hypothetical exposure scenarios which relate to plausible but unlikely situations surrounding the WTI site. The resulting exposure estimates lead to upper bound risk predictions which are not likely to underpredict risk. Actual risks are likely to be less and may even be zero." A copy of the cover sheet is included (Enclosure 7). A final editorial concern raised by the Greenpeace letter relates to Greenpeace's citing of documents marked "Do Not Cite or Quote." Generally, documents are marked in this way when they are in draft form, have not undergone technical review, or are for internal use only. Examples of such cited documents are presented below. 1) William Farland's 1993 memorandum, discussed above, is clearly marked, "Work Product - Privileged and Confidential - Deliberative Process, Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite" on every page. Because of the confidential nature of the memorandum, it seems inappropriate for Greenpeace to quote from it 2) The EPA (1992) document Chapter 8 Dose Response Relationships (EPA/600/AP92/001h), cited by Greenpeace as Gallo (1992), is marked "Do Not Cite or Quote" on the cover and on every page, because it is a Workshop Review Draft. 3) EPA (1988) A Cancer Risk-Specific Dose Estimate for 2,3,7,8-TCDD: Review Draft, cited by Greenpeace on page 5 of their letter, also contains the "Do Not Cite or Quote" admonition. This document is an external review draft as suggested by its title. As additional material is received by ChemRisk, it will be integrated in an updated version of this report. ChemRisk A Division of McLaren/Hart -May 3. 1993 - DRAFT Page 5 So o Technical Issues The Greenpeace letter also raises several technical issues, many of which are based on questionable assumptions. First, Greenpeace assumes a level of comparability among EDO production facilities that does not account for differences in regulations, engineering, or site characteristics. Second, it appears that Greenpeace miscalculated risks to human health. Third, conclusions regarding the Vertac incinerator appear to be outdated. Concerning the level of comparability that Greenpeace assumed, it is inappropriate to infer the performance of one EDC production facility based on data from a different facility. While dioxin may be released from Norsk Hydro, data do not exist to support the same conclusions for other EDC facilities. In issuing permits in the United States, state environmental agencies consider numerous site-specific factors in establishing permit requirements. Facilities located in areas with relatively low population densities, stable atmospheric conditions, and/or advanced waste management practices can substantially limit risks to human health and, as a result, may be permitted at different levels than would be allowed for facilities lacking these protective attributes. Largely as a result in different regulatory requirements, the types and efficiencies of air pollution control devices at various EDC production facilities are unlikely to be identical or even comparable. Differences in EDC production facility designs, processes, and operating practices also contribute to the difficulty of extrapolating from one facility to another. Operator control practices are likely to vary depending on the experience and skill of individual engineers. Likewise, the quality and type of feedstock directly influence the purity of EDC produced and the level and type of emissions from the process. Because different grades of EDC are produced for different purposes, varying levels of purity and refinement are expected both within and between facilities. Greenpeace does not explore any of these potential differences between Norsk Hydro and other facilities. Also, potential risks associated with individual facilities depend on the locations of key receptor (i.e,, population) groups. The population density and presence of sensitive subpopulations are not likely to be identical for any two facilities and, as a result, even if emissions were comparable, risks attributable to any two facilities would differ. VRD 000 20 27502 A ChemRisk A Division of McLaren/Hart May 3, 1993 - DRAFT Page 6 Although Greenpeace does not include any of the calculations or assumptions applied in their calculation of risk, it appears that they may have misapplied or miscalculated potential risks to human health associated with EDC production. In their letter, Greenpeace repeatedly refers to population risks (e.g., " . . . exceeds the acceptable lifetime intake for more than 320 million people," "exceeds the acceptable daily intake for more than 2.8 million adults," and "risks of cancer deaths caused by dioxin emitted from one hazardous waste incinerator ... are estimated at 42 deaths per one million people). These statements raise several concerns regarding Greenpeace's understanding of the practice of human health risk assessment. As detailed in the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (EPA, 1989), the Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD) is multiplied by the Cancer Slope Factor (CSF) in order to estimate the 95 percentile upper-bound incremental risk (i.e., probability) that an individual might develop cancer within his or her lifetime as a result of exposure to a carcinogen. Greenpeace appears to assume that a risk of 10-6 (i in one million) refers to one cancer death per one million persons, rather than a probability of 0.000001 that an individual may develop cancer, which is the correct interpretation. The LADD is calculated for an individual and is based on numerous assumptions regarding the behavior of an individual and his or her potential for exposure to a carcinogen. As a sidenote, the current science of risk assessment cannot estimate the likelihood of death by cancer, but rather estimates the probability of an individual developing cancer. Due to the absence of supporting data for Greenpeace's risk calculations, it is impossible to fully understand the source of their risk estimates. At a minimum, the basic assumptions regarding exposure and the methods used to calculate risks should be presented with the risk estimates. However, EPA (1989) correctly specifies that, "a risk characterization cannot be considered complete unless the numerical expressions of risk are accompanied by explanatory text interpreting and qualifying the results." Indeed, results regarding risks associated with any chemical (and especially with dioxin) are likely to be relatively uncertain, due to: uncertainty in the potency of dioxin; application of the Linearized Multistage model to derive CSF; extrapolation of toxicity data from animals to humans; extrapolation of toxicity data from high dose to low dose; VRD 000 2027503 CbemRisk A Division of McLaren/Hart .. May 3, 1993 - DRAFT Page 7 likelihood of exposure pathways being complete; potential degradation of chemicals over time; and, individual variation in exposure frequency, duration, and intensity. Given these uncertainties, it is inappropriate to present potential risks without additional qualification. Greenpeace refers to the February 12, 1993 decision by Federal Judge Stephen Reasoner regarding the inacceptability of surrogate compounds in demonstrating 99.9999 percent destruction or removal efficiency (DRE) for dioxin for operation of the Vertac facility in Jacksonville, Arkansas. Since Greenpeace's letter was written, this decision has been reversed. In the opinion of Circuit Judge McMillian, . . . granting the stay, and allowing the incinerator to operate, serves the public interest because doing nothing to the thousands of drums of hazardous wastes involves substantial risks of accidental and uncontrolled releases of toxic substances into the environment, whereas incineration destroys the toxic substances. We do not underestimate the environmental problems associated with incineration, but we think defendants have shown that, particularly in light of the EPA's continuous monitoring of air quality at the Vertac site and its detailed specific risk assessment, which included the assessment of the risks of food-chain and inhalation exposure, a stay will not harm, and may in fact benefit, other interested parties and the public interest (1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 7002). The history of the Vertac site is included for your records (Enclosure 8). It is also dated and will require tracking to maintain current conditions. To the best of our knowledge, both the Vertac incinerator and the WTI incinerator (referred to earlier in this analysis) are currently operational. In general, some confusion exists regarding the implications of not achieving "six nines" when very low concentrations of dioxin are present and the use of surrogate compounds to demonstrate DRE. Contrary to Greenpeace's interpretation, if "six nines" are not achieved at very low concentrations of dioxin, it is likely related to the level of precision which is technically possible in sampling and measuring very low levels, rather than the actual performance of an incinerator. Also, EPA has traditionally encouraged the use of surrogate compounds to demonstrate DRE for several reasons, including: 1) surrogate compounds are generally less toxic than dioxin; 2) surrogate compounds are generally more difficult to destroy than dioxin; and 3) wastes may be ChemRisk A Division of McLaren/Hart May 3, 1993 - DRAFT Page 8 spiked with precise quantities of surrogate compounds, ensuring that DRE may be calculated to four decimal places. Finally, Greenpeace makes the assumption that, because the descriptions of Norsk Hydro's "EDC Tar" and the Formosa's "still bottoms" or "distillation bottoms" are similar, their compositions are also similar. This logic is flawed because the composition of the byproducts of EDC production is directly related to the production process, feed stock, purity of product, and other facility-specific factors. In fact, the wastes to which Greenpeace refers are neither EDC tars nor heavy ends, because neither contains adequate residual product to allow for efficient recycling. Venue Greenpeace also raises several concerns regarding additional informational needs, such as: 1) congener-specific analyses of polychlorinated dioxins and furans for many different production streams, 2) descriptions of on-site recycling/reclamation technologies, 3) detailed descriptions of off-site recycling facilities and their emissions, and 4) current and projected quantities of EDC, VCM distillation bottoms, heavy ends, and light ends and their final destination. Although some of the points made by Greenpeace are of interest, an EIS is not the appropriate venue for addressing them. An EIS is an initial, interdisciplinary analysis of all potential environmental effects resulting from a proposed action, rather than a comprehensive assessment detailing every aspect of an industry and the products and wastes produced. Greenpeace states that the information needs listed in their letter should have been included in the EIS for the proposed expansion of the Formosa facility. In actuality, much of the information requested by Greenpeace to be included in the EIS is: 1) beyond the scope of an EIS, 2) found in other documents, and/or 3) proprietary information. Information regarding off-site recycling, congener-specific analysis of polychlorinated dioxins and furans for many different production streams, and current and projected quantities and destinations of EDC and VCM wastes are beyond the scope of an EIS. Greenpeace also asks for descriptions in the EIS of on-site recycling/reclamation technologies. In general, this information is proprietary and, therefore, not appropriate to divulge in a public document where concerns over competitive disadvantages may reign. 505LZ0ZB00 OH ChemRisk A Division of McLaren/Hart -May 3, 1993 - DRAFT Page 9 In conclusion, ChemRisk found numerous factual errors in Greenpeace's letter, including editorial mistakes, technical misinterpretations, and perceived scope of an Environmental Impact Statement. We are most concerned with Greenpeace's misinterpretation of sources cited, assumption that data from one Swedish EDC production facility are applicable to all EDC plants, and unsupported presentation of risks to human health. Our review has been undertaken to offer the full text of Greenpeace-cited information so that a full, unbiased evaluation may be performed. If you require additional information or have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Russell E. Keenan, Ph.D. National Director, ChemRisk Division Chief Health Scientist and Regional Manager, McLaren/Hart Michael N. Gray Senior Associate Environmental Scientist Project Manager <r VRD W 2 0 2 7506 ChemRisk A Division of McLaren/Hart May 3, 1993 - DRAFT " Page 10 REFERENCES Ahlborg, U.G. 1990. Research and regulation of dioxins and related compounds in Sweden. Organohalogen Compounds 4:36-40. EPA. 1988. A Cancer Risk-Specific Dose Estimate for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; Review Draft. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/6-88/007ab. June. EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual Part A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. Report No. 9285.701A. July. EPA. 1992. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/906/07-92-001. July, (cited in Greenpeace, 1993). EPA. 1992. EPA's Scientific Reassessment of Dioxin: A Status Briefing for the Deputy Administrator. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. February 14. (cited in Greenpeace, 1993). EPA. 1992. Health Assessments for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Related Compounds, Workshop Review Draft: Chapter 8. Dose Response Relationships. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/600/AP-92/001h. August. Farland, W.H. 1993. Memo to B. Grant and G. Goldman, Attorneys, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC from W.H. Farland, Director, Office of Research and Development. Re: WTI Screening Level Assessment. February 8. Fisher-Gundlach, U. 1990. Regulation and research activity in Germany. Organohalogen Compounds 4:41-47. Greenpeace. 1993. Memo to N. Thomas from G. Martin et al. Re: USEPA's Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Expansion of the Formosa Plastics Corporation, Point Comfort, TX. Karasvag, N. 1992. PVC and the Environment. Kamsvag, N. and Baldwin, J. (eds.). Norsk Hydro, Oslo, Norway. August. Lowrance, S. 1992. Memo to USEPA Waste Management, Division Directors, Regions I-X from S. Lowrance Director, Office of Solid Waste. Re: Assuring Protective Operation of Incineration Burning Dioxin-Listed Wastes. September 22. (cited in Greenpeace, 1993). Norsk-Hydro. 1992. Hydro Plast. Overklagandn av baslut 1992 Di-10 av Koncessionsnsmden for miljokydd rorande hydro plast AB:s workamhelt i stanungsund. Overiamnas for kannedon Miljo-och naturrasturs-departementst: DNR M92/61G/8. Stockholm. October 29. VRD 000202 7507 ChemRisk A Division of McLaren/Hart - May 3, 1993 - DRAFT Page 11 Rand McNally. 1992. Rand McNally Road Atlas, United States, Canada, and Mexico. Rand McNally and Company, Chicago, IL. Swedish EPA. 1992. Memo to D. Thompson from A. Petsonk Re: Concerning an appeal by Greenpeace and others of a permit issued by the National Franchise Board for Environmental Protection for partial changes in activities at Hydro Plast in Stenungsund. November 11. Enclosure 1 6 m z f lz m aha A April 22,1993 DOCUMENT RETRIEVAL Citations from Greenpeace letter (2/22/93) The following documents have not vet been located or obtained: USEPA. 1992. "EPA's Scientific Reassessment of Dioxin: A Status Briefing for the Deputy Administrator." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and - Development February 14, 1992. John Rettig, Librarian, ORD library in Cincinnati, could not locale this document in the holdings of any USEPA library in Cincinnati or Washington, D.C. John Schaum, USEPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C., said that his office recently received an FOI request for this document but denied the request because the document could not be found. In addition, he made the following comments: `Tf the paper exists at all, there are probably one or two copies tucked away in peoples personal files," "Briefings are not appropriate to cite in scientific papers .... Briefings are not peer-reviewed or published." "Since it's a briefing, it is likely to be in the form of slides rather than a complete document'1 Bill Farland, Director, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, USEPA, Washington, D.C. is currently searching his files to locale the document. He suggested that some type of status briefing may have been issued at that time, but he believes the date of February 14 is probably incorrect In addition. Dr. Farland also stated that status briefings "should never be cited" since they are not subjected to a proper review process. USEPA. 1992. Draft Environmental Impact Statement EPA-906/07-92-001. July. Efforts to obtain this document have been unsuccessful; the document does not appear to exist in any holdings of the USEPA libraries contacted * Ms. Pearl Young, USEPA, Office of Federal Activities, is currently compiling a reference list of all EIS documents generated within Region VI for 1992. The document is expected to arrive during the week of April 18. 1 01 U U I H 8 Norsk Hydro. 1992. Hydro Plast. "Overklagande av beslut 1992-01-10 av Koncessionsnamnden for -railjoskydd rorande Hydro Plast AB:$ verksamhat i Stenungsund. Overiaranas for kannedon Miljo-och naturresurs-departeraentai," DNR M92/610/8, 1992-10-29. Norsk-Hydro officials have indicated by Telefacsimile that this document is not in their possession. Swedish EPA. 1992. Miljo-och Naturrasurs-Departemenut, "Overklagande av beslut 1992-01*10 av Koncessionsnamnden for railjoskydd rorande Hydro Plast AB:$ verksamhat i Stenungsund. Overiaranas for kannedon Miljo-och naturresursdeparteraentat," DNR M92/610/8, January; Norsk-Hydro officials have indicated by Telefacsimile that this document is not in their possession. Fischer-Gundlach, U. 1990. "Regulation and Research Activity in Germany.*' Presented at Dioxin`90. Bayreuth, Germany. 1990. This document should not have been riled. The correct citation should be attributed to Ahlborg, 1990 (as cited below). The following documents have been located and ordered: Bretthauer, E. 1992. Eric Bretthauer, Assistant Administrator, USEPA. Memorandum to William Reilly, Administrator, October 19, 1992, A Freedom of Information Request has been filed with the USEPA to obtain this document. Evers, E. and K. Olie. 1989. "De vorraing van PCDFs, PCDDs un gerelataarde Verbindingen bij de Osychlorering van Etheen," University of Amsterdam, MTC publication No. MTC89EE, 1989. This document has been forwarded by Dr. Olie from Amsterdam. It is written in Dutch, however, and will need to be translated. Dr. Olie believes that any tables, graphs, and figures will be easily understood and should not require translation. This report consists of 65 pages and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. An abstract of the study, however, was published in Dioxin *89. Efforts are currently being made to contract an interpreter to translate necessary portions of this document. 2 IlS IZ flZ flflfl AHA A The following documents have been requested bv Tclcfacsimilc: NALU. 1989. Report on Norsk Hydro-Rafnes facility, Oslo, Norway. NTVA. 1989. Report on Norsk Hydro-Rafnes facility, Oslo, Norway. The following documents have been obtained: Ahlborg, U.G. 1990. Research and Regulation of Dioxin and Related Compounds in Sweden. Presented at Dioxin`90. Bayreuth, Germany. 37-40. (Cited as Fischer-Gundlach, 1990) Arkansas Peace Center et al. vs. Vertac Site Contractors (Morrison Knudsen Corporation - and MRX Incineration Corporation, a joint venture) et al. 1993. Amended Temporary Restraining Order. Order Entered February 16, 1993* File No. LR-C-92-684, Document No. 54. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas. (Cited as February 12, 1993) Claus, F., H. Friege, and D. Gremler. 1990. "Es Geht auch ohne PVC: EinsatzEntsorgung-ErsatzeinRatgeber," Hamburg: Rausch und Rohring Veriag. (In German). Davis, S. 1993. "Judge Halts Dioxin Burn at Venae: Stuns Lawyers, Finds Regulations Violated.'* Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Little Rock, Arkansas. February 13. (Cited as February 12, 1993) EPA. 1992. Health Assessments for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachbrodibcnzo-p-dioxin and Related Compounds, Workshop Review Draft: Chapter 8. Dose Response Relationships. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. August. (Cited as Gallo et al., 1992) EPA. 1989. Experimental Investigation of Critical Fundamental Issues in Hazardous Waste Incineration. EPA/600/2-89/048. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle, North Carolina. September. (Cited as Kramlich et al., 1989) EPA. 1988. A Cancer Risk-Specific Dose Estimate for 2,3,7,8-TCDD; Review Draft. EPA/60(y6-88/007ab. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. June. Farland, W.H. 1993. W77 Screening Level Assessment Memorandum from William H. Farland, Director, Office of Research and Development to Brian Grant and Greer Goldman, Attorneys. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. February 8. (Cited as Lorber, 1993; January 22, 1993) ICI Merseyside. 1992. Pamphlet: Merseyside Operations - Environmental Update: 1992 Report. ICI Public Affairs, ICI Merseyside, London, England. 3 VRD 0002027512 Lowrance, S. 1992. Assuring Protective Operation ofIncineration Burning Dioxin-Listed Wastes. Memorandum from S. Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste to Waste Management Division Directors. Regions I - X. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C, September 22. Norsk Hydro. 1992. PVC and The Environment. Norsk Hydro a.s. Petrochemical Division, Oslo, Norway. September. (Cited as Kamsvag, 1992) 4 A Enclosure 2 n $ iZ 0 Z 0 0 0 AHA VRD 0002027514 REGULATION ANO RESEARCH ACTIVITY IN GERMANY U. Ftochar-Gundiach MkhKHuai tor Umwak. NatunchuU vnd AsaktoraJehsrhafl Poaffach i;M2S. 1000 Bonn 1 / F RO. I tfo not Bitoh you havw * Hod tha chancs to Kttan lo tha opsning apaath gbsn by Ba $tata Stottoy at my ministry. So lAould U lo lumrwlit th togl stadia tssuaa cortovntog oioini and urans But haua baan paaiad or ara *un undv diacuaston. Tha Qsrman Fadsraf Qovsmmant haa davatopad an o*ai ooncapt kx protaction against hazardous aubatanoaa. This ccroapt la w^OPOrtad by a clw>y<wl( nstwork of p^cauikxwY maaauraa. ^nttctpaaor, acdon baa baao comprwhanstoafy axtandad wttn B>a amandad Chsmicals Ad. with Ow programma let abandoned contamlosiad wasta and torma# Industrial titas and a whoa ranga Of prorubMon. imitation and maximum psrminsd quantity ordmanoss. Morsovsr. maaauraa on Bta willy of InsUAaUon, tha awianalon of tha Fsds<*l immlaalon Control Ad and tha anAronmanfy oompsuoia disposal of wasta ara pvt of lha ovarai oonoapt to ovacoma tbs MurNCM risk. Now to Bt* Wd of apactal maaauraa apWnat dtoato poauUon: Aa lar as la known to data main touroat ara l. aw production wvJ uaa of lha Industrial cbamtcals POP (pantaehlorophanof) md PCS (potydaorinatad bfpbanyto) and othar prooaaaaa In aw chsmical Industrial 3. todnaradon procaaaoa of all kind*. In particular Improper waata todnaratton and coppar making. 3. Bta uaa of aoma apadal scsvwngars In laadad patrol. I tn ai Bwaa araaa Bw FadarW Govammant baa takan 0*d*>vs lagal maaauraa to raduca consttsraMy naw toputa of dkwino into tha anvxonmani. in rta past. uaa of PC8s containing dwvln which am poAAanta - mads up tba iargsat Input Into aw amwanmarri. WWt Bw tOtb OrOvwtoa wmsooing th* FadarW Immlaalon Control Ad tba uaa of PCS* In opart aylama wax bannad In tba tala a avantiam. With tba OnHnanoa on tba prohibition of RptycWorinaaod Bipbanyta of Jufy 19tt9 tba bat Is axtandad to cioaad syatama. AnoOtar chamleal raaponalbta for amrironmanial pollution from dioxin ia tba paatdda PCI* (pantadaoropbanof). Tba production of PCP waa tloppad In Oarmvty In tba aariy aighuaa on vaAmtsry baata. Thw Ooinanca on is prohibition of Pnl*chlooph*nol of Daoampar tOOO bana Va producUon. bringing Into ckoUation and waa of PCP. That maana that now tor axampta tba imporl of PCP-knpragnatad wood la no longar parmritad. Slnoa PCP contain* oonaktarabla mounts of dknina tfva ordtoanca Will alio bring a significant raductlon In tba Input of do*to Into tba arMronmant. Organofufogan Compound* 4 41 Tba Fadacal Oovammant raoandy paaaaa Bu Ordlnanoa on Indnaration PWita lor Waalaa avl SJmXar CombwaUbta Subatanoaa. which Indwdoa, whb 0.1 ng TE/m3 of *ua gaa. a atringant Wrwt vaiua lor oioaina. Sa*ora. M bad alraady boon poaama -thyuaioBuprowaiont ra iQOa Tadv cal tnatructfon on AM pe*u*on to kaap to a tgur* of around 1 ng. But with Bta naw ordlnvtoa <bo*Jn amNalon ara Bmriad lo B>a abaokAa laconical minimum acNavaMa at tba momarc My mini#try raoanOy praaantad a draft OrtWnanoa on Bu prohibition of Scawangam in Laadad Patrol. TNa prohibition Mod* off anotbar wxrca of dkwin amWlona - Indapandani of Bw tad that tba uta of laadad patrol la going down. In Bia alraady wal undarway draft amandmant to Bu adstlng Sawoga Sludga Ordinanoa mvfmum parmktad vakraa at aat tor Bta Aral tlma tor dtonin and PCBa in aawaga aXrdga, uaad tor aoma apactoi agrioufturaf pgrpoaa*. Tba Fodaral Ministry tor tba Erwlronmant la making aftorta to atrangtban tha aaNUng ma*Vtxxn Umit tor poiycbtorinalad dtoolna and torana. which baua bran part of tba OMnanoa on Hazardous Subataneaa slnoa Octobar IMS. aflona v balng takan to Inaart maximum kmka tor pofybrontlnalad dtoaina and torana into tNa ordinanoa. I should mantion that It * plannad to put raal/ioions on Kama ratardant brominatad compooxJ* in fad. wa hawa toundad a Fadaraiton-LAndar working group, which haa tba taak of eoltadrng ai data avaiiaMa in Oarmany. to avatoata a> rasMta of any kwaatlgaUng and to maka a nak aasaaamarn. Tba raaulta of thla working group wiR point out If or In whkh Kakla kirthar laoislaDva Istuaa ara naoaaaary or raaaarch haa to ba carriad out. Finally thara va two ordlnano* io ipaak about oonoaming PC8; t. Tha Krai la tha Ordinanoa onWaala OH. With this ordinanoa B ta ragUalad what maaauraa hava to ba takan In codadton of uaad oils containing PCS. tor axvnpia saparata ooflactlon and Baatmant. 3. Tba aaoond la tba Ordinanoa on Maximum ParmlaaJbfa Ouantklaa of Contaminants v> Foodstuffs: Within thla ordinanoa iagai maximum bnRs va toad tor 8 apaoftad PCSconganars in foodstuffs of animal origin. Currant HMWCh projada ara mainly carriad Out on tha toaowtng loptoa: aflada on bumana touckyand mataboSam Input routaa into tba anvtronmant radudton and pravantfon strafagiaa wNh ragvd to apacial aouroaa Owvatopmant and tasting of analytical mathoda. n la not tor ms to praaant datahad raauka of spadal raaaarch pro|cU. This has akaady b^> dona dcatng otbar aaaatona of B*s oongraaa by Bta axparts. From tha point of staw of tha Fadaral MWsuy tor tha Emrkonmant ona of tba most important aim* to tha (ysasnt discussion about cbamlcals la to Mock off torihsr Input of dioxin and torana into w* nwonmant. 43 Organchalog*n Compound* Ud 000 2 0 2 7 5 1 5 - i-i thmia imimantj-vm.s h It now undisputed thai background levels <( I'CDIHanrl IX T ll'inn Ik identified in life p-oie:d |vyutat*on In an (Non to quanidy this lurlr.mnd. Wl |r i/MIIKHm collected ami cnrujuiud N,r levels f IX Dl H and IX !>! in human milk sollrilrd limit \eh-e ted amt riiiii|i3ial>lr mnihcrs from many evNjnlriei aftMnd the wuclsl. (lacy should ti-jrr\crt uili.sn ami rural areas in the rcijKCtivr countries. tilnxjyli ilx differences Iretween fliese two rAiegmics were mn remarkable. On die other tide the difference! between the countries are interesting The highest levels were fnuml in llelgiwrn. 11oiland, r KG end UK (30-40 pc ITYJ/ng niilk far) "P lie lowest levels were fnmid fir New /a stand. Hungary and Yugoslavia (J-12 pe IliO/ij milk fai) and Poland and the Scandinavian countries are m Use middle. In all samples only 2,).).Kuibsiiioicd eungriirrs were found. 11e hei'ta and ncta(*!>Ds are always the highest in all samples liom the general pohitatimi. 'Iliese rongeners are normally low nr absent in most IiwmI items, oifisei|iient)y thete most l*e amoltei lunte of ei|rture than *i the food, These two compounds are kiaiwu contaminant! in commercial ITT. f nhanced levels have been found in occupationally rrjtoied persons as well u in persons with itwrific life style (very high fish consumption). MASS ItAt AN( V < 'All 11| AT 1< >NS During has key-note lecture at DIOXIN *89 in Toronto Oirtis Travis presented some null balance ealnjlations based on mathematical models. He came to the conclusion that tlie known identified sources rontnbsited by only 10% to the total environmental burden of PCI IDs and PCDFs. Another way to perform similar calculations is by measurements of the ground deposition rale of I'C[)I >i and IX.'DFs This can be done directly ot indirectly through the analyses of soil, sediment, snow and l*cthijc samples. The htcratute is very scarce of data tha> can be used for such calcula tioni However, available data indicate that the annual deposition rate is in the order of 2*20 ng TliQ/m\ Using the value 4 ng IT-O/m? and year and the area 450 U00 km* for Sweden, the result is IHOC) j TV.O/year. This value is about one order of magnitude greater than the calculated annual emissions m Sweden, in agreement with the calculations presented by Cun is Travis. The drsrrcpancici can Ik explained by unidentified sources and/or try long range transport Another possibility is that the estimation of the annual emissions is based on norvepresentative samples. 1 I i M 1 I OganobNogan COfl'pcur*dk * RESEARCH AND REGULATION OF DIOXINS AND RELATED COMPOUNDS IN SWEDEN U.C. AIILBORC Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinlka Insiiiwut, Boa 6020*. S-104 01 Stockholm . Sweden ABSTRACT This pitscnunun concentrates on the research activities within an established research area sponsored by the Swedish National Environmental Protection Board. The organisation and main research projects will Ik presented at well as some of the conclusions from the work done so far. INTRODUCTION The research department in (he Swedish National Environmental Protection Board decided 198? to concentrate the research activities concerning persistent toxic organic compounds in a in a large project with the at imiyin PtiTOS. Working in conccn with this project, three other projects with mote specialized tjm.-Mnmi li.ive liccn running. This three projects ate: .Wl Mm/ real protection which deals with theielation between exposure tootganochloiioc and health effects in the llahic seal population. tnvtrxmurntlrrUutoie tf which deals with effects on the aquatic environment in relation to exposure in cffliirnts bum pulp and paper mills. Nimonnf ilioMin jvrvry which maps levels of dioxins and related compounds in the environment in relation to (mssthtc sources. T1>e tof.il annual budget fot the four projects amounts to about 3 million US dollars. Added to |hai comes funding (turn sources other than the National Environment Protection Board, making a total annual budget of probably more than 5 million US dollars. PERSISTENT TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (PETOS) rorns n divided into three subproject areas, i c. chemistry, ccotoxicology and toxicology. V/ilhin each sulipioirct several individual projects are sponsored. Several reports from there individual ptojeds will he presented during the prerenl meeting. Following below, only a few of the results so jar will be mentioned OgaAObalogon Compound* 4 37 Chemistry Tlw main nwtith arras wiihin (lie chrmiol p<|rri omiviii * Synthesis of test compounds a* writ at mei.ilv>liicx. lx<ih culil and labelled material * Development and improvement of analvtif.il mrlliixh * fcwdiea on fhc phntnchemkal tlegradutinn of ihiixmv im.1 telatrd ennifxmmU * Studies oi the eruymatic formation of dioxins m the environment An intensive work within the area of synthesis of compounds h. made possible many studies both wiihm the chemical subproject aa well u in the othet 1*11 sutijxojcvit Compounds synthesized covet |*CII. FCB-methylsMlfooet. various chlotifii'td n.iph'alcoev .md iii.niy oOkis (llagtund and Bergman. 19KVJ Among the findings could be mentioned Ihc development of sensitive analytical methods for the analytic of dioalna and PCBs in human mothei't milk (l.indmthm IVKh, Ntxtn, I9KK) 1T*e studies have been aide 10 demonstrate a decline of dioxin levels in Swedish mother's milk dining the Iasi IS years as well as changes in levels of plana/ PCDi ovci time (Noifn. |9Xg, Noif n ri a!, 1990) Another interesting finding if (he demonstration (hai |*(`|)|>s aod PCDfi may he formed in the environment through a peroxidas-catalyzed reaction with chlnniuted phenols (Oberg at a!., I WO) Ecptoikology The main research areas within the ecotoxicotogical project concern * Mapping of environmental load and uanspntiition * Environmental transformation * Bioavsilahility * BiomagftifKMioA * Eootoxkotogical dose-effect studin THs approach in this area U somewhat ditteirni Imm die other tw It represents a larger single project that Mill le ongoing. Among the results ohratord so far it can he mentioned that il has been demonstrated lhar the soaie 2.3,7.!-autxlifuled PCOfX/l'f l)t\ met ease with increasing trophic level. 2,3.7,8-tul*stiiuieiJ pCODs/TCOFl are stso btomagnified, horh relative to u'hcr congeners and in total (Dromsn ef of., IV90) ninassayr are also applied in order to study the influence of ntliet compounds than PODDs/PCDEs. e g polyaromatic hydrocarbons Toxicology The main research areas within the toxicological project concetti * Toxicokinetics * Immonotosieology * Interaction with vitimln A * Thmour peowtoelon i 1 Ogvwhotogon Compounds 4 * llm.i\Nayv fm iliiiiinlike activity * levels of nrgamKliltirines In expend groups in icI.Mintt in IkaIiIi status Of I Ik- multitude of icsultc achieved within this subproject only a few Can he mentioned. In llie inmiiiiHXtixiciilngical field, a system has lircn developed dial tests effects im llie Immune syaien< using the /fi/s* I'oIhu rut from chicken cmliryos as model, The system has successfully been applied t.. enviionnteitf.il samples (Andersson ct al, 1990). Systematica! studies within the field of tumour promotion have so far demonstrated that the relative potency of snme congener*, using the induction of aliered hepatic foci as Ihc endpoint, might differ iunicwli.il (turn estimates of potency based on other endpoints (ITodsttOm and Ahthorg, 1990). This finding m.iy have irtijihcalinns for ihc calculation of TCDD-equivalency (see below). Another interesting finding is ihc l.ict that the tumour promotivc effect of TCDD is influenced hoth by the vitamin A Status of the test animal as well as by the diets used (Flodstrfim rf of., 1990). The only cxtiaordinaufy exposed adult population in Sweden identified so far consists of professional Irshermcn active in the stmthem part of the Baltic sea and having a high fish consumption. Blood levels of I`CDDx/l>('DI:s in this population is several timet higher than in comparative controls. Non-fish eating populations have lower blood levels than average (Svensson ef at., 1990). Taken together, these data support earlier assumptions that fish is the main source for human exposure to PCDDVTCDFs in Sweden Studies on Ihc health status of these populations ate ongoing. CONTACT PERSONS WITHIN PETOS Mwa p*)iO k*4u CW--xr> t UVO Akltarg r HtlMMO Aim *m. fu * atari"----- 1_ in mut si s> Ul 0. Mans lu: Ml H U 4V PECULATIONS Despite all research activities and all efforts from various governmental agencies In Sweden to reduce dioxin emission and exposure, very limited regulations and recommendations have been applied. Emission limits for municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators are, however, enforced. For existing MSW plants the emission should be below 2 ng/m*. for new plants, however, the limit is leu than 0.1 ng/m', in both cases expressed as TCDD-equivalenlt according to Eadon. No recommendations or limitations arc given as tegaidt PCDDvTCDFs in food. Breastfeeding is recommended hut forced weight reduction following delivery should be avoided. Sweden is today using the Nordic TCDD-equivalenis (see table 1) and applying a tolerable daily intake of S pieogram/kg bodyweight as recommended by a Nordic expert group (Ahlborg tt at., 19B8). Organobaiogon Compound! 4 30 A VRD 0002027518 Enclosure 3 VRD 0002027519 STATENS NATURVAADSVER1C Swedhh EnvironmooLai PrcKodton Agency Department of Energy, Transport, 1993-03-11 Haste and Water Management Section for waste management and site remediation Sr technical officer Andrew PetsonJc tel. (08) 799 11 65 Dear Ha. Thompson, I have received your fax dated March 10, 1993 concerning an appeal by Greenpeace and others of a permit Issued by the National Franchise Board for Environmental Protection for partial changes in activities at Hydro Plast in Stenungsund* We are not aware of any document with the exact citation you refer to. i am sending a copy of another document (in Swedish) , le. the opinion of the Swedish EPA in this case as delivered to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Our agency did not support the appeal. Briefly, the appeal requests that: The permit should not be allowed to take effeot. That the permit conditions for the entire faoility should be subject to total review, including compatibility with the North Sea Convention. That changes should occur with regard to activities which violate the Ordinance on Hazardous Waste. That the total environmental effect of the faoility and its products be evaluated* That the government restrict emissions of chlorinated hydrocarbons from the plant. ,44*ett T.'.pSer* T*'i 7. Vn H s iifn a tfi m 8WEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1993-03-11 In our opinion ve state the following: Hydro Plast will probably be aiven priority In our ongoing classification of facilities which require permit ravlewa with an eye toward possible changes, Greenpeace raises a number of interesting issues which should be examined during the review process/ but which wa do not feel are direct hinders to the current* permit application* We are not aware of any activities at Hydro Plast which violate the ordinance on Hazardous Waste. I am sorry that due to current work load I do not have the time to translate the entire opinion in detail, but hope that the above will answer most of your questions. sincerely# Andrew Petsonk Sr technical officer Ends. co: Ake Unddn, Bk *VRD 0082027521 State* EFA The Industrial Technical Department Chemical Industry Unit Am>Louise Patt Environmental and Nature Department 103 33 Stockholm Statement of opinion of the .stop motion and appeal of Goran Hermaxsson of the decision by the government to permit Hydro Plast AB to amend operations of the company'* vinyicloride factory in Stemmgsunds Community. (M92/$10/8), Background Parliament gave ft's decision 1992-01-10 on Hydro FUst AB1* permit according to the Environmental Protection Law to permit the company1* vinylderide factory In Sterrangsund to further refine 200 000 tons of chloride per year for manufacturing; highest to be 130 000 toms vinyldoride (VCM) per year and highest 265 000 ton EthekHdoride (EDC) per year. Goran Hennansson has entered an appeal; representing Green Peace/Sweden and the Agricultural Federation in Goteborg and Bobus Counties. The Appeal charges: * that the appealed permit is invalid until further notice. * a complete review of the conditions according to the Environmental Protection Laws at the Hydros factory in Stenngnsund. * changes fa parts of the manufacturing process, today, is fa conflict with the order of environmentally dangerous waste, * a reexamination of the current manufacturing process Is inconsistent with the North Sea treaty to halving of these chemical preparations discharges into the North Set. * an investigation of the whole manufacturing process and the consequences cm the environment, to include Le. a Ufa cycle analysis of the product * the government must immediately take action to restrict the discharge of chloride organic material from the Hyros factory. The Nature Conservation Department** statement of their opinion. 1991-06-28 * to inspect the conditions at the VCM Factory should be compared to the b edgrenwd of the many valid conditions with bearing upoa production, which are considerably higher than those fa the current manufacturing permit. * by testing the conditions, especially at the VCM-factoiy (who can do the testing) from the FVC factory, Le. combustion design and the chemical-biological purification is the same. Questions about transportation and noise are common for the whole 1 VRD 000 20 2752 2 dign. There doc* oat exist enough Information to make a decision u to how the processes at the YCM factory should change. The Nature Conservation Department recommends that the permit nonetheless be valid until the background of tho discharge situation can be examined, and according to the company's application there is no change in the work process. Tho transportation of Chloride win increase* This change will not increase discharge Into the water. Discharge from the storage of EDO will decrease due to the fact that the discharge along with EDC |anW will be cremated Discharge from boat loading win Increase from. 3.4 to 5.7-93 per year. The production of so called Heavy Ends will Increase from ca 1200 lon/year to 1600 too/year. The Nature Conservatory decided that it was important that the original conditions for the permit Is not Wilding for a 10-year period and would render an examination of the whole process In the near future. A quote from the Government decision *Thb decision does not influence the time, after which the investigation, and condition for the existing process should fa according 24 Para 1, Environmental Protection Law. The notification of terms for a wider investigation according to the same regulation within the time frame which is validfor the terms in the earlier government derision.' The Nature Conservatory Dcdricm Below b the Nature Conservatory decision to the parties bringing the appeal * a complete review according to the Environmental Protection Law of the process for the Hyros factory in Stenungsuod. Nature Conservatory through Its government decision 1991-060-13 states as It's mission to establish a 10-year program to oversee the industries Le. discharge poiides. From the environmental outlook the most Important, and also most neglected branches and factories shall be dcaned up before 1995. Tbc goal for the program U that every environmentally dangerous process shall be modernized and conform with conditions to clean up the discharge by the beginning of the 20th century. * targe discharge of contaminates, especially such material from earlier environmental goals to be Set up. * worn oat or seosftfve wsasptfoals * oM permits or terms The plan shall be established by 1992-C7-0L In the spring the Nature Conservator will decide when the invfcstfgatJon of Hydro Plast AB shall take place, and lift ft safavestkatfon which will be given priority. 2 H S L 1 8 U U AHA * a reexamination of tbe caned manufacturing process Is inconsistent with the North Sea treaty to hiMng of these chemical preparations discharges Into the North Sea. an investigation of the whole manufacturing process and tbe consequences to the environment, Indnding ie*-t Hie eyrie analysis of tbe product the government mnrt immediately tale action to restrict the discharge of chloride organic material from the Hjtos factory. The Nature Conservatory has decided that these problems and questions should be studied. The Nature Conservatory does not question the validity of the permit. The question, however, does not gfve the Nature Conservatory cause to deny the allowable Increase in manufacturing. Changes In parts of the manufacturing process today, h in conflict with the aideref environmentally dangerous waste. According to the Nature Conservatory, it feels that the company has not broken the permit regarding dangerous environmental fallout. Tbe export of Heavy Ends stand for now, an Investigation by Nature Conservatory will eventually test the earlier derision. Export is forbidden to the company without a penult according to the Environmental Protection Law, no transfer of the waste material to another company unless they have a permit equal to that of Hyro Hast, AB. This is influenced by the Nature Conservatory to overweigh the appeal decision. An eventual ban on export of waste will come thus malting the company seek a new permit according to the Environmental Protection Law. Appealing tins decision further Is forbidden Nature Conservatory had earlier In (he year stated that its decision Is effective Immediately. Summary No new evidence has been brooght forward to convince the Nature Conservatory to change its earlier decision. The Nature Conservatory recommends the rejection of tbe appeal and to prevent tbe motion. Deris!oa on tbe appeal ts signed by (be general director. This commissioa bearing was taken by LTindan. department director LB. Lanson with Bureau director L. Gipperth md Al-FatL 3 ** TOTAL PAGE. 003 t l S H H B l t fl IfA STATEH5 NATURVAADSVERK Industriteknlska avdelningen Kemiindustrfenhelen Ann-Loufse Pitt Oilvrt 1992-03-27 IHV.I 521-1458-92 Bk it ^ ' A*-p` Miljfi- och naturresursdepartementet 103 33 Stockholm '-Jii .4rr-/^. Yltrandc fiver Inhibitionsyrkandc och Cverklagande av Gfiran Hermansson m.fl. av beslut av Koncessionsn&mndcn i frfiga om tillstfind ffir Hydro Plast AB till flndrtng av verksamhcten vld bolagets vinylkloridfabrik i Slcnungsunds fcommun (M92/610/8) Bakgnmd Koncessiomnfimflden gav 1 beslut 1992-01-10 Hydro Plast AB tillstfind enligt miljfiskyddslagen att vid bolagets vinylkloridfabrik i Stenungsund vidareforadla 200 000 ton klor per fir ffir tillvcrkning av hfigst 130 000 ton vmyllclorid (VCM) per fir och hogst 265 000 ton diklorclan (EDO) per fir. Delta beslut har fiverklagats av Gfiran Hcrrnansson rn.fi., som ffiretrfids av Greenpeace Sverige och Lanibrukarnas Ifinsforbund I Gfiteborgs och Bohus Ifin. I fiverklagandct yrkas: all del fiverldagade beslutet tills vldare inte skall gfilla en total omprfivning enligt miljfiskyddslagen av samtllga villkor ffir Hydros anlfiggningar i Stenungsund en ffirfindring av de dclai av verksaniheten som idag stfir i strid med forordnlngen ora mfijdfarligt avfall en prfivning av ora nuvarande verjesamhet fir ffirenllg med NordsjdavtaJets krav pfi halvering av vfesa kcmikajfeutslfipp till Nordsjfin en utrednlng av verksamhetens toiala miljOkonsekvenser, omfattande bl.a. en livscykelanalys av produkterna att regeringen ser till att filgSrdcr omedelbart vidtas ffir att begrfinsr nuvarande utslapp av klororganJska firemen frfin Hydros fabrile Naturvfirdsverket anffirde i sitt yttrande 1991-06-28: . - alien Oversynavvillkorcn ffir VCM-fabrikenbfir $kebl.a, motbukgrund a- att flora av de gfilJande villkoren Sx avsedda for en produktlon, som fi , . betydllgl hfigre fin den som nu avses i bolagets ansfikan - att del inte fir raeningsfullt att vid en omprfivning av villkor sarskilja VCM fabriken (som fir uppe till prfivning i delta firendc) frfin PVC-fabriken, d bl.a. fdrbrfioningsanlfiggnjngen och den kemisk-biologlska reningsanlfigf nlngcn fir gemensamma, och dfirmed fiven villkoren'ffir dessa. Frfigor or transporter och buller bfir ocksfi ses fiver gemensamt ffir hela anJfiggninge - att det 1 detta firende inte finns tillrfickllgt underlag ffir att ta stfillning ti hur villkoren ffir YCM-fabriken bfir findras. A Enclosure 4 VRD 0 0 0 2 0 2 7 5 2 5 VRD 0002027527 11 Dioxins in Norsk Hydro's VCM production Dioxins may beformed as a by-product of the manufacture of vinyl chlo ride. Dioxin emissions from Norsk Hydro's plant at Rafhes have been in vestigated- The dioxin flows are shown in Figure 11.6. It0 03 g/ycar V'CM PRODLCT Hydrochloric acid DIRECT CHLORI NATION 0.1 g/year HYDROCHLORIC ` ACID PRODccnort OXYCHLORINATION CRACKER it 3g/year Figures as TCDD-equfoalent li Regulatory feuei 0.1 g/year Drainage water INCINE RATION CAS f WASTE ; WATER jTREAT'ME.VT Source: .Vorsfr Hydro. Rafnes SLLDGE DISPOSAL Figure 11.6 Dioxin emission from Norsk Hydro's plant at Rafnes. Hydrogen chloride Hydrogen chloride from PVC production and incineration has been identified as a source of atmospheric acidity, sometimes known as "acid rain". In fact there are three major man-made sources of atmos pheric acidity in Western Europe. Hydrogen chloride is the least of them, as shown in Figure 11.7. The major component (69%) of atmospheric acidity is sulphur dioxide. Most of the sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere comes from the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity. Governments in Western Europe are under pressure to Insist on the desulphurisation of power station flue-gases. oe*> Murky*:! iwv>i*Uio'I prort'iu-f. of u+.rh about tal/arcfrom PVC Tirrjct. j r 7 e-iounf and sources Nitrogen oxides proride the second major element in atmospheric acid ity (29%). The internal combustion engines used in transport are the main source but. again, combustion and incineration processes make 4 Enclosure 5 \ VRD 0002027528 n4 *c *sl*. * hav- Pas- : in* ins*. i bUc ! at i i u i n ?ssh tl ts. emissions during polymer production: health hazards to workers during PVC production: the use of heavy metaJ stabilisers: the migration of plasticisers: the reaction of PVC to fire: the emission of hydrogen chloride when PVC is burnt: the degradation of PVC during production and use: recycling: the environmental accounting for PVC. the "eco balance' All these items are reviewed In the following chapters. 1.5 PVC COMPARED TO OTHER MATERIALS The environmental impact of any one material cannot be judged in iso lation since the use of alternative materials will not be cost-free either. It is necessary to make comparisons using tools such as life-cycle as sessments. These are dealt with in more detail In Chapter 2 and pro vide a means of estimating the environmental cost of using a material or product throughout its life-cycle. These methods of assessments are still fairly new and internationally agreed standards do not exist. Life-cycle assessment has been more effective in identifying areas of concern rather than in providing overall comparative evaluations of materials or products. In this book we have naturally concentrated upon PVC and. as far as possible, avoided direct comparison with other materials, except where it has been necessary to make a particular point. In the final chapter, we shall attempt to make an assessment of all the costs and benefits of using PVC. In the drive towards standardised life-cycle assessments, the differen ces of environmental Impact between the various producers have often been overlooked. As an example. American figures show that some emissions from ethylene plants are more than 100 times higher than the lowest". The end products are the same, the environmental impacts may be very different. Such considerations have provided a basic problem in writing this book; should we write about PVC and PVC production In general or should we write about Norsk Hydro's products and processes? Certainlv. the finished product. PVC. is the same whoever produces it. U S L l& lM B OHA though quality and consistency vary from producer to producer. How* . ever, the particular production process and the emissions It produces A are critically Important In deciding the environmental Impact of the ^ product. Unfortunately, there' are no publicly available data on emta*0 slons from other production plants and so we have chosen to concen trate only on Norsk Hydro's emission figures. In spite of the difficult!^ thus Involved In making comparisons. It is our Impression that NorsJt^ Hydro's emissions compare well with those of other producers. It Is ^ Norsk Hydro's Intention to be among the very best producers In term: of emission standards. Generally, we have only referred to the wholy owned Norsk Hydro plants. These are the plants for which we have the best historical data The PVC plant In Singapore, which Is 60% owned by Norsk Hydro, has to comply with the regulations In Singapore which arc comparable to Norsk Hydro standards. 1.6 ABOUT THIS BOOK There are many ways In which to organise a book such as this. We have started with an Introduction to Ufe-cycle assessment, and then provided an Introduction to plastics and PVC and to the products made from PVC. We go on to talk about the whole life-cycle of the material from raw materials and energy to waste treatment, whereafter we deal with specific problems associated with PVC. Inevitably this book gives a much more thorough treatment of the problems of PVC rather than Us benefits, although these are numerous. We found It hard to decide how detailed the book should be. We have sought to meet the needs of both the interested public and the special ist. We have aimed at producing a text that is understandable to the former while providing references and data for the latter. Having read the book we hope readers will draw their own conclusions about PVC. based on weight of evidence rather than on Intensity of emotions. Throughout the book, issues as they apply to Norsk Hydro ore written in italics. 1.7 LITERATURE REFERENCES 1) Toxic Release Inventory. USA. (I960). General literature Claus F, Frtege H. Cremler D. Eds (1990). Es geht auch ohne PVC. Hamburg. TGtsch W. Caensslen H. Eds (1990). Potyvlnyichlorid. Zur Umweltrelevanz elnes Slajidardkunststoffcs. K&tn. VRD 0002 0 27531 Enclosure 6 UNITED STATES ENVlROl... WASHING* MEMORANDUM O^iC* Of iOUO WAITS ASO CUfAGtSC* PflfONtC SUBJECT: Assuring Protective Operation of Incinerator* Burning FROM: i Waste Management Division Directors Regions 1 - X I would like to call your attention to, and provide guidance on, an issue which was brought to our attention recently related to incineration ot waste* containing low levels of dioxins. A recent case, and review of incinerator data in general, indicates that a well-operated incinerator meeting the regulatory Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) on a harder-to-bum surrogate compound may have difficulty in achieving high DREs on dioxin itself due to the low levels at which the dioxin is normally present. Although ve believe a veil-operated incinerator is capable of destroying dioxin to below riek-based levels, ve are recommending site-specific testing and risk assessment to confirm protectiveness at individual sites in view of the level of concern over dioxin. We believe this issue may arise at other sites where it is proposed to bum dioxin-listed wastes. The following is a discussion of the technical aspects of this finding, our interpretation of the RCRA regulations as they relate to this issue, and our recommendations on how this issus should be addressed if encountered. Tannic*!, mxground The low dioxin DR in this recent case was consistent with our current body of incinerator performance data, which show a very clear trend of decreasing DRX for hazardous constituents with decreasing incoming concentration of the constltuente in the waste feed. (That is, the lover the constituent concentration in the waste, the lover the DRX.) The data show that a properly operating Incinerator, which reached 99.99% DRS (four nines) on higher concentrations of POHCs, will often achieve less than four nines when the concentration of a POHC (principal organic U S L U M M an A -2- hatardoua constituent) in ths vasts la lea* than 1,000 ppn. At this time, we hav* not determined a definitive scientific explanation for thie phenomenon. There appears to be some small level of constituent* that remain in the emission* even from veil-operated incinerators, possibly due to reformation of thaaa compound* as produots of incomplete combustion (PICs) It shouldbe noted, hovavtr, that even though the measured DRE decreases at lover POHC concentrations, emission rates of, and thus the risks associated with, these compounds stay relatively constant or decrease at traoe levels. mediatory Intarprstatloa The regulations at 40 CFR 264.343(a)(2) require that an Incinerator burning hazardous wastes 7020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027 achieve a DRE of 99.9999% (six nines) for each POHC in its permit, and that this performance be demonstrated in a trial bum on POHCa that are more difficult to incinerate than specified dioxins and furane. The regulations do not specifically set a DRE standard for dioxins and furans themselves. Thus, an incinerator which demonstrates six nines DRX on harder-to-bum POHCs complies with the DRE performance standard applicable to dioxin-listed wastes, even if six nines is not actually achieved on low levels of dioxin present in the waste. Dioxin itself is not likely to be chosen as a POHC because it would normally not be present in the waste at high enough levels to assure sound sampling and analysis, and an accurate six nines DRE calculation. To assure detection of POHC compounds in the stack to enable the DRE calculation to be performed, and to override any effects of Pic formation on calculated DREe, POHC* are normally apiked into the trial bum waste at high concentrations. Ws believe that this approach is sound way of assuring a good teat of POHC destruction and removal, which in turn'assures that an incinerator is operating at an optimum level of performance. (We believe that PICs should be addressed directly, separate from DRE, as explained below.) However, spiking of dioxin itself to higher lsvels is not desirable due to its toxicity. Estimates of risk to public health resulting from PICs based on available emissions data indloate that these emissions do not pose significant risks when incinerators are operated at optimum conditions. Nonetheless, to ensure that emissions of total residual organic ooapounds, that is, trace levels of unbumd organic compounds In the waste plus organic compounds generated during combustion as PICs, do not post a significant risk, ve recommend following the relevant portions of ths PIC approach presented in ths Boils? and Industrial Furnace (BIF) Rule (56 EE 7134, February 21, 1991), and, when updated, the guidance on addressing PIC emissions from inoinsrators. This approach tSSLlBlBBB AHA A -3- involves setting a maximum carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon level to assure that overall PIC emissions ara low. Tha Sir approach also raquiraa testing for dioxin and furan emissions and performing a risk assessment at facilities operating under specifio conditions considered to be conduoive to production of dioxins and fur&ns as PXCa, to be sura these compounds are not present at levals ofconcarn* Reooaaendsd approach, for.Pioxln-Ilated Wastes Risk asaetsaeatt -Given the public concern over dioxin-listed vastes, ve l believe that it is necessary to perform a site-specific risk assessment as an additional check at facilities proposing to burn such vastas, to demonstrate that the DRE and PIC controls will control emissions of chlorinated dioxins and furans to levals that will not pose a hazard to human health and the environment* The preamble to the January 14, 1985 (50 8 1978), promulgation of the management standard! for dioxin-containing vastas F020, F021, F022, 7023, 7026, and 7027 discusses risk assessments performed over a range of Incinerator sizes, dioxin concentrations, and DREs, and appears to indicate that the risk assessments supporting the final dioxin incineration standards assumed six nines as the ORE for dioxin* Since the concentration of dioxins in dioxin-liatad vaetes is normally very low, the data indicating lever DREs at lov concentrations lends uncertainty to the six nines assumption. For this reason, the risk assessment calculations performed in the course of the dioxin rulemaking may not ba representative in some casts* Thus, ve believe that it is appropriate to perform site-specific risk assessments for incinerators proposing to bum such wastes vith lev levels of dioxins, to dsmonstrats that the performance standards sre protective of human health and the environment* Such a site-specific risk assessment should use actual chlorinated dioxin and furan emissions data obtained while tha incinerator is burning the lov-concentration dioxin vastes. Testing* Ve also believe that in most cases vhera a facility is applying to hum dioxin-listed vastes, tha incinerator should be tested on non-dioxin vaetes first to demonstrate six nines DRB on harder-to-burn POHCs prior to testing it on actual dioxin-listed vastes, to assure that the Incinerator is operating at optimum performance before dioxin is burned* One situation where burning dioxin-listed vaetes may not, in itself, warrant this approach would be where the dioxin oonoentrations in the waste are so lov that, tven assuming zero DR, the stack gas concentrations of dioxin would be nondetectable* In such a situation, the naed for VRD 0002027535 -4- dioxin testing would be determined on the basis of whether it is likely to be formed as a PIG, Until the PIC guidance is updatsd, the 8IF rule end the Office of Solid Waste can be consulted for assistance in making this determination. Such testing, if needed, could be done simultaneously with the OPS testing* To implement the recommended testing approach for a commercial incinerator applying to burn dioxin-listed wastes, dioxin wastes need not be "Imported" prior to permitting the incinerator. The trial burn for the incinerator could be used to demonstrate six nines DR2 on POHCa more difficult to bum than dioxin. If successful, these data could be used as a basis for the permit. The permit would require that the facility notify the permit authority and test for dioxin emissions when it burnt its first shipment of dioxin-listed wastes. Design end operation! we would also like to emphasize the importance of assuring that incinerators burning dioxin wastes are designed and operated in a manner to maximize DRE of dioxin and minimize its formation as a PIC. For example, studies on municipal waste combustors have identified a temperature range for particulate matter control devices that Is associated with the potential for elevated levels of chlorinated dibenzodioxina and dibenzofurans. The Blf preamble at 56 7162-4 (February 21, 1991) provides a discussion of this issue. We recommend that this factor bs taken into account in reviewing or developing specifications for Incinerator designs and test plans. In closing, ve vould HXe to note that ve believe that veiloperated incinerators are capable of meeting the performance standards and destroying dioxin to below risX-based lavsls. Further, none of our date from hazardous waste combustion devices shows dioxin formed as a PIC at levels of concern. However, given the degree of concern over dioxin, ve believe a sitespecific evaluation is warranted to demonstrate protective operations at individual sites whers dioxin wastes are to be burned* Ws discussed this ieeue with the Waste Combustion Permit Writers1 Workgroup during its February, 1992, meeting and on the April, 1992, conference call. We will continue to evaluate date related to this issue and will keep the Workgroup, including oa&ft contacts, informed. If you need additional guidance on how to address this Issue at an individual site, feel free to contact Sonya Saaseville of my staff at (202) 260-3132. coi Henry Longest Bruce Diamond Waste Combustion Permit Writers1 Workgroup n S L lB U M OH^ Enclosure 7 VRD 000 20 27517 UNITCO STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AOtfjCY WASHINGTON, 0,C. 204*0 \ MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: WTI Screening Level Analysis FROM: William H. Farland, PhD., Director. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment TO:' DATE: Brian Grant Attorney, Office of General Counsel Greer Goldman, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice February 8, 1993 The attached draft represents ay office's efforts in responding to your request for a screening level analysis of indirect exposures for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in connection with the Issues defined by Judge Aldrich for the WTI hearing. It uses Region V's "Preliminary Risk Assessment of Inhalation Exposures to Stack Emissions from the WTI Incinerator" for the emissions estimates and the 1992 Workshop Review Draft of "Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds" for indirect exposure assessment methods, as well as certain additional information required for application of the methods. It is not exhaustive in its analysis, nor does it characterize dioxin hazards. It should not be construed as a comprehensive risk assessment and should not be generalized to other sites. We have used conservative, hypothetical exposure scenarios which relate to plausible but unlikely situations surrounding the WTI site. The resulting exposure estimates lead to upper bound risk predictions which are not likely to underpredict risk. Actual risks are likely to be less and may even be zero. It is important to note that this analysis has not been subjected to adequate peer review, nor does it represent EPA * i % Enclosure 8 VRD 000202 7739 1ST CASE of Level. 1 printed in FULL format. PACE Arkansas Peace Center; Environmental Health Association of Arkansas; Jacksonville Hot-bars' and Qiildren's Defense Fund; Vietnam Veterans of America, Arkansas State Chapter; Mothers Air Watch, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, Randall Mathis, Director; United States Environmental Protection Agency, William H. Reilly, Administrator; Defendants; Vertac Site Contractors; Defendant-Appellant; Arkansas Attorney General, Defendant. Nos. 93-144.7, 91-1516, 93-1519 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 7002 2 March 17, 1993, Submitted April 2, 1993, Filed PRIOR HISTORY: (*1) Appeals frcm the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Bonorable Stephen M. Reasoner, Judge. COUNSEL: Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant Vertac Site v&s Daniel J. Dunn, Denver Colorado. Edward J. McGrath and CoLin G. Harris, Denver Colorado, and Jim L. Julian and Janie W. McFarlln, Little Rick, Arkansas, appeared on the brief. Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant EPA was David C. Shilton, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. John A. Bryson, Ronald Spritzer and Alice Mattice, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., and Lawrence E. Starfield and Dawn M. Messier, Washington, D.C., appeared on the brief. Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellees Arkansas Peace Center, et al., was Kick G. Harrison, Washington, D.C. Richard E. Condit, Washington, D.C., and Gregory Ferguson, Little Rock, Arkansas, appeared on the brief. JUDGES: Before McKILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSCN and TOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. OPINICNBY: KcKTTilAN CPINICNt MsMXLLXAN, Circuit Judge. Defendants Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPCS) and Vertac Site Contractors { Vertac) move this court to continue a temporary (*2) stay pending appeal of a preliminary injunction entered at the request of plaintiffs Arkansas Peace Center, Environmental Health Association of Arkansas, Jacksonville Mothers* 6 Children's Defense Fund, Vietnam Veterans of America Arkansas State Chapter, and Mothers Air Watch shutting down a hazardous waste incinerator located at the Vertac site near Jacksonville, Arkansas. Arkansas Peace Center v. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology, No. LR-C-92-694 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 17, 1993). For the reasons discussed belcv, we dismiss the interlocutory appeals (Nos. 93-1447, 93-1516, 93-1518) of the amended TRO as moot, treat the motions to continue the stay as motions for stay pending eppeal, and grant the motions (ft A 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 7002, *2 PAGE 3 for stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction. ow background is necessary to understand the procedural posture of these appeals. Cn October 20, 1992, plaintiffs filed an action against defendants in federal district court to stop the incineration of hazardous wastes contaminated with dioxin at the Vertac site in Jacksonville, Arkansas. Plaintiffs alleged the incineration was proceeding in violation of certain federal and state regulations concerning (*3) incinerator performance and that incineration would pose an imminent and substantial endangerroent to public health and the environment. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to step the incineration and to require EPA and ADPCE to prepare a remedial investigation and feasibility study to determine treatment and disposal options other than incineration for the hazardous wastes stored at the Vertac site. On October 30, 1992, the district court granted in part plaintiffs' request for a TRO. The district court did not enjoin incineration of the so-called b-waste (hazardous waste contaminated with extremely low level concentrations of dioxin, less than 12 parts per billion) but did enjoin incineration of the so-called T-waste (hazardous waste contaminated with lew level concentrations of dioxin, less than 50 parts per million), except for 5 days of a previously scheduled 'trial burn* of T-waste, pending further proceedings. Cn January 5, 1993, the district court ordered the parties to submit hriefs on the issue of the incinerator performance regulation, 40 C.F.R. | 264.343(a), and held a hearing cn February 12, 1993. On February 16, 2993, the district court issued an (M) amended TRO finding that the incinerator performance regulation required the use of dicxin, not a surrogate chemical substance or Principal Organic Hazardous Constituent (POUC), and enjoined the incineration of any dioxin--contaminated hazardous wastes at the Vertac site (except for the b-vastes already being processed in the incinerator). The district court also cheduled preliminary injunction hearings, certified the regulation issue for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. | 1292(b), and denied defense motions for stay pending appeal. The amended TRO effectively shut down the incinerator. Vertac, EPA and ADPCE immediately filed appeals and motions for stay pending appeal, for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. | 1292(b) and to expedite the appeal. On February 25, 1993, we entered a temporary stay of the amended TRO and on March 2, 1993, following oral arguments by telephone conference call and consideration of additional briefs and memoranda, entered a stay pending appeal of the amended TRO. Arkansas Peace Center v. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control 6 Ecology, No. 93-1447 (8th Cir. Mar. (*5) 2, 1993). We granted the notions for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. | 1292(b), expedited and consolidated the interlocutory appeals, and set the case for oral argument on March 17, 1993. We also noted that the district court had scheduled preliminary injunction hearings and requested the district court to transmit its findings of fact and conclusions of law to this court as soon as they were made. Cr> March 17, 1993, the district court entered a preliminary injunction barring defendants frexa incinerating drussned hazardous wastes which have not already been shredded in preparation for incineration at the Vertac Site. After oral arguments on March 17, 1993, ve entered a temporary stay of the preliminary injunction, which in effect continued our March 2 stay pending interlocutory appeal of the amended TRO. Defendants have since appealed the preliminary injunction (Nos. 93-1720, 93-1765 and 93-1769), and we requested supplemental briefs on whether to continue the temporary stay pending appeal 1993 U.S. App. LZXXS 7002, *5 PACK 4 VRD 0002027541 of the preliminary injunction. We also expedited end consolidated the appeals, requested additional briefs, and set the case for oral argument in June (*6) .993. First, we note that the entry of the preliminary injunction has followed and replaced the TOO. The only issue remaining before us is the propriety of the preliminary injunction. Tor that reason, we dismiss the interlocutory appeals of the amended TOO as moot (Nos. 93-1447, 93-1516 and 93-15191. We have treated the motions to continue the stay as motions for stay pending appeal in appeals Ncs. 93-1720, 93-1765 and 53-1769. Defendants, as the parties seeking a stay pending appeal, must show that (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits, (2) they will suffer irreparable injury unless the stay is granted, (3) no substantial harm will ccoe to other interested parties, and (4) the stay will do no harm to the public interest. See, e.g., Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1997); Janes River Flood Control Ass'n v. Watt, 669 F.2d 542, 544 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). We think defendants have met this burden. Defendants have raised serious and substantial legal issues in these appeals. Without expressing an opinion on the merits of defendants' claims on appeal, we think defendants have shown that they are likely (*7J to succeed on the merits, particularly with respect to subject matter jurisdiction and the district court's interpretation of the incinerator performance regulation. Defendants have also shown that they may suffer irreparable harm unless a rtay is granted because their interests include the important public interest in protecting the environment by cleaning up hazardous waste sites. We think the district court characteriied defendants' interests too narrowly and plaintiffs' interests too broadly. We also think defendants have shown that a stay will not cause substantial harm to other interested parties and will not harm the public interest. We think granting the stay, end allowing the incinerator to operate, jerves the public interest because doing nothing to the thousands of drums of hazardous wastes involves substantial risks cf accidental and uncontrolled releases of toxic substances into the environment, whereas incineration destroys the toxic substances. We do not underestimate the environmental problems associated with incineration, but we think defendants have shown that, particularly in light of the CPA's continuous monitoring of air quality at the Vertac site and its |*8) detailed specific risk assessment, which included the assessment of the risks of food-chain and inhalation exposure, a stay will not harm, and may in fact benefit, other interested parties and the public interest. In sum, we conclude that the balance of equities favors defendants and that the preliminary injunction should be stayed. Accordingly, we grant the stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction. VISTft CHEM O/U TEL *713-588-3057 ftpr 21*93 12:46 No.012 P.01/12 a 3 1 2. | c 8i *5 53 R SS33 CE3 rSo3 ~4 Ol PO 2* f 1 * f s Z- Rtqueit for Facsimile Trcmtmiufoii Ss U1 (A {M*M^QAAAd? Ft/ C / L^VDy^ cUua^ ' S 5 (i^r>n jJt AMxd. J-& (a/M 6ha~. &A^oU4h AX&dlt^ J-> AjSptvJ ^ T>Wkc^- J- Pl/C. V<) (D( d r VISTfi CHEM 0/V TEL:?13-588-305? Apr 21*93 12:46 No.012 P.02/12 ; 160 Asbestos diaphragms in the Norsk Hydro Rafrtes plant. 11.5 ISSUES RELATED TO THE USE AND DISPOSAL OF CHLORINE COMPOUNDS While the whole range of organo-chlorine compounds has been a source of concern, particular attention has been paid to dioxins and furans. These compounds are reviewed below. Other materials are dealt with in earlier chapters. i i Dioxins and furans These materials came to the notice of the public and the wider scien tific community as a result of the publicity surrounding a number of industrial accidents and the use of contaminated defoliants in the war in Vietnam- They have acquired the reputation of being some of the most dangerous chemicals on earth. The incineration of PVC has been claimed to be a prime source. m im B B B o h * VISTA CHEM 0/U DIBENZCbP-DIOXIN TEL: 713-588-3057 Apr 21*93 12:47 No.012 P.03/12 The nature and toxicity of dinring Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans (PCDFs) are the two chemical terms used to describe a family of related chemical compounds with the general structures shown in Figure 11.3. The numbers 1-9 represent possible positionsJor chlorine. Oxygen figure 11.3 Molecule structure of fCDD mdFCDF A varying number of chlorine atoms may occupy all or some of the numbered sites shown, giving rise to 75 kinds of PCDDs and 135 PCDFs. The strong interest in dioxins stems Grom their toxicity to some animal species. This is particularly true of 2.3,7.S TCDD which has often been called "the most toadc chemical known to man". This Is because 2.3.7.S tetra-chloro-dibenzo-dioxin (TCDD) is fatal to certain species in a single very low level dose. However, there is a wide varia tion in the susceptibility of animal species to the effects of 2.3.7.8 TCDD. The least susceptible test species is the hamster which is 5,000 times less sensitive than the next most susceptible species, the guinea pig. Man appears to be relatively insensitive. Several human communities are known or believed to have been exposed to unusually high levels of dioxins, often as a result of indus trial accidents. The health of the exposed groups lias been studied in order to assess the adverse effects of dioxins. Severe exposure has been found to cause chloracne, an unpleasant and disfiguring skin condition which may persist for many years. Transient liver damage and conductive impairment of peripheral nerves have also been reported19*. No other long-term effects have yet been clearly demonstrated. However, it should be noted that it may take up to 25 years to develop cancer. A few dioxins other than 2.3,7,8 TCDD have been shown to have significant animal toxicity. In discussing these other dioxins it has become accepted that their toxicity should be compared with that of 2,3.7.8 TCDD. When the toxicity of a mixture of dioxins is calculated, the contributions of the individual dioxins are `weighted' by compari son. with that of 2,3,7,6 TCDD. Weighting factors have been calculated by a number of workers and these are listed in Appendices 11-1. The World Health Organisation (WHO) and a number of national governments have assigned tolerable daily intakes for dioxins in the range 0.006-100 picograms of 2.3.7.8 TCDD per kilogram of bodyweight per day (A picograra is only one million millionth of a gram). This is a very wide range, based on varying interpretations of the same basic data However the acceptance of even these tiny intakes indi cates that these medical authorities feel there is a threshold intake value below which dioxins are unlikely to be carcinogenic801. This contrasts with some earlier opinions which held that even one molecule of dioxin could initiate cancer. 161 VISTA CHEM 0/V TEL^713-588-3057 Apr 21*93 12=48 No.012 P.04/12 The detection of dioxins 4 Methods to measure dioxins at very low concentrations in air, water 5=3 soil or foodstuffs have developed rapidly. It is now possible to measured them at much lower concentrations than is possible with almost any other material. They are regularly measured in concentrations down 453 one hundredth of a picogram (10-** grams), and in selected cases dowi^j to 1CHS grams. fThe thickness of a playing card is about 10-*8 of the -** distance between the earth and the sun.) ^ i'i`c-.i i? v.'* ' IPCBD/F (ng/kg) Examples ofcombustion processes producing dioxins. Sources and occurrence of dioxins and furans The major human intake route appears to be through the food-chain, especially through fat-containing foods such as fish and milk. Minute quantities of dioxins can be found throughout the environment. Their origins continue to be the subject of considerable research. While many of the sources are modem processes they are also produced in processes which have affected humans for thousands of years. Figure 11.4 shows the dioxin levels (in parts per trillion) found in soil samples in Southern England - dating back to 184021'. Z PCDD/F trends intheBroadbcdk plough lager depth son samples between 1846 and 1986. Source: Irureases in the polychlorinated Dtbenso-p-diaxin. and. -JUran content ofsoils and vegetation since the 18&V&jbeller LO. Jones KC. Johnston AJ5, Rapp* C. &wtrarl Set TechnoL. voL 25. No. 9. 1991. Figure 11.4 Dioxin content In British soil samples They are produced as unintentional contaminants of the products of a variety of chemical operations. Examples are the bleaching of paper pulp, the manufacture of wood preservatives and herbicides and other processes Involving chlorine and oxygen. Many combustion processes also produce dioxins. Examples include wood burning, metal smelting, internal combustion engines, crema tion. straw burning and older municipal waste incineration processes. Continuing research is revealing new sources. 162 9H LIB IB B B dUfe. VISTfi CHEM 0/U TEL'713-588-3057 Apr 21*93 12:48 No .012 P.05/12 A UK review has listed all the known sources of dioxins in the UK atmosphere. An updated estimate of the relative importance of the various sources is shown in Figure 12.5 a and Figure 11.5 b. Hospital " incinerators Cfttfmfcal tetoutca PVC and other sources of dioxins It has become clear that all combustion processes and many chemical processes where even trace levels of chlorine are present may lead to the formation of minute quantities of dioxins. Hence the manufacture and use of PVC can irksome circumstances be expected to lead to the 5P formation of dioxins.\Laboratory scale pyrolysis of PVC formulations^ f'gpves rise to de of dioxins. lesignmcance of this in the everyday use of PVC is not dear. Source: Department tjfdeEmxnxvnmt, UK. Figure 22.5 ^ Estimated, relatuw contribution to total TCDD/omatua in US Fires end fg ApTtuOmccssnsiutnmy SeuM^e sludge hohcnsisR Accessing Industries PVC in municipal solid waste typically contributes 50% of the chlorine present. A number of full scale studies have looked at the effect of that PVC on dioxin emissions23!24-25-36'. Their principal conclusion was that the removal of all PVC from the waste would have no significant effect upon dioxin emission. This result could be expected because the total chlorine content of the small quantity of dioxins produced in such incinerators is only a small fraction of the chlorine in the waste with or without PVC present- However, a Danish study*** concluded that the quantity of dioxins formed during incineration of refuse was influenced by the proportion of PVC present. To define the situation better,- a Joint incineration research project is in progress at the University of UraeS. in Sweden and at the Centre for Industrial Research in Oslo, funded by ECVM. CnanoTOnurm Source; ObenneterT. Itnpeet of uste IndncraOen on Ofcurfn emission acSertin". Warmer Bulletin. February 1992. "Whatever the influence of the composition of the Incinerated waste, it is clear that the most significant reductions in dioxin emissions from incinerators can be achieved by optimisation of combustion conditions and by installing flue gas cleansing systems. Figure 22.5 bf Total dioxinJbrmation in Berlin Because of this, national and European legislation has been devel oped to define the conditions under which Municipal Solid Waste should be incinerated so as to minimise hazards to public health. This legislation is likely to cause the closure of many existing UK incinerators. Dioxins have been detected in the emissions from accidental domestic fires. The contribution of PVC to these emissions has been the subject of a major study. This study cites the case of a wooden warehouse at Holmsund in Sweden used to store PVC polymer, additives and PVC flooring materials. The warehouse was burned out and an estimated 400-500 tonnes of PVC were consumed. The weather conditions at the time of the fire trapped the fire gases at a low level beneath a tempera ture inversion. The ground around the warehouse was covered in snow and it was easy to take samples indicating total dioxin formation. From the 400-500 tonnes of PVC consumed, it was estimated that 3 mg of TCDD equivalents were produced. 163 VISTA CHEM 0/V TEL:?l3-588-305? Apr 21 '93 12:49 No.012 P.06/12 Several reports have shown that burning wood can' also be a source of * dioxin emissions2**1*. It appears that the dioxin content of wood smr>kr ^ 7 is substantially lower than that of FVC smoke. Having said that, a study3" has shown that the total dioxin emissions from wood-burning stoves in Denmark are on about the same level as those from the country's municipal waste incinerators. Various metal smelting and recycling processes are known to be sources of dioxins, including the recovery of copper from scrap cable33*. Since scrap metal may be contaminated with chlorine-containing cutting oils and the fuel used may contain traces of chlorine, it is not known with any certainty to what extent the presence of. for example. PVC-coated scrap in steel making, affects the emissions noted. In cop per smelting, the presence of PCB residues from recovered transformer windings, as well as other contaminants from, for example, chlorinecontaining elastomers, again make it difficult to assess the precise role of PVC in dioxin formation. t The uncontrolled burning of cable scrap to recover the metal is to be discouraged, since copper is known to catalyse the formation of diox ins when chlorine-containing substances such as PVC are incinerated. Such burning is prohibited in some countries to avoid the emission of various noxious substances. FVC insulation on cable scrap can instead be stripped off mechanically and used in a variety of applica tions including cable bedding, footwear and flooring. 164 The effect ofadd. rafri on namre can be severe. VRD 0002027548 VISTfl CHEM o/v TEL:713-588-3057 Rpr 21*93 12=50^No.012 P.07/12 DtoxiTis in Norsk Hydro's VCM production Dioxins may beformed as a by-product of the manufacture of vinyl chlo ride. Dioxin emissionsfrom Norsk Hydro's plant ax Rafnes have been in vestigated. The dioxinflows are? shown in Figure 11.6. 0.03 g/year VCM -':3 PRODUCT* Hydro chloric rS'ToAK* \ ; f :.|;ais/ueari/| V.< i V \ -i > g/yiar. ; .`.i -... To WATER __s 0.03 g/year .;;S^ | 0.005 g/year toL-approx. 0.04 g/year Figure 11.6 Dioxin emission from Norsk Hydro's plant at Rqfhes. Hydrogen chloride Hydrogen chloride from PVC production and incineration has been identified as a source of atmospheric acidity, sometimes known as "acid rain". In fact there are three major man-made sources of atmos pheric acidity in Western Europe. Hydrogen chloride Is the least of them, as shown In Figure 11.7. SuCp/tu* ettiutat (matntyjntn powcslattern pcwwr Platons/ Hwytdardoigen cNerirfr 0M/. The major component (69%) of atmospheric acidity is sulphur dioxide. Most of the sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere comes from the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity. Governments in Western Europe are under pressure to insist on the desulphurisation of power station flue-gases. OA Mmie^ae tnemcraelMpraensn. urfam about halfanfnxnpvc * j-e jj.7 THe amotuxC and oured of acid yas in Western JEttnpe Nitrogen oxides provide the second major element in atmospheric acid ity (29%). The internal combustion engines used in transport are the main source but, again, combustion and incineration processes make major contributions. 163 VISTA CHEM 0/V TEL=713-588-305? Apr 21'93 12:50 No.012 P.08/12 A Hydrogen chloride represents 2% of total acidity and. of that 2%, some?' 1.4% arises from the chlorine content of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. The other 0.6% derives from industrial and incineration processes^ and about half of this, in turn, was calculated in 1986 to derive from the PVC content of the domestic waste stream301. However, new EC regulations for incinerators have led to a reduction' of hydrochloric ^ acid emissions from municipal waste incinerators. It is therefore reasonable to believe that the incineration of PVC now contributes ? less than the 1986 figure of 0.3%. Hydrogen chloride is very soluble in water and is rapidly absorbed by soil, water and plant surfaces. It may be a significant pollutant close to emission sources. Local scorching of vegetation and corrosion of steel structures and paintwork are typical examples of hydrogen chloride damage. However, with the exception of such localised damage It is unlikely that hydrogen chloride has effects on the growth of forests or the acidification of soils and lakes and rivers305. , \ j J i Cellulose phSoosdpiuhmate Fibres Aluminium production Soap Other 'chemicals Figure 11.8 Usage ofcaustic soda 11.6 THE CHLORINE-ALKALI BALANCE ii & t \ As indicated earlier, the electrolysis of brine produces not only chloline but also a similar quantity of caustic soda (sodium hydroxide j [ solution). Both are important raw materials serving very different \ sectors of Industry. Figure 11.8 shows the usage pattern for caustic soda. Unfortunately the demand for these materials is seldom In step. Until 1985 there was a shortage of chlorine and an oversupply of caus tic soda. Since then environmental concern has led to a much reduced usage of organo-chlorine solvents and CFCs. Consequently chlorine supplies now exceed consumption and caustic soda is in greater ! demand. While the world demand for chlorine Is expected to Increase ' over the next few years, the rate of that increase will probably be lower than for most commodity chemicals. On the other hand the Increase in demand for caustic soda is forecast to be at least in line with general \ economic activity and maybe higher. This level of demand is likely to i bring an increase in the price of caustic soda. If the demand were met - solely through the electrolysis process, then the surplus of chlorine \ would grow too. > Under these conditions alternative routes to caustic soda, at present more expensive than electrolysis, would become viable. The most likely route would be that employing natural deposits of trona (sodium carbonate or soda ash) as the basic raw material Two or three pilot i plants have been set up in the USA near to large trona deposits, to explore both the economics and the likely environmental impact of the process. In the meantime, and In the foreseeable future, the manufacture of PVC is an important application for some 30% of the chlorine pro duced. Reductions in the amount of PVC produced would add to present problems of maintaining the chlor-alkali balance. 166 t VISTA CHEM 0/V TEL: 713-588-3057 Apr 21 '93 12:51 Ko.012 P.09/12 11 11.7 LITERATURE REFERENCES 1J Technon. (1991). Chlorine and Its derivatives; A world survey of supply, demand and trade to 1994. 28. 2) Schwartz et a). (1990). CheeU 97. 820. 3) Wmtersnlta M C etal. (1920). Exp. Med. 32, 199. 4) Seder H G. Slgel H. Sigel A. (1988). Handbook on Toxicity of Inorganic Compound* New York- 5) NTOSH. (1976). Criteria for a Recommended Standard for Occupational Exposure to Chlorine. HEW Pub. No. (NIOSH) 76 - 170. 6) Calabrese E J. (1991). Air Toxics and Sisk Assessment. Lewis publishers. Inc. Michigan. 7) Manning WD and Feder W A. (1980). Biomonltonng air pollutants with plants. Applied science publishers Ltd. London, p. 25. 8) Smith W H. (1981). Air pollution and forests. Springgr-verlag. New York, p.289. 9) Gram F. Krmdscn S. Scmb A. (1990). Dlsdannendc utslipp fra Hydro Porsgrunn 1985 * 1988. NILU-rcport 0-8928 NILU. 10) Gilchrist H L. Matz P B. (1933). Med. Bull Vet. Admin.. 9. 229. 11) PattyP. (1963). Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Volume II: Toxicology. 2nd ed, New York. 12} Klonne DR.et.al. 11987). Fundam. Appl. Toxicology. 9 (3). 13) National Academy of Sciences. (1978). An Assessment of Mercury m the Environment. 14) Gramme P. (1980). Torsk om indikatorrnekanlsxne for kvlkksslv belastning i Fric-fjord. Rap nn 14/80 Norsk Hydro. Forsknlngssentrct. Porsgrunn- 15) WHO. (1991). Inorganic Mercury. 18) National Swedish Environmental Protection Board. (1986). Focus on environmental Impacts of petrochemical plants in Steaungaund. Final report (MUST). Report 3209. ISSN 0282-7298. ISBN 91-620-3208-9. 17) ArbadszniljasentreL (1989). Asbest. Oslo. 055AZ0Z000 AHA VlSTfi CHEM 0/V 168 TEL*713-588-305? fipr 21*93 12:52 No.012 P.10/12 18] Direktoratct forarbeidsulsynet. Forstalfter om asbest. Forslorifter til arbcidstnlljeloven. bcsdlllngsnr: 235. 19] American Council on Sdmce and Health. Dioxin in the Environment: Its Effect on Human Health. 4 <=>. 55i <ss! fO* 20) Gallo A M- Schenplcin l R and Van der Hcijden K A. (1991). Biological ha si* for risk assessment in dioxins and related compounds. Banbury report 35. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. Plainview. NY. 211 Ministry ofAgriculture. Fisheries and Food. (January. 1992) Dioxins In Food. The thirty-first report of the Steering Group on Chemical Aspects of Food Surveillance. Food Surveillance Paper No.31. London. 5 Iti 22] Department of the Environment. Central Directorate of Environmental Protection. (1989] Dioxins in the Environment. Report of an Interdepaitemcntal Working Group on polychlorinated dlbenso-para-dioxinsfFCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofuzansIPCDFs). Pollution Paper No. 27. London |L 23] Rappe C. Markiund 5. Ffingmark I. (1990). Formation of Dioxins and Dlbenzofurans During Incineration and Pyrolysis of PVC. Paper presented at PVC 90'. Brighton. 24 April. 24) Proceedings of Specialised Seminar. (1987). Emission of Trace Organics from Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators. Held in Copenhagen 22*22 January 1987 Published in Waste Management Research Volume 5. No 3. 25) Magee RS. Plastics in Municipal Solid Waste Incineration: A Literature Study. Prepared for the Society of Plastics Industry. New Jersey Institute of Technology. Newark. New Jersey. 26] Gingliano M. et at. (1987). The Emission of Dioxins and Related Compounds from the Incineration of Municipal Solid Wastes with High Contents of Organic Chlorine (PVC). Chemosphere: Vol 19. No 106. 27) New York Enerf Research and Development Authority. Results of the Combustion and Emissions Research Project at the Vicon Incinerator Facility in Pittsfield. Ma. 28) Miljsstyrelsen. (1989). Klorkilders betydning for dioren-dannelse ved forbramding. Miljoprojekt nr. 118. Copenhagen. 29) Marklund S. (1990). Dioxin Emissions and Environmental immlssions, A study of Poly-chlorinated Dibenzodlojcns and Dibenaofurans in Combustion Processes. Institute of Environmental Chemistry. University of lime!. a* #9s Z 30) LightowlcrS P J and Cape J N. (1986). Hydrochloric acid emissions attributable to the incineration of PVC waste in Western Europe. APME. 31) Miljastyrelsen. (1990). Emisstonsundersegdse for pejse og brendeovne Mitfeprosjeta 149. Denmark. ! ,: UISTA CHEM 0/V TEL:?13-588-305? Apr 21 ' 93 12:52 No.012 P.11/12 32) ObemuferT. (19921. Impact of waste incineration on dioxin emissions in Berlin. Warmer Magazine. I-ondon. February 1992. General literature: Aasath JetaL (1939). Kvikksslveksponcrfng - yrkeshyglcniok risikovurdertng. Tldskrift for den norske latgcforenlng, nr.15. 109:1642-44. AIHA. Emergency response planning guidelines committee: Chlorine. Dated 20.04. (198$). Ballar JC. (1991). How Dangerous is Dioxin? The New England Journal of Medicine. January 24. 260. Cartmei R. (March. 1992). Chlorine. The Product is the Poison. Greenpeace. Australia. Balmain. Coleman P J. Davis B J and Walk C J. The Measurement of Polychlorinated Dioxins in Deposited Particulates Around incinerators. Warren Spring Laboratory. Report No LR713 PA(M). Conference Summary Report. Biological Basis for Risk Assessment of Dioxins and Related Compounds. Banbury Center. Cold Harbor Laboratory Long Island New York. October 21-24. (1990). Dioxins in the Environment. (1939). Report of an Interdepartmental Working Croup on Polychlorinated Dibenxo-paradioxms (PCDDs) and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (jPCDFs). Pollution Paper No 27. ISBN 0-11-752290-5 HMSO. London. DoullJct &L (1980). Casareu & DoulTs Toxicology. 2nd edition. Macmillan Publishing Company Inc.. New York. Flngerhut MAetaL (1931). Cancer Mortality in Workers Exposed to 2.3.7.8,-Tctrachloro`dibenzo-p-DtoxiTi. The New England Journal of Medicine, January 24. 212. Health Effects and Safety Assessment of Dioxins and Furans. (1990). Toxicology Forum. Karlsruhe. Germany. Jan 15-17. Heicklen J. (1976). Atmospheric Chemistry. Academic Press- 406. Institute of Chemical Engineers. (1937). Chlorine toxicity monograph. Institute of Chemical Engineers. ISBN 0852952341. IvarsonTH. (1986). Kjcmiske milfeglfter. Uxilversitelsforlagct. 0*lo. Kimbrough R D. Jensen A A. Halogenated Biphenyls. Terphenyls. Naphthalenes. Dlbenzodioxins and Related Products. 2nd fUIly revised edition, Elsevier.iSBN O-444-8I029-3. Kvlksilver l Innsjoflsk. Naiurv&rdsverket. rapport nr: 3593. SLoekholm. u s iis is s s VISTA CHEM 0/V TEL:?13-588-305? Apr 21 '93 12:53 No.012 P.12/12 Kvikksolvbclastning t Norge. SFT-rapport nr 49. Oslo. Mitra 9.(19661. Mercury In the Ecosystem. Nicholson W J (1981). Criteria document lor Swedish occupational standard: Asbestos anft inorganic fibres. Arbeta och helsa. 17. A <s P-. NORSK HYDRO. (1990). Handbook of Risk Analysis. Norsk Hydro. Oslo. PCDD and PCDF Emissions from incinerators for Municipal Sewerage Sludge and Solid Waste - Evaluation of Human Exposure. Report on a WHO Meeting. Naples 17-31 March 1986. Published by WHO, Copenhagen 1987. \ | Prtnn A C- 0987). How have the Atmospheric Concentrations of the Haloearbons changed? In: Rowland. F.S. & Isaksen. I-S.A. Eds. The Changing Atmosphere. Report of the Dahlem Workshop on the Changing Atmosphere. Berlin. John WUcy & Sons. p. 38-48. Rotman H H et al. (1983). Effects of low concentration of chlorine on pulmonary function in human*. J. Appl. Physiclo. Respiratory. Env. Exercise. Vol. 54. Sax J I. (1989). Dangerous properties of industrial materials. 7th edition- Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York. Statens forarensningstilsyn og ArbeidstilsynCL (1984). Krltejiedokuzncnt for asbest. SFT og AT* faggruppe for identlfiscring og klassihsering av krefttremkallcnde scoffer. Rev. 04-01.84. Water Chlorination, Environmental Impact and Health Effects. Vol. 4. Books 1 and 2. Arm Arbor Science. Withers R M J et al. (1985). The assessment of major hazards: The lethal toxicity of chlorine. Part 1. Review of information on tondty. J. Haz. Materials. 12, 231. Zcber A. Messcrw P and Huber P. (1990). Thirty-four year mortality follow-up of BASF employees exposed to 2.3.7.8-TCDD after the 1953 accident. Occup, Environ. Health.. 62. 139. : 170