Document XzXvL73ek3J1X3Ma2e0rJ3Yyg

JOSCRH c. KCLLCfl glNOMC M, HICKMAH WILLIAM H tOAOHCSAHI. . MALCOLM D. M*eARTHl/R WAVNI V. 9LACK TCRRCNCC O JOMC* MARTIN W. SKRCOVlC' JOHN A. CLORCO CAROLS C HARRIS HART MARTHA MCNAMARA MICHAEL F. MORRONC MARA FOE tVtNI JOHN R. RICHARDS JOHN R. OURCCK RCrtR L M kA C*U* CHRISTINE A. MlAOHCR KSRLCV S rilJIMOTO LAWRCHCE R. HALRRlN RALPH A. SIMMONS PETER A. SUSStft C. DOUGLAS JARRETT HOT ADMITTED IN O C SMCILA A. MILLAR Mtl_vm S PROEEN OCOKOC 0 MISAO TREOERICK J. PAY. JR MARC! C. aRCENSTCIN* SUSAN J PlSMCR MARCIA K. COWAN PATRICK J, HURD S. CRAiO TAUTFCST MARK A SIEVERS MICHAEL R. SENNET O. PRANKUM KOOMTZ CATHERINE N ROEMER RICHARD A, jArri* JETPRCT . KERR* KRIS ANNE MOHTCITM ELLIOT BCLILOB SHANNON L. DCHMAW* SUSAN E MARK L- ITZKOEF EOWIN C. MOURE" LAW OFFICES Keller and Heckman 1180 17T" STREET, N.W. SUITE lOOO WASHINGTON. D.C. 0039 (SOS) 059-5900 June 26, 1989 OLC. p.le. - ^>3 ft SCIENTIFIC. BTAFF DANIEL *. OIXLCH, F. O. CHARLES V. BNEDEN, PH. D. NOBENT A. MATHEWS. P-. O. JOHN P. HOOOSNUAN. Nh. O. HOLLY HUTMINE FOLEY JUSTIN C. POWELL. Pm. O. TELECOMMUNICATIOMS EMOIMEEN CHANLCS F. TUMHCN TELEX TCLSCOPIER NOB IM-TSSI CABLE AODNESS -HCLMAN" WNITEM'S DINCCT DIAL NUMBCN (202) 956-5641 To: SPI Vinyl Institute Legal Committee Health Safety and Environment Committee EDC Task Group Re: Litigation on OSHA EDC Air Contaminants Rule Dear Committee Member: In our letter of June 8, 1989, weisolicited responses from member companies concerning a settlement offer from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) involving our judicial challenge to the Ytprr&eS) permissible exposure limits (PELs) for ethylener^SychiorJSfe' (EDC) . In exchange for dismissing our challenge te- tho-T'gvised PELs, OSHA tentatively offered to provide a formal opinion letter stating the Agency's position that the use of half-face mask air purifying respirators are appropriate and adequate for purposes of complying with the new EDC PELs. There appeals to be no substantial support among Vinyl Institute members for dismissing the petition on this basis. Most companies stated their view that OSHA had improperly reduced the eight-hour time waited average (TWA) limit to one part per million (ppm) and that we should continue to seek judicial relief. Although one or two companies reported that they would willing to live with the proposed settlement, no one expressed any opposition to proceeding with litigation. Therefore, we will proceed do so. To this end, we have filed a the enclosed docketing statement with the U.S. Court of Appeals with the llth Circuit. Although the court has not establish a briefing schedule, we anticipate that the briefs will be due no sooner than late August, 1989. YEV-19U82 June 26, 1989 Page 2 * Keller and Heckman Having resolved to go forward with the judicial challenge, we are still confronted with the problems posed by the need to comply with the new PELs beginning in September 1989. We will now explore OSHA's willingness to grant a stay so that the 50 ppm TWA remains in effect during the pendency of the litigation. If OSHA seems unwilling to do so, we will also explore whether the Agency would recognize the use of half-face mask air purifying respirators as an appropriate interim step in exchange for our withdraw of the administrative petition for a stay and reconsideration filed with the Agency, as well as our agreement not to seek a stay from the court of appeals. If we cannot obtain a satisfactory resolution with the Agency, we have until July 31, 1989 to file reguest for a stay with the court of appeals. We trust that everyone will be agreeable to proceeding in this fashion. If anyone has serious reservations, please contact me. I will report promptly on OSHA's handling of our pending request for a stay and reconsideration. CordjjXXy yours, /jhl Peter L. de la Cruz Enclosure cc: Larry Thomas Robert W. Sherman Meredith M. Scheck