Document a48EbdKo2Xqw0zY5kjKrmobNM

JOSEPH E, KELLER JEHOME II HECKMAN CHARLES M MEEHAN willtam H BOKGIIESANT JR HODKIIT R T1ERNAN WAYNE V BLACK DAVID L niLL MARTIN W, BERCOVTC1 EDWIN D Sl'JEVACK PETER M NEMKOV JOSEPH E HADLEY CAROLE C HARRIS WILLIAM W PI!OH LAW OFFICES Kei/leii and Heckman 1150 17TM STREET, N. W. SUITE lOOO WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 July 22, 1974 w. A. K. JUL 2 4 1974 TELEPHONE 02 290-2700 CABLE ADDRESS HEX-MAN" TO: All Members of: SPI Food, Drug and Cosmetic Packaging Materials Committee; General Polyvinyl Chloride Interest Mailing List; Ad Hoc Liquor Bottle Committee; Plastic Pipe Institute (Executive Board); Plastic Bottle Division (Voting Representatives) ; SPI Executive Committee; SPI Public Affairs Committee; VC and PVC Producers Committee Ladies and Gentlemen: In line with our continuing policy, the purpose of this letter is to provide information regarding the continuing governmental and related activities pertaining to vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride. As has been true for some time, most of what we have to renort con cerns the proposed standard for vinyl chloride exposure published by the Occupational Safety and Health Adminis tration (OSHA) with only minimal updating on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fronts. With respect to follow-up on the OSHA hearings we have a number of items to report. Firstly, on the originally announced closing date of July 17, 1974, we filed Comments on OSHA's draft Environmental Impact State ment on behalf of SPI. We are herewith enclosing a copy of the Comments. At the time the Comments were handdelivered to the Office of Standards Development we were notified for the first tire that the deadline for filing Comments ^as being extended until August 5, 1974. We are enclosing a copy of the extension notice which was ASI-PR 0002535 July 22, 1974 Page Two given to us; those of you who may have wished to file your own Comments but were unable to do so before July 17, may find the additional fifteen days useful for that purpose. As we previously advised you, during the course of the Hearings the American Chemical Society (ACS) presented a statement in support of the proposed standard. A number of ACS members in the audience took serious exception to the statement, pointing out that there was little or no industry representation on the ACS panel that prepared the statement and that the ACJ3 did not consider any of the human health experience that was presented during the course of the hearings. Dr. A. B. Steele of Union Carbide Corporation has now written a letter to the American Chemical Society objecting strongly and cogently to the Society's state ment; we are enclosing a copy of Dr. Steele's letter herewith. In connection with this same statement filed by ACS we have been informed that the ACS Safety Committee contained only two chemists currently employed and knowledgeable in the VC/PVC industry. Still further, these industry chemists apparently received only a preliminary draft of the ACS statement, one which was substantively at variance with the statement that was finally issued. We understand that pertinent information regarding the make-up of this ACS Committee and the development of the statement is being prepared for sub mission to OSHA so we will report further to you as this matter develops. Last week a meeting of the Steering Committee of the VC and PVC Producers Committee was held to make plans regarding post-hearing activities. Of most significance was the appointment of a Monitoring Methods Standards Sub-committee to develop detailed standards and procedures for monitoring VC and PVC plants in line with the SPI recommendations to OSHA. In addition a post-hearing brief will be drafted summarizing the evidence presented at the Hearing, providing such additional data as may have been developed since that time, and summarizing SPI recommendations. A draft of this brief will be presented to the full VC and PVC ASI-PR 0002536 July 22, 1974 Page Three Producers Committee for its recommendations and approval. Thereafter,, we plan to deliver the final version of the brief to OSHA on August 23, the last day that the Hearing record will be held open for this purpose. To round out this letter we are including an article from Chemical and Engineering News dated July 22, summarizing the Hearings, and two related newspaper articles --- one from the Washington Post on July 20, and one from the New York Times on July 21. We believe these are important not for the new facts or information that they convey but rather because of their possible effect on the climate in which the final Regulation will be . prepared. , With respect to FDA activity there are two items I to report. The first concerns the long anticipated pro posed interim regulation of polyvinyl chloride resins. It is our present understanding that a new version of the proposed regulation has been prepared and is being circulated through the Food and Drug Administration. It is our understanding that the current draft contains no substantive changes from the position previously reported that is, no detectable vinyl chloride migrating to foodsimulating solvents using an analytical procedure sensi tive to 50 parts per billion, combined with the requireIment that there be no residual monomer in the polyvinyl 'chloride food contact surface in excess of ten parts per million. The second FDA item concerns a request received from the Food and Drug Administration. You will recall that the Food and Drug Administration had requested in formation from manufacturers regarding the residual .monomer concentrations in PVC packaging materials and Sresults of migration studies into foods and food simulatjing solvents. Quite a number of the companies that responded indicated to the Food and Drug Administration jthat "work was continuing''. We have now been requested iby the Food and Drug Administration to ask those of you iwho informed the Food and Drug Administration that work was continuina to please supply updates as soon as you reasonably can. Basically, here, the Food and Drug Administration wants to be assured that it knows as much as it can about the possible migration of vinyl chloride to food. ASI~pr 0002537 July 22, 1974 Page Four With respect to EPA activities, the Task Force report is still in oreparation. Based upon our current contact with EPA it would appear reasonable to expect that the Task Force report will be presented to the Administrator near the beginning of September, after which, policy decisions by EPA can be anticipated. We do home these regular letters are effective in keeping you informed regarding the various aspects of the plastics industry's most severe current crisis. Certainly we shall continue to keep you as fully and promptly informed as we can. Enclosures ASI-PR 0002538 JOSEPH E. KELLER JEROME H, HECKMAN CHARLES M. MEEHAN WILLIAM H, BOROHESANI, JR ROBERT R.TIERNAN WAYNE V, BLACK DAVID L HILL MARTIN W BERCOVICI EDWIN B SPIEVACK PETER M. NEMKOV JOSEPH E HADLEY CAROLE C HARRIS WILLIAM W, PUGH LAW OFFICES Keller anid Hickman 1130 17TM STREET, N. W, SUITE lOOO WASHINGTON, D. C- 30030 July 17, 1974 TELEPHONE soa s^e-aroo CABLE ADDRESS"KELMAN" Mr. David R. Bell Office of Standards Development Occupational Safety and Health Administration U.S. Department of Labor Room 500 1726 M Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20210 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Proposed Action to Limit Exposure of Workers to Vinyl Chloride Dear Mr. Bell Responsive to Assistant Secretary John H. Stender's June 17, 1974 "Memorandum for Recipients of the Draft En vironmental Impact Statement on Proposed Regulation--Vinyl Chloride", the following Comments are hereby submitted to the Office of Standards Development of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (0SHA) on behalf of our client. The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (SPI) and its Vinyl Chloride and Polyvinyl Chloride Resin Pro ducers Committee. 1/ 1/ The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (SPI) is a Corporation organized under the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law of the State of New York. It is composed of approxi mately 1400 member companies and individuals who supply raw materials; process or manufacture plastics or plastic^ products, engineer or construct molds or similar accessory equipment for the plastics industry; and engage in the manufacture of machinery used to make plastics products or materials of all types. SPI is the major national trade association of the plastics industry, its membership being responsible for an estimated 75% of the total dollar volume of sales of plastics in this country. A more complete (cont'd) ASI-ppj 02539 2 It should be noted at the outset that the following Comments are being submitted for your consideration with full recognition of the fact that Dr. Daniel P. Boyd, Direc tor of the Office of Standards Development, clearly stated on the record at the recent OSHA Hearings on the proposed permanent standard for occupational exposure to vinyl chloride that, to the extent any interested party testified regarding the proposed permanent standard, such testimony will be considered as that party's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement referenced above. 2/ In light of Dr. Boyd's statement, in the following paragraphs we have simply summarized the basic SPI positions on the proposed standard and are requesting that the views ex- ' pressed be considered along with the entire record as a statement of SPl's Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. I. STATEMENT OF POSITION 1. The positions of the Society and the members of its Vinyl Chloride and Polyvinyl Chloride Resin Pro ducers Committee on the technological feasibility and economic impact issues relative to the proposed standard were presented in depth at the recently concluded OSHA Hearings, and, in our view, stand generally uncontroverted by factual evidence. We respectfully submit that a "no detectable" level of vinyl chloride in the workplace is (a) infeasible, (b) unwarranted, and (c) therefore, beyond the intent and scope of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the case law developed to date. 2. More specifically, SPI and many other parties participating in the referenced Hearing repeatedly pro vided hard data showing that the proposed "no detectable" level of vinyl chloride is technologically infeasible to T7 (cont'd) discussion of the interest of the Society in this entire matter is set forth in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hearings, In the Matter Of: PROPOSED PERMANENT STANDARD FOR OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO VINYL CHLORIDE, Transcript at 330 et seg., June 26, 1974. (Hereinafter cited as: Transcript at , (date) .). 2/ Transcript at 1110, 1111, July 8, 1974. ASI-PR 0002540 3 achieve because the vinyl chloride monomer and polyvinyl chloride producers, in the present state of the art, can not completely eliminate vinyl chloride exposure in their manufacturing operations. This most vital element of the Society's position was not countered by even a scintilla of evidence showing that a "no detectable" exposure limita tion is technologically feasible. Furthermore, no evidence was adduced at the Hearings that would controvert the Society's position that the imposition of an infeasible exposure level would result in a shut-down of the vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride industries. 3. If is also SPI's position with respect to thfe proposed standard that the medical and scientific evidence alleged as the basis for proposing the complete insulation of the work force from minimal vinyl chloride exposure is not sufficient to warrant the conclusion that more reason able exposure limitations would cause an undue hazard to employees. The Society's view is that the toxicity of vinyl chloride does justify limiting exposure levels but that the industry's alternative proposals to a "non-detectable" level give reasonable assurance that any hazard will be reasonably delimited and that employees will be protected from exposure to dangerous levels of vinyl chloride in the breathing zone. 4. Furthermore, medical experts testifying on behalf of the Society and others urged that the human experience data assembled is entitled, on toxicological grounds, to far greater weight than the inconclusive animal test data presented. Additionally, the human ex perience data justifies those exposure limitations which the industry considers feasible now and in the future. Considering all the testimony given at the Hearings, it is submitted that the tenor of the composite medical opinion was that the human experience data indicates that human toxicity problems associated with vinyl chloride stem from a time period when occupational exposure to vinyl chloride was at a considerably higher level than currently exists under the Emergency Temporary Standard. II. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 5. OSIIA's Draft Environmental Impact Statement is premised on the finalization of the current proposal without ASI-PR 0002541 change, the conclusion that the proposed standard is technologically feasible, and a presumption that the animal toxicology data mitigates against human exposure at levels above "non-detectable". SPI takes exception to these general propositions and urges that they be revised in the final Environmental Impact Statement insofar as evidence adduced during the Hearing and otherwise con tained in the record illustrates that these premises are invalid. 6. With regard to the outline of the proposed standard at Pages 53-60 in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Society's specific comments on the details of the proposed standard arc-, a matter of record and can be found in the transcript of the Hearing. 3/ 7. The Society, herein addressing the Draft En vironmental Impact Statement rather than the proposed standard, takes strong exception, as enumerated below, to the sections in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dealing with: "VI. Probable Impact of the Proposed Standard" at Pages 60-65 and "VIII. Alternatives" at Pages 73-75. 8. The Probable Impact section begins with the conclusion that adoption of the proposed standard will result in a workplace free of vinyl chloride exposure and result in less vinyl chloride escaping into the ambient air. It is stated also that compliance costs will threaten marginal firms, raise the price for PVC, and encourage the substitution of other materials but that high reliance on PVC will reduce demand elasticity despite these price changes. The Draft likewise postulates that other costs associated with compliance are deemed capable of internal ization . 9. While understanding that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared prior to the conduct of the above-referer.ced Hearings and that the evidence adduced at those Hearings consolidated considerable background and expertise upon which OSHA's ultimate decision will be reached, the Society is compelled to note that, in its view, the Draft Statement itself offers no documentation 3/ Transcript at 300-685, June 26-27, 1974 (and elsewhere throughout the record). 0002542 asi~pr or supporting evidence for the conclusions reached. In fact, it is respectfully submitted that the evidence gathered through the hearing process just completed in dicates that it is technologically infeasible to achieve the proposed "no detectable" level of exposure in the workplace, that this technological infeasibility is not primarily economically related, and that substitutes for PVC are not in adequate supply. / 10. At Page 62 in the Draft Statement it is in dicated that the proposed standard favors engineering and work practice methods that would reduce the exposure level and, at Page 64 and elsewhere, it is indicated that these engineering and work practice methods should include im proved ventilation, air filtration, and housekeeping. Testimony at the Hearing indicates that engineering and work practice methods could reduce but not eliminate ex posure to vinyl chloride in the workplace. It is sub mitted that the record is replete with information on these points and that such should be reviewed in great detail prior to the finalization of this Statement so that the environmental analysis will be based on a more accurate assessment of the state of the technology. 11. On the same page the Draft addresses supply problems, specifically with regard to personal protective equipment, that should be expected to occur with the im plementation of a regulation such as is now proposed. Supply shortages, and lead-time for ordering and instal ling various types of equipment to reduce vinyl chloride concentrations in the workplace were addressed at length throughout the course of the Hearings. SPI submits that, since indications were that order placement and installa tion lead-time are currently running in excess of 20 months, this factor must be addressed in more detail in the final Statement. 12. Again on Page 62, the Draft states that pre liminary assessments of the cost of compliance indicate that the expenditures to achieve such compliance will not be prohibitive. Without addressing the economics involved in detail here, reference should again be made to the statements in the record concerning ability to comply 4/ Transcript at 350 et seg., June 26, 1974 and at 455 et seg., June 26, 1974. ASI-PR 0002543 6 with the proposed standard; the testimony simply does not support the conclusion that economic consequences may not be prohibitive. Moreover, review of the Draft does not indicate that the preliminary assessment of cost of com pliance is supported by the data in Appendix C. This Appendix indicates, at Page 6, that control technology is available, and in some cases installed, for limiting vinyl chloride exposure. However, we have found nothing in Ap pendix C to indicate that technology which would eliminate exposure to vinyl chloride is either available or installed. 13. We hasten to emphasize this point because,.on Page 63 of the Draft, it is stated that since the technology appears to be readily available and existing practices already result in low exposure levels, some hazardous function operations, housecleaning and maintenance improve ments required notwithstanding, the conclusion is that substantial development costs for vinyl chloride control technology will not be incurred. Continuing on the same page, there is a statement that no evidence exists to date indicating that, the promulgation of the proposed standard will stop vinyl chloride production and use. Again, Ap pendix C does not support this conclusion and the evidence now in the hearing record as a minimum tends to controvert it almost completely. As a conclusion, its only support seems to stem from the statement on Page 64 indicating that PVC-reliant customers can be expected to sustain the industry despite the increased costs of polyvinyl chloride end products. 14. However, as pointed out above, industry members repeatedly pointed out during the course of the Hearings that the technology required to achieve a "no detectable" level of occupational exposure to vinyl chloride simply does not exist. Consequently, it is respectfully submitted that the final Statement should address the question of available technology in depth and in a more realistic light. Since compliance with the proposed standard would be abso lutely predicated upon the existence of technical know-how, SPI submits that it is essential that the final Statement address and resolve these questions and the probable effects of such a standard on an industry unable to achieve compliance. 15. Turning now to the treatment of "Alternatives" at Pages 73 through 75, the options OSIJA sees available asi_PR 0002544 could be simply restated as (1) a ban on vinyl chloride production, (2) adoption of the current proposal, (3) re tention of the Emergency Temporary Standard, (4) complete reliance on personal protective equipment and (5) an oc cupational exposure limitation somewhere between 1 and 50 parts per million (ppm). 16. The first alternative, a ban on polyvinyl chloride production, is not, it-is submitted, a viable alternative because (1) such action would be contrary to the public interest as a matter of common sense, and (2) the Occupational Safety and Health Act does not contemplate elimination of any industry. It is, therefore, urgentlysubmitted that, since legal authority for such an action is lacking, further consideration of a ban as an alterna tive is inappropriate. 17. Insofar as the second alternative deals with the instant proposal, the comments in the preceding para graphs hereof on Probable Impact are wholly applicable and indicate the inaptness of this approach. 18. Alternative number 3, retention of the cur rent 50 ppm exposure level specified by the Emergency Temporary Standard, is stated, on Page 73, to have been rejected as inadequate because animal tests "indicate that exposure to vinyl chloride at 50 ppm may well constitute a serious health hazard to employees." This statement im plies that the conclusion is justified not only by animal toxicity studies but that such animal experience can be directly extrapolated to human experience. 19. It is respectfully suggested that this con clusion is no longer supported by the available evidence. During the referenced Hearings, considerable new evidence, interpretations and further reports on animal studies being conducted and their relationship to human experience were introduced into the record. It is'the SPI position that in addition to the ongoing animal studies being con ducted, some of which were referenced in the Draft Environ mental Impact Statement, careful attention in the final Statement must be directed to the human experience data presented 5/ and the new toxicological research studies reported. 6/. 57 See, e.g. , Transcript at 500," et seq. , June 26, 1974. 6/ See, e.g.. Transcript at 955, et: seq. , June 28, 1974. ASI-PR 0002545 20. At Pago 74, the last alternative offered in the draft Statement refers to the "judgemental" {sic] selection of an exposure level between 1 and 50 ppm. Such an alternative is stated to be viable only assuming that disease in man from vinyl chloride exposure is dose related and low levels are not hazardous to man. 21. Since this is precisely the essence of the medical and scientific evidence given in the Hearings, it is respectfully submitted that such evidence, entered into the record subsequent to the time when the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared, should be . thoroughly reviewed and given great weight prior to prepara tion of the final Statement. It is our view that the medical and scientific data specifically indicate a dose related lesponse and that industry will do everything feasible to reduce the dose/exposure levels of vinyl chloride. This "Alternative," therefore, appears a feasible one, as does alternative three. 22. Finally, Appendix C, the Industrial Hygiene Survey Report on Vinyl Chloride and Polyvinyl Chloride Manufacturing Facilities, states, at Page 6, that vinyl chloride control technology is available and installed in some cases but that a reasonable time should be allowed for implementation of further engineering control methods such as local exhaust ventilation systems. It is important to note that this report does not and should not state or be interpreted to imply that the VCM exposure control technology currently available and implemented by the i-idustry is capable of eliminating vinyl chloride exposure o_- making it possible for producers and manufacturers to reach a "no detectable" exposure level in the foreseeable future. * ** THESE PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully submitted that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be revised extensively so that the final Statement more completely and accurately addresses all of the issues as they have now beer, more fully developed. It is the 0002546 asi-pR 9 Society's view that unless the draft is so changed, the final Environmental Impact Statement may well lack the balance and objectivity required by the National Environ mental Policy Act. Respectfully submitted, THE SOCIETY OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY, INC. B Jerome H. Heckman General Counsel for The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. ASI-PR 0002547 - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (Xcup;ition.il S.ifciy .ml Health Adminibtr.m'on Washington', D.c. :cmo MEMORANDUM FOR RECIPIENTS OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON PROPOSED REGULATION VINYL CHLORIDE This is to inform you that the final date for submission of comments on the -" "aft environmental impact statement on vinyl chloride, previously announced as July 17, 1974, has been extended to August 5, 1974. The increased time period for public comment allows 45 days from the Council on Environmental Quality's notice of receipt of the draft document in the Federal Register. Comments should be sent to David R. Bell, Office of Standards Development, Room 500, 1726 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, by August 5, 1974 to assure their consideration. Any inconvenience caused by the change in comment dates' is,1 regretted Daniel P. Boyd, Ph.D. Director Office of Standards Development ASI-PR 0002548 Government Industry decries OSHA's no-detectable level rule as unnecessarily harsh; both labor and ACS support proposed standard Mure mentioning of the words vinyl chloride to Occupational Safety and Health Administration officials who presided over public hearings on the agency's proposed permanent work place standard for the chemical may well lead to mutterings that enough is enough. In nine days, the officials lis tened to :t,r> hours of direct testimony bv 44 panels of witnesses--and many additional hours in question arid an swer sessions--and received 89 written submissions for the hearing record. Much of the data presented OSHA is conflicting. All this is of little comfort to the officials as OSHA has until Oct, 5 to come up with its final version of a permanent standard ft's likely that OSHA may well pick some middle ground standard--tougher than that proposed by industry, softer than that initially proposed by the Government--which, if either labor or industrv is unhappy about it, may well be chali. ".ged in the courts anyway. Data presented at the hearings tend ed to c-desce, in effect, into two posi tions- that of industry and that of Gov ernment -labor-ACS. For instance, a spokesman for the Society of the Plas tics Industry maintained that OSHA's proposed work-place standard--which, among other things, calls for a no-detcctable level of vinyl chloride--"is not technologically feasible and, if adopt ed, would shut down the industry," In contrast, 1\ ;cr Hnnimarito, president of the Umu-d Rubber Workers, said that the "OsHA proposal crimes closer to the idea! standard than any yet pro posed or promulgated for any work place hazard." However, ()r. Daniel P Boyd, direc tor of the office of standards develop ment for OSHA, although emphasizing that the proposed standard is just that--a proposal-said that "it repre sents our best judgment based on the information available on Mac 10... our present lodgment is that vinyl chloride is a carcinogenic agent." Dr. lined pointed out that in pioteding employees from a carcinogenic material, "We arc operating in the area of many unknowns. For example, we do not know the mecha nism by which a chemical carcinogen operates or whether a safe level of ex posure can be set." Much of the testi mony presented at the hearing dealt with industry's, labor's, and research workers' effort to resolve the latter question. The initial impetus for the vinyl chloride industry came during World War II when it was used as a substitute for natural rubber. According to Dr. Irving -J. Selikoff. professor of medicine at City University of New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine, "This immediately points to a problem of current vinyl chloride-polyvinyl chlo ride investigations; the industry is a relatively young one, and the late ef fects of toxic exposure have only begun to appear; most of our experience is still ahead of us." He told the hearings that clinical field studies are being conducted that include examinations of more than 1200 vinyl chloride-PVC polymerization workers. Although all the results are not yet in, he reported that studies of 35-1 current and former workers at Goodyear's plant in Niagara Falls, N.Y., "demonstrated a signifi cant prevalence of liver abnormalities, peripheral vascular changes, and lung abnormal!; les." Information on deaths from two plants, one which produces monomer and the other polymer, was presented by Dr. John M. Peters of the Harvard School of Public Health. He said that studies on IG1 deceased white males showed "a 50% excess of deaths due to cancer." There was a "60% excess of lung cancer (13 cases with 7.9 expect ed) and a 320% excess of brain cancer (five cases with 1.2 expected) with the number of liver cancer cases being 10 tunes those expected in a similar unex posed population. He stressed that these studies, though preliminary, show that multiple cancer sites are in volved and cancer is increasing over time in the population. Dr. Peters agreed with Dr. Selikoff in that he said, "I do not believe we will know the full cancer-causing potential of vinyl chloride for several years. At this point the only way to assure an end to this serious hazard is to eliminate the expo sure." The vinyl chloride-PVC mdustrx in general, took the opposite view. Harry E. Conners, vice president of Diamond Shamrock Chemical, told the hearings, "In our judgment the cases of worker illness recently discovered in industryore the delayed result of conditions that were common many years ago but are no longer present in tod.iU.x plants." Dr. Richard W. McBurn . corporate medical director of Diamond Shamrock Chemical, pointed out that "during the early years of PVC produc tion attention was given to vinyl chlo ride- vapors only because of the anes thetic qualities and the explosion haz ard. Since the explosion hazard occuis at upward of 30,000 p.p.m. and the an esthetic effect at 1000 to olXki p.p m. the vinyl chloride levels in work areas were undoubtedly quite high." Dr. Carl U. Dernehl. associate medi cal director of Union Carbide, told the hearing of a healtli survey conducted by SPl covering 16 plants employing 2372 persons whose current work per mits exposure to vinyl chloride, plus 471 who had worked with it in the past. He said that the study identified 1402 men who were exposed to vinyl SPI's vinyl chloride rules would differ sharply from OSHA's r A no-d `teetable level for employee i exposure as determined by a sampling f and analytical technique capable of deJ tecting vinyl chloride concentrations of ' 1 p.p.m. with an accuracy of 1 p.p.m. j 50%. This would apply to monomer, j.- polymer, and fabricating operations. J [ Labeling for regulated areas and ' vinyl chloride-polyvinyl chloride con-i J tainers with the warning to include the * words "cancer suspect agent.','., , j.. I' ' I Use of air-supplied respirators in , cases of emergency and when vinyl chloride concentrations rise above de tectable levels. - ' 1 ,r. v ( 1-7 ,ul 1 < For polyvinyl chloride resin plants, fa ceiling of 40 p.p.m. of vinyl chloride, fthis year, 25 p.p.m. in 1975. For vinyl {chloride plants, a ceiling of 25 p.p.m. Jthis year, 10 p.p.m. in 1975. PVC fabri cating plants,would be .excluded from i the standard. ; Labelir: should proviso those who [need the information with methods for J dealing with the problem; it should not ibe a basis for panic because of a dis1 ease characterization. ! Use of air-supplied respirators is im: practical except for short periods of I time. Air-supplied breathing apparatus Ialsoshould.be allowed...;';, i ,,PR 0002549 ASX ,11jlv ?? mza r.'.rn chloride at least 10 years nj^Bf which 416 had a latent period of ni^^tlian 20 years. Also identified were 787 men exposed continuously to vinyl chloride for more than 10 years, with 104 being exposed for more than 20 years. Dr. Dernehl said, "Examinations of these men have failed to show the existence of ab normal liver function tests in greater proportion than would be found in a control population. There is no case of angiosarcoma of the liver among these men even though their exposure time is sufficient for the disease to have oc curred and exposures are believed to have been in excess of 50 p.p.m." He concluded that "these data fail to sup port the need for an exposure level as drastic as that proposed in the stan dard." The SPI survey's findings were sup ported by Diamond Shamrock, Dow Chemical, B. F. Goodrich, Tenncco Chemicals, and Firestone. All reported that despite extensive surveys of their current and former vinyl chloride-PVC workers, no further cases of or deaths due to liver cancer have been found, other than the 13 previously reported to OSH A. Industry also felt that the proposed standard was too far-reaching. Accord ing to Anton Vittone, president of B. F. Goodrich Chemical, "The produc tion of vinyl chloride, its polymeriza tion into PVC resin, and the processing of PVC resin into semifinished or fin ished products is treated in the pro posed standard as one industrial health problem." However, he contended, "Each is an entirely different operation posing its own problems, permitting and requiring different solutions." Of particular concern to many indus try witnesses was the inclusion of PVC processors and fabricators, such as phonograph record makers, under the p:.)po. c-d standard. Monitoring data on \i.iyl chloride exposure in processing plants were presented by several wit nesses, including Philip J. Weaver, di rector of industrial affairs for B. F. Goodrich. In a conclusion that agreed with those of other witnesses, he said, "Our data does not support this con cept of inclusion of processor opera tions" under the prop: ed standard since "we find no detectable levels of vinyl chloride in most of the processing work places." In addition to urging that fabricators and processors not he included under the permanent standard, the Society of the Plastics Industry proposed that in vinyl chloride and PVC plants there he a stepped reduction in worker expo sure This is in sharp contrast to the American Chemical Society position presented at the hearings by Dr. Ste phen T. Quigley, head of the Society's de triment of chemistry and public af fairs, and Howard H. Fawcett, chair man of the ACS Committee on Chemi cal Safety. ACS, in essence, supports the OSHA proposed standard, asking PVC fabricators should not be included under the exposure standard, SPI urges only that the standard he defined as a minimum practical level capable of de tection by a recommended method rather than as a no-detectable level. SPI's proposed standard drew sharp criticism from Anthony Maz/occhi. citizenship-legislative director of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers In ternational Union. He said, "It will be a tragedy if OSHA adopts the so-called `common denominator' kind of stan dard that SPI sponsored. Under this approach a standard is adopted that everybody can meet. But those plants that can go further are under no incen tive, at that time, to do anything more." Most Companies at the hearing said that although it would he difficult, they could live with SPI's proposed standard. Two companies, however, re ported that 'Hey are already operating at much lower levels. Dr. V. K. Rowe, Dow director of toxicological research in health and environmental affairs, said that, the company, "is generally operating within an eight-hour timeweighted average (TWA) concentration of 10 p.p.m.; however, brief malfunc tions and other temporary situations occasionally result in short-term excur sions in excess of 10 p.p.m." And Air Products and Chemicals' .John T. Barr reported that his company has an eight-hour TWA in the 20- to 25-p.p.m, range for workers in its polymerization building and even lower levels for those in other job locations. Tenneco Chemi cals, however, estimated that it would have to spend in excess of $10 million to reach the exposure levels recom mended by SPI. Vinyl chloride-PVC industry wit nesses contended throughout the hear ings that meeting the proposed stan dard was just not technologically feasible, unless workers wore air-sup plied respiratory equipment all the time. However, Calgon Corp., which was moved from 20ih to last on the witness list, declared that technology was available to remove vinyl chloride from the air. William Lovett of the company's activated carbon division said that ttie mqjftimor can readily he adsorbed on activated carbon in con centrations ranging from 1 p.p.m. to more than 30% by volume in air He said laboratory results show that UXj% removal of vinyl chloride from air or nitrogen streams is technically possible using dual beds. Earlier in the hearing Tenneco Chemicals testified that it has included carbon adsorption to recover the mono mer from tw'o small process streams, neither of which contains air, in plana for its new PVC plant in Pasadena. Tex. However, it pointed out that it considers this activated carbon method to be "wholly impractical'' where large volumes of air and small concentra tions of vinyl chloride are i- olved. Mr. Bommarito expressed the belief that the standard can be met, saying that where "engineering controls may not be applicable, personal protective equipment can be used." He added that especially in newer plants the problem is "characterized by the will, not the ability, to do the job." He con cluded that "the medical facts are in and the problem is* now in the social and political arena." Internationa! U.S. reactor design loses cut in U.K. U.S. reactor design has lost out in its hid for the next generation of nucU.ir power stations in the U.K. The Briti-'1 government has opted instead for the steam-generating heavy-water reactor (SCHWR) system. The immediate plan is to build three twin-reac . r sta tions with an overall capacity of about 4000 Mw. of electricity. The first of these stations should be operating by 1982. The decision, taken by Eric Varley, U.K. Secretary of State for Energy, bucks the trend in other countries, where planned nuclear power programs center on U.S. designs for light-water reactor (LWK) systems, either General Electric's hoiling-water reactor iBWK) or Westinghouse's pressurized-water reactor (PWR). Indeed, at public hear ings before the Energy Resources Sub committee of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science ami Technology last December, both Ar thur Hawkins, chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, which supplies power to England ami Wale-, and Sir /Arnold Wein-aock, managing director of British General Electric, which has a 507c stake in U.K. Nation al Nuclear Corp., came out strongly in favor of IAVK's, primarily because the technology is already proven and can be fairly quickly brought into operation without major design and development effort ((,'itEN, Fob. 18, page 11). Mr. Varley cites a number of reasons for deciding on the KGHWR route. "In the government's judgment, it will pro vide power reliably and we can proceed in r? rxi is ima 0002550 21, 1974 i ji n / vi'ut in niL,i. 'Ideas ^Trends Edupation, Religion, Merita! Health V/hat Is Being1 Done About Jobs That Can Kill By JANE E. BRODY The recent disclosure that four i workers in a vinyl chloride plant hi developed a rare and fatal liver c cer led to an industrywide search j the discovery, so far, of 21 such ises. The Department of Labor has con cluded hearing on new limits to worker exposure to vinyl chloride, which is a chemical that forms the basis for thousands of plastic products, ranging from tablecloths and phono graph records to water pipes and in sulation. The vinyl cloride findings are only the latest of many instances of oc cupationally caused cancers. The first was in 1775, when Percivall Pott, an English surgeon, published a medical report describing a high incidence of cancer of the scrotum among the chimney sweeps of London. Dr. Pott's report inspired a ruling three years 'ater by the Danish Chimney Sweep 's Guild that its members should have daily baths to prevent accumula tion of cancer-causing soot. Relatively few subsequent discoveries of jobrelated cancers or other occupational diseases have resulted in prompt pro tective action. Danger and Delay Benzidine, a chemical used in the dye industry, wag first described in 1929 by . a British factory doctor as suspected of causing cancer of the bladder. In 195S, an American doctor, Mitchell R. Zavon. began compiling bladder cancer cases among workers .in a Cincinnari plant. But it was not until 1972 that Dr. Zavon disclosed his findings to Federal authorities responsible for protecting the health of American workers. And it was not until a year ago that Federal rules took effect to prevent worker ex posure to benzidine and 13 other known and suspected occupational carcinogens. Asbestos is a ubiquitous fibrous mineral used for everything from food processing filters to construction ma terials to brake linings. It has been known for two decades to cause invariub'," fatal cancers and disabling lung disease. Workers are still not protected, despite a Government ruling. Two years ago, the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration decided to lower the worker exposure standard from five to two fibers per cubic centimeter of air. But at the industry's urging, the agency delayed the effective date of the ruling until 1976. As a result workers may be inhaling as many as 12.5-billion potentially lethal fibers each year when a level one-fifth that has already been shown to produce cancer in man. This week a Senate subcommittee is holding hearings on alleged Labor Department foot-dragging on asbestos standards. The charges are that the Nixon Administration deliberately went easy on industry in return for campaign pledges. The Government is now proposing that the exposure limit of 500 parts of vinyl chloride per million parts of air be lowered to "no detectable level," or one part per million parts of air. The proposal is based on the scientific tenet that there is no "safe" level of a cancer-causing agent. At the hearings, company represen tatives asserted the ruling would be "economically not feasible," It would, they said, shut down the entire in dustry and result in the loss of per haps 700,000 jobs. Lab" sources condemned the conclusion s "hyster ical," and Dr. Irvin" J. Selikoff of Mount Sinai Hospital, * n authority on occupational diseases, pointed out that the Dow Chemical Company had al ready brought its levels down to below 10 parts per million, with every indica tion that th can be readily reduced sUli further. A Classic Battle Until the hearings, industry had been extremely cooperative in helping researchers define and control the vinyl chloride hazard. But now the fight Is shaping up along classic lines: labor vs. industry and industry vs. Government regulation. And there is every indication that similar battles will be waged in the years to come. Some 15,000 chemical and physical agents are in industrial use now; hundreds are introduced each year, most of which are untested for disease-causing potential. Assistant Secretary of Labor John H. Stender, head of the three-year-old Occupa tional Safety and Health Administra tion, has warned that Government action to protect worker health has only just begun. As he put it recently: "Research so enthusiastically poured into finding profitable uses for new substances must be expanded to include determin-ing bow safe these substances are. 'Any doubt must be resolved on the side of the employee." (Afore Ideas & Trends, Page 16.) i P'- ASI-PR 0002551 Txrxse-. I John Herling ------------_------- ^ SAT URDAY, JULY Protecting W orlcers 1974 And Their Jobs Like God's angry man, Peter'Bom- marito, president of the Rubber W'orkers Union, stormed at leaders in the g chemical and plastics industries for re listing stronger safeguards against ' cancer-producing vinyl chloride, a substance used in the manufacture of a i wide variety of products, . "There are millions of workers-- '(frightened men and women -- who don't want to die for their jobs," said Bommarito, who is chairman of the oc cupational safety and health committee of the AFL-CIO Industrial Union - _ Department which repesents G.OOO.uilO -d workers in GO unions. "They want to be told that industry management and un ion and the government, federal and _ state, can assure them of a job and t their lives. They certainty want both,'' he continued. "But if this is not possible then they choose life." Mr. Ilerliup writes frequently on labor topics for these popes. management's tactics of delay and poor-mouthing of its financial ability to cover the costs of protection. What it amounts to, he said, is that the "nation is being blackmailed'' by manage: rnts resisting the application of new e active health standards. They raise the '.pceter of "an end to l.G mil lion jobs and national disaster," Bommarito's voice grew sharper: "He made it clear he had no intention of bargaining with the health Bommarito spoke to an occupational and safety of union men safety conference on vinyl chloride. The hushed audience in the Labor De- and women." ----- 7- ------:: ------;p.irtmerit, auditorium included repre- .. sentatives of management, government , V. ' /and unions. He made it clear lie had .~L ' , - 1 no intention of bargaining with the "This country survived for nearly 200 ; .> ____ health and safety of union men and years without polyvinyl chloride (PVC) '* ` A women--although this has sometimes and we can survive in the future with- 1 " . happened in the past. out it. If PVC cannot be made or used ' Often, when stricter standards are advanced for the protection of the health and safety of workers in plants and/or mines, two things take place. First, the prospect of greater protec tion for workers scares the industry I because of the expenses of implementi ing safety standards. Second, mana e ment warns that the cost of such im provements will be so prohibitive that , i plants will be closed and workers thrown out of their jobs. i What iteomes down to is that work ers are confronted with a dread ' choice: "Your wages or your life." safely, then the proposed standard must be replaced by an orderly proce dure to phase out vinyl chloride pro- , duetion and find substitutes for its products, or to phase out the products themselves. This is not an easy posi tion to take. But thebe is no alterna tive." The battle over vinyl chloride is the latest confrontation between labor and industry on the subject of protection for workers against cancer-producing chemicals. Battles over asbestos and carcinogens continue to be fought in Congress and in the courts. Labor, said Bommarito, has listened to experts ... .. .. ` ^ Based on experience, employers are . " ' "~i ' ` 1 confident that unions and their lead- - .' J.-' ', -Aprs, threatened with unemployment, . j. .* will make some face-saving coinpro- '" mises. These are often filtered through 11 ' ' - a screen of confusing statistics, to reas sure workers that at least for the time being they have no medical cause lor alarm. from all over the world and "we have concluded that the proposed govern ment standard of `no detectable level' for vinyl chloride is both necessary and feasible." Bommarito concludcd'"The issue be fore us is really not the control of vi nyl chloride. The issue is whether life has a higher value than dollars, whether we will permit corporate r Hut Rommnrito was having none of structu; es to run the country without , (that. Like the Oil, Cliemcial and At control. The language and the intent omic Workers, his union lias been one of the Occupational and Safety and ^ ------------ t of the pioneers in insisting that man- --1-4#* I ill Act mean that workers' liu-s no gg'1'->' ' 1-.......... *' - agement must mil duel; responsibility maintaining safe work places Bom- marito says he lias had a bellyful of longer can be sacrificed for financial gain. The vital organs of our bodies are not for sale". r' pR 0002552 '<* AS I UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS ?/0 I'AIIK AV1.NUI , til W Vlli'K, II. Y 1001 1 July 18, 1974 Dr. Robert V. Cairns Executive Director-American 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W. Washington D. C. Chemical Society Dear Dr. Cairns: I am writing you this letter in part, to protest the position of the American Chemical Society in its statement to the Occupational fety and health Administration on the proposed standard for occupational exposure to vinyl chloride and, in part, to ask that you give public notice of the fact that the position of ACS in this matter does not represent consensus of the membership but rather the view of a limited group of committeemen having only a most limited understanding of the facts related to .his most sensitive matter. Perhaps had you or your a-sociate, Dr. S. T. Quigley attended the regular sessions of the hearing, you would have seer, first-hand Low inept was the presentation of the ACS; the ACS' presented no facts or experimental evidence as to the biological activity of VCM; produced no study as to the value of the proposed in;- -.itoring, assay, medical surveillance, and protective equiptment recommendations; put on the record no information as the engineering <>! economic feasibility; offered no epidemiological evidence. As the record now shows, the ACS offered opinion in support of the "no detectable" standard proposes by OS HA while the evidence presented in fact contravenes the need of such a drastic standard _ Support of the OSHA proposal by the ACS is especially unrealistic in light of the massive contrary evidence presented by various industry spokesmen (including well-informed ACS members) that: 1. Not even continurus exposure to vinyl chloride monomer in high concent ra t: ons over a period of time will recessariIv result in any deleterious e'Tects in humans. No evidence of any such effects at levels below 2J0 parts per million exposure ;ore shown, 2. The enitnal data on vinyl chloride monomer exposure which is the only possible basis cited for imposing any exposure limits is not only se 1 f-contrail i ctorv . inconclusive and non-probative in itself buL also c.mnoL lie and has not been related or translated into human experience. The testimony on the human experience as lor example that of Dr. Derneiil, shows that little If any harm has if fact come I run employee expo-uiro to viuvl chloride monomer, even over extenled periods at high concents at ions; set also the Dew Chemical ibmpany Le timony that no ill effects on humans at less ASI-Pr 0002553 (2) than 200 parts per million exposure levels were ascertainable from their extensive studies. 3. As to the issue of feasibility, the critical facts are, as the hearing testimony clearly showed without meaningful rebuttal, that there is no way for the industry, with existing technology, to meet the standard proposed by OSHA. The fact that many companies including Union Carbide, are able to meet an employee exposure level for vinyl chloride monomer lower than 50 parts per million does not mean that they can achieve levels below 25-30 parts per million and achieve a no detectable level. The companies are the only ones that have the facts on this phase of the problem and are the only ones in any position to make this sort of assessment. They conclude unanimously, as all have emphatically stated, achieving a no detectable level is simply not possible at the present time, even tuough tney are ail willing uo make the attempt. Statements by ACS that the OSHA proposal car. be met' arise wholly out of ignorance or a self-serving desire to justify a position otherwise. unsupportable. The evidence OSHA possesses and noted by ACS merely shows that a statistically insignificant number of employees, expo.ed continuously for prolonged periods of time to 'nigh vinyl chloride monomer concen tration, could possibly get angiosarcoma; even mat result is not a proven certainty. The evidence shewed nothing else, nor will a re view' of the OSHA and UlGSH presentations rt the barring show anv warrant for any such sti invent regulations as is r.ronosec. If there is truly a hazard c'-'er, from unregulated vinyl chloride monomer exposures it at best is slight; limited to a workplace producing or using vinyl chloride monomer and, indeed, to a very few areas in any such work place, without any impact on the environment outside; and a hazard in the workplace only at continous exposure levels far beyond those 0. .iA limits either in effect at this time or proposed. Perhaps the ACS position paper might have given notice that there will be a severe environmental impact resulting from the economic consequences of adopting the proposed standard, wholly unwarranted by the hazard sought to be met, and which ought not to be imposed either on employers; on the employee.; affected by job loss; or on the con sumers who use. vinyl chloride monomer - "el ated products in mnr.v harmless forms. The Directors of the AC as a minimum, might have sought advice and comment from ACS members who are working in the midst of this sensitive matter before the Directors issued a position paper in behalf of these members. In summary, it is my view that Luo ACS did a dis-service to its membership by participating at the Hearing on occupational exposure to vinyl chloride in support of the proposed OSitA Standard without ASI-PR 0002554 (3) providing factual evidence generated by the ACS through research or survey on which Co enlarge Che total understanding of the sensitive matter of VCM toxicology. The participation implied that the ACS position was that of its membership which, by my standards, is a gross misrepresentation. As a minimum corrective action, I ask you to put on the public record the fact that the presentation by ACS at the Hearing is the viev; of a limited number of Director members and not the consensus of the ACS membership. Additionally I would hope that the ACS refrains from continuing to create a pu.' lie record on the matter of VCM toxicity until such time as .he ACS itself has a factual contribut ion to make to the issue. With kindest personal regards and the hope that the views of an acti\. ACS member of more than 35 years will be heard. Very truly yours, ABS/nn A. B, Steele ASI~pr 0002555