Document mRYZMzrx9Q5M9jMEZo0JQrLk

*^5''f ^ r " Os M RULES AND REGULATIONS /f ^h?- 4 - ;y ^35393 -.-i and polymer Industries. Employers who, temperature as' PVC, for further pro- ' below the action level, ho further, moni in fact, are substantially below the ex ' cessing, indicates that a potential for re- toring is required unless the employer posure limit will be subjected to only ' lease of the residue still exists. It ap has reason to suspect that any employee . minimal burdens by virtue of the "action pears that the exemption of fabricated Is exposed in excess of the action level, level" to be discussed below. products should be limited to Just those or unless. changes have been made In Where employers in the fabricating items which will not undergo such mass production, process, control, type of resin, Industry have exposures approaching the heating. Further, the opportunity to etc. , - . permissible limit, they will appropriately demonstrate that exposures. are below Where the exposure level, without re be subject to the standard. Employers the action level, and thus, discontinue gard to respirators, exceeds the perntis-' handling or using fabricated products many duties of the standard, provides a sible levels, monitoring must be conduc- ; made of PVC were not included in the more positive control and an adequate ' ted at least monthly. Where exposures . ETS or the proposal and are excluded from the final standard, nils conclusion are less than the permissible levels, but (2) Permissible exposure limit.-The greater than the action level, monitoring j - is based on the absence of adequate evi standard sets an exposure limit of 1 ppm must occur at least quarterly. ` .- dence of exposure to VC in these opera tions. Hie final standard clarifies the ex emption by defining a fabricated prod uct as a product made wholly or partly from FVC which does not require further processing at temperatures, and for. times, sufficient to cause mass melting of the PVC. SPI and others (cl. TR. 344) requested that PVC resins with less than 0.1 percent. residual monomer be ex empted from the regulation now, and that the exemption level be reduced to 0.01 percent in three yearn. SPI suggested that the exemption of materials with less than 0.1 percent of 14 carcinogens from 23 CFR 1910.93P (39 PR 3756) was an appropriate precedent. The cases are not comparable, because no attempt had been' made to set air concentration limits for the 14 carcinogens. The record did not include information that reliable moni toring and measuring techniques were available. Moreover, the exemption did not exempt airborne traces of carcino gens. The administrative cutoff was pro vided to avoid regulation of materials about which there was no health haz ard information, and which would have broadly extended the application of the regulation beyond the record. Herein, no information was presented to show safe concentration results from the use of resins with specific levels. Indeed, the proposal to change the level later, when improved technology would permit such reduction, would seem to indicate that . 6PI has doubts about, the safety of 0.1 percent residue level Diamond Shamrock (Exhibit 142) testified that there is no averaged over any 8 hour period, and a C5) Methods of compliance. The stand- . ceiling of 5 ppm averaged over any per ard, like the proposal, requires that em- iod not players Immediately' institute feasible-' 11 as JKCTmniy cuscusseo ]aBove. tht engineering and work practice controls limit Is based on an evaluation of the best to reduce exposures to at or. below the- - available evidence and cur a judgment ' permissible exposure limit, '' - ' that the health and safety of employees Where feasible engineering and work ;'' must be protected to the fullest extent practice controls will reduce exposures feasible. In view of the fact that release .below the permissible levels, they must of VC In the VC and PVC manufacturing be instituted. Where such controls will _ ` processes are Variable; the 1 ppm ceiling' not reduce exposures below the permls-. - - level provided in the proposal would sible level, they must nonetheless be im- require maintenance of an average level plemented to reduce'exposures to the - significantly more difficult to attain, lowest practicable level, and be supple- through feasible engineering controls. mented by the use of respirators to pro- . * Therefore, the exposure limit prescribed In the proprwalhas bp.-n rH vide the necessary protection. There- ';.' upon, a continuing program of engineer- ->' 1ST Action level. The final standard, ing and work practice controls must be ' unlike , the ETS and the proposal, pro instituted to reduce exposures to tbe low- T vides lor an "action level" of 0.5 ppm est practicable level. When exposures are. - ' TWA. one-half of the permissible ex at or below the permissible exposure - posure limit. The purpose of the action level is to minimize the impact of the limits, the program may be discontinued. In addition, a plan for achieving con- ' - standard on the employers who have trol by engineering and work, practice attained exposure levels well below the methods must be drawn up and be made. permissible limit. Thus, where the re available, upon request, to represent- --* sults of monitoring under paragraphs' atlves of OSHA and NIOSH. -' . - (d)(1) or (d)(2) demonstrate that no . We recognize that many employers . employee is- exposed in excess of 0.5 covered by the standard can not cur-': '*., ppm TWA, employers' may. In effect, be rently achieve compliance with the per- - .; : exempted from some provisions of tbe mlssible exposure limit solely by the use standard. For example, fabricators who of feasible engineering and work practice - ` ~ are below the action level are not re controls. The record also reflects broad .- quired "o provide medical surveillance or. generic distinctions between the compll- * '' to monitor again, unless the employer ance. capabilities of - the VC and PVC. has reason to suspect that any employee Industries. Some industry .spokesmen, '.- is exposed in excess of the action level. Including SPI (TR. 358-362), recom- -^v In our judgment, exposures below the mended that a schedule of different per- !- action level do not present a sufficient missile exposure limits and compliance direct relation. They indicate that the airborne concentration Is more related ' to the physical form of the resin and the ventilation provided. Also, monitor ing data from Industry (cf. Exhibits 131, hazard to warrant application of the en datqs be established for the VC and PVC tire standard to the many employers who segments of the industry. , - ; are or will be below that level. This view assumes that the ability and o?R!OTB5miB^ifH5r?IS!!8SJ8r the time required to feasibly reach in-- ; like the proposal, requires that individual creasingly lower control levels is similar *- . 168, 170) and OSHA (Exhibit 161) indi employee exposure levels be determined. within each Industry, but differs mark cate that levels in excess of 1 ppm may This may be accomplished by personal edly between industries. While the record - be found In fabrication operations. In . or area monitoring. Some witnesses ami does suggest that such differences do view of these facts and of the opportunity persons who submitted comments did . exist between industries, as noted above. ' for employers to discontinue many duties not understand the meaning of tbe term It is clear that Intra-industry differences ' upon a showing of no exposures above the "95 percent confidence'level" In the also exist. Thus, the ability and time re- action level, it does not appear that any proposal. Essentially It means that the quired by each employer to attain lower residue exemption Is either Justified or , employer Is required to take a sufficient control levels may depend upon such necessary at this time. This course also * number of measurements sol that the re- factors as the climate* in which the plant - agrees with a number of Industry pro . suits obtained are statistically valid. We 1?located, the age of equipment, the size posals (cl, TR 660). have modified the proposal to establish ' of reactors, or the type of resin manu SPI (TR 345), among others, asked that compounded PVC pellets be ex empted from the standard on the grounds that the pellets had too low a residue to cause harmful or measurable emissions. While it appears that PVC pellets would accuracy range requirements for various measurement levels. These ranges are narrow enough to ensure that a deter mination of compliance can be made, and broad enough to allow the application of a variety of technologies. factured or used. (Snell study. Firestone ' testimony, etc.) - -`,,- Monitoring data also tends to support such intra-industry variations. (See, e.g. Dow, Firestone, Tenneco.) '- - As noted above, the standard requires have a lower residue level than virgin All covered employers are required to all employers to institute feasible engl-* : J PVC, the fact that the pellets must be conduct Initial monitoring. Where moni peering controls to the fullest extent and . heated to a molten mass at the same toring and measuring results are at or to continue to improve and apply engi- HDERAl REGISTER, VOL 3?, NO. 194--FRIDAY, OCTOSER 4, 1974 EC4637 F-05705 F-l Organic Lead Area Sample Collection EC4638 E-05706 F-2 EC4639 F-05707 P-3 Portable Air Compressor i Tube Sampling of Utility Air system for CO or C02 (seven such points are sampled daily) EC4640 E--05708 F-4 CO-CO- tube sampling station Oil and Water relea: from utility air li: EC4641 e-05709