Document jyZpno66mvz5MowO2xyxoVaOZ

NEWS FEATURES revised policy, The company will reduce emissions by about 2,300 tons/yr beyond what could be achieved using conventional controls, and at the same time save over $12 million in capital costs and several million dollars in annual operating costs. Seven large stacks will be controlled more tightly, instead of imposing con trols on 119 process-fugitive sources. Because only seven sources need to be inspected, enforcement will be easier and quicker. In another bubble, over Armco Inc.'s steel mill in Middletown, Ohio, $6 million worth of controls on such open dust-sources as storage piles, roads, and parking lots are reducing total suspended particulate (TSP) emis sions by 4,000 tons/yr; controls for process fugitives, at a cost of about $20 million, would have resulted in a mere 650-ton/yr emission reduction. Armco's program is cutting TSP emissions six times what could be achieved with traditional controls, while saving the company $14 million in capital costs and almost $3 million in annual operating costs. In addition, says John E. Barker, Armco's director of environmental engineering, the pro gram is seen as instrumental in getting the community classified as an attain ment area within the next six months. EPA estimates that "with increased trading from this policy, the economy will be saving over $1 billion from bubbles alone by the end of 1962, thereby freeing scarce capital for industrial revitalization and jobs. The agency already has approved 18 bub bles that save $50 million over the cost of conventional controls, with another 100 under review that save an average of $2 million each." LOOKING ahead--Prompted by some chemical companies, industry trade groups, and utilities, EPA is studying the pros and cons of incorpo rating a bubble provision into some new-source performance standards (nsps) now under development. In fact, at a meeting last month of the National Air Pollution Control Tech niques Advisory Committee,* the agency discussed some of the issues that would be involved in an NSFS bubble policy, and received comments from the Committee and the public. Should epa decide to go ahead, it might then add bubble provisions to individual nsps on a case-by-case basis. Cynthia L. Fabian * A (roup of opera n the field of eir-pnlhition count, tm memhue are from industry, etwi/cotenal group, we and local poihnkmKuuni eftuiu, cobutdaf firm, aad *TMt*1-* Solar unit will use molten salt medium I | Sandia National Laboratories (Albuquerque, N.M.), which has achieved an energy conversion effi ciency of 90% with a liquid-sodium solar receiver, has nevertheless chosen molten salt to store solar energy in its next project--a system that will pro duce steam to generate 750 kW of electricity. A Sandia spokesman notes that the medium costs only about a third as much as liquid sodium, is not as hazardous to use (liquid sodium will bum if a leak exposes it to air), and is preferred by most users. In earlier tests, molten salt was heated to 1,050F, and conversion effi ciency was about 85%. Sandia is now preparing for a full-system trial of molten salt (60% sodium nitrate, 40% potassium nitrate), in which the medi um will be stored after it is heated, then used to generate steam for driving a turbine to produce electricity. The spokesman notes that this will be the first time that molten salt will have been used to generate electric power. Martin Marietta Corp.'s Denver Div. will build the system, with tests to begin in the summer of 1983. URL 05042 In limbo: OSHA's cancer policy Nothing much has happened since the Reagan team announced a revision of the generic carcinogens standard, but some crucial decisions may be made this summer. Q When the Reagan Administration launched its regulatory relief cam paign during its initial weeks in office, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (osha) generic carcinogens policy was targeted as a major candidate for swift and sweep ing change. But now, more than a year after that announcement, osha is far from issuing even proposed changes to the controversial rule, and more than a year away from adopting permanent changes. What <dsha and the rest of Reagan's regulators are running into is an increasingly complex debate on technical and emotional questions about environmental cancer. In January, 06HA announced that it would be revising the standard adopted in 1960, and asked for public com ment on several points. During the summer, OSHA officials will evaluate the new comments, as well as those dating back to October 1977, when the current standard was first proposed. Already, new questions are being asked about the cancer policy by top Administration officials, including the most basic of all: Does OSHA really need a generic carcinogens standard? gonunsus B yxs--There Is general agreement among industry and labor that OSHA needs guidelines for deter mining what defines a potential human carcinogen and what the agen cy and employers should do about it. But that is where the consensus stops. In the six years since the idea of guidelines for carcinogens was first proposed by the then Assistant Labor Secretary Morton Cron, both groups have joined top cancer scientists in disagreements on the prevalence of environmentally induced cancer, the meaning of animal studies for signal ing potential human disease, how can- ^HlMWVil KHCINSKMNC JULY M, IM2 27 URL 05043 cer is caused by chemicals, and how much U.S. industry should spend on controls. Those arguments still rage today. It is not yet clear what qsha's cur rent chief, Thome G. Auchter, will eventually propose, but he is under significant pressure from the Presi dent's task force on regulatory relief and from industry to pull back on the cancer policy. Vice-President George Bush, chairman of the task force, is reportedly upseu with the slow pace of regulatory changes, and the OSha car cinogens rule remains a major target of the Reagan team. Both the Administration and indus try officials are looking at other ways to coordinate and streamline federal government efforts to control carcino gens. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, for example, has put development of agency-wide criteria for regulating carcinogens on a fast track. Its regula tory work group on science and tech nology, chaired by OSTF director George A. Keyworth, is expecting to release preliminary guidelines for defining carcinogenic chemicals and assessing their risk to humans, by mid summer. The intent is to come up with a policy that could apply under the numerous environmental laws admin istered by the Consumer Products Safety Commission, OSHa, the Envi ronmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and others. PCOtMVlKWS--Industry, led by the American Industrial Health Council, also would like to see adoption of a federal science panel that could evalu ate the p*--danger' of various chemicals regulated by more than one agency. AIHC and its member compa nies are pushing for the establishment of science advisory boards at each reg ulatory agency to make the difficult technical judgments about possible human-cancer risk from various exposures. A top scientist from an AIHC mem ber company explains that the "peer review" offered by such science panels is critical. "These are important eco nomic and policy questions that must be based on sound technical judg ment," he says. Both proponents and opponents of the regulatory peer-review process are anxiously awaiting the expected re lease in September of recommenda tions from the National Academy of Sciences on whether the panels should be set up at all. nas's National Research Council Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health is evaluating, in response to a Congressional order, the way the government can cer risk, and is expected to take a close look at adoption of a national science panel on chemical carcinogens. WHAT industry wants--Mean while, the controversial OSHA cancer policy remains on the books. Court cases against it have been filed by organized labor, which calls the 1980 rule too weak, and by industry, which claims that the policy locks OSHA into an unworkable straitjacket that trig gers questionable regulations. The suits have been consolidated into the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans, where the case is stalled awaiting QSHa's new final rule. So far, industry has been pushing for a totally revamped policy. In addi tion to proposals for science advisory groups to study chemicals on a sub stance-by-substance basis (rather than plugging data into a set formula, as the current rule suggests), industry focuses on two major points. First, and most basic, is the policy's failure to allow equal consideration of negative* epide miological and animal data. Industry scientists say this view is narrow and could result in unneces sary and expensive regulation, espe cially in cases in which animal studies show a cancer link, but decades of human exposure show no excess of cancer cases. Second, says industry, the standard must be changed to conform to the Supreme Court's July 1980 benzene decision that requires osha to prove that its rules will protect workers from "significant risk of -harm." The Supreme Court's order essentially threw out the standard's provisions that would have automatically re quired installation of engineering con trols to reduce exposure to the lowest level feasible. Now, industry says, OSHa must go one step further on the cancer policy and allow flexibility to use a variety of controls, including respiratory and other personal-protec tion equipment in the presence of potential carcinogens. ibd iaSicmt that there a me powria) cvda^HMdty. "The way the policy is written now," says Lee Starr, director of envi ronmental health and safety affairs for Celanese Corp. (New York City), "does not allow for you to be innova tive." Starr and other industry officials feel that the current policy "freezes" science by setting up rigid criteria for treating each chemical the same way, and warn against making any future policy too inflexible. LABOft DISSENTS--But union offi cials, who were uncnthusiastic about the idea of a cancer policy in its early stages, now believe a strong policy is needed to force the Reagan Adminis tration into regulatory action. The agency has not moved as quickly as labor would like on requested new health standards for such compounds as ethylene oxide, formaldehyde and ethylene dibromide. A strong cancer policy could trigger automatic regulation where animal data indicate a potential problem, union leaders say. "A generic policy is a necessity," says Richard Lewis, occupational and environmental health specialist for the International Chemi cal Workers' Union. "So far, we've only seen this Administration taking apart standards rather than developing them." Organized labor is expected during the summer to fight to keep the stan dard intact. Meanwhile, the OSHA carcinogens policy sits unused. The January 1982 notice requesting comments suggested a stay on the controversial "candidates list" and "priority list" that would have to be published under the policy, and it is unlikely that Auchter will publish any list of possibly dangerous chemicals while the massive rewrite of the rule is underway. But what the agency will do in the future is still an open question. Some industry officials who would like to see the formal policy scrapped worry that revoking the rule might result in more adverse publicity than OSHA or the Reagan Administration can bear. Clearly, this summer will prove crucial for major decisions about the government's role in regulating carcinogens. As one union official notes, "The issue is simply this--are we going to have a major cancer policy or not?" Vicky r>hn McGraw-Hill World News (Washington, D C ) CKHOCAL HGOUmMC JULY M, IM2 29