Document bBj0RgM8pmEERXVwDj16Qg9O6

Due to an irreconcilable conflict in Mr. F. J. Trunzo's schedule, I attended the VCM and PVC Producers Group Meeting in Washington on December 6, 1974. At the meeting, it was reported that SPI's Petition to Stay the Order of OSHA with respect to new respira tory protective equipment to become effective January 1, 1975, will be heard before a three-panel court on Friday, December 13, 1974, at 10:30 a.m. in the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, New York. Basically, SPI's argument will be made in three parts: 1. Feasibility - Since the Secretary cannot prove that a level below 50 parts per million is unsafe, then to set a level below 50 parts per million is not ( feasible; 2. The proposed solution is not-a solution - Can indus try secure a work force willing to use respirators especially in light of the Secretary's inability to support his argument that respirators are needed to protect the work force from levels below 50 parts per million; 3. Vagueness - The Secretary has mandated that industry reach the lowest level feasible, however, what is it? * If the Court remands the proposed regulations of the Secretary, the emergency standard will apply. However, if the Court fails to act on SPI's petition by January 1, the new standard will control. This raises the question as to whether or not PPG has applied for a variance from the OSHA standard based on the unavailability of the type of respirator required by the proposed standard. If not, I recommend that wc proceed witli filing the aforesaid variance to protect the working operations of our manufacturing facilities. It has also been rumored that NIOSII will approve a canister type respirator without indicator light sometime during December. To date FDA has not published a proposed regulation. When pub lished, all interested parties have sixty days to comment on the v.. FORM 503.A REV 8-I-7Q SL 092601 ID:412-392-5367 MAY ll'OO 16:11 No.019 P.04 Dr. Z. G. Bell, December 13, 1974 Page 2 proposed regulation. Although no regulation has been published, at the present time FDA is considering limiting the PVC residual on the surfaces which come in contact with food. Allegedly, this ; proposal is approximately one month away SPI recommended that a concerted effort to illustrate the improper direction of matter to be controlled is the actual migration of PVC into food substances. Presently, EPA is considering a regulation regarding the emission of VCM. It has two alternatives under its authorizing statute. Under Section ill, VCM would be termed "somewhat hazardous" and the actual regulation would be left to the states where $uch factors as technological feasibility, cost and ecology could be considered in setting the standard. Under Section 112 of the. Clean Air Act, VCM would be termed "really hazardous" where the standard would be established by the BPA requiring industry to "assure safety with adequate margin of safety". In this instance, indus try would havo the burden of proof with respect to the safety of VCM. According to SPI personnel, the EPA presently intends to proceed under Section .112 but to read into the Section 111 consid erations of technological feasibility, cost and ecology. This legislative interpretation would make the EPA standard vulnerable to attack by public interest groups as those encountered in the lead additive cases. Although the standard is not imminent, it can be expected between February of 1975 and the following six months. I have enclosed the following documents for your edification: 1. Meeting agenda, 2. Financial Status, 3. Report of the Public Affairs Committee, VCM-PVC pro ducers Committee, 4. News releases of the SPI with respect to its Petition to Stay of the QSHA Order. If you have any questions with respect to these matters or the en closures, please feel free to call me. Dennis E. McArdle Attorney DEMcA:mpf Attachments cc: Messrs. F. C. Dehn T. Z. Korsak _^J*JTrunzaM. G. Slaney (w/attachments) (t " ) ^ C" ) SL 092602