Document w00gm93X0mk3Z4QbokJz7rD6

Mr. Julius Jizneno Docket 36 1726 M Street, N. W, Room 200 Washington, D. C. Dear Mr* Jizneno: Re: Docket #36 The comments of The B. F. Goodrich Company regarding the Foster D. Snell (Snell) Preliminary Report submitted to the Acting Director of Planning, Evaluation and Research of OSHA in the captioned docket are as follows: The Preliminary Report concludes, with one possible exception, that a "no detectable*1 level is technologically infeasible. It follows that a standard establishing a "no detectable" level would be improper. The only statement in the Report contrary to the conclusion that a "no detectable" level is infeasible is found on V-6: "Firestone was the only FVC producer reporting the ability to meet a 'no detectable1 VCM standard primarily using engineering controls." This statement was amplified by Exhibit V-10 (1) and (2), the source reported to be "Firestone presentation to 25 June 1974 OSHA hearing and Snell estimates". We submit that these references in the Snell Report with respect to Firestone are not accurate, are misleading, and do not, in fact, reflect the record Firestone made at the hearing. 23399001 BFG26481 -' fc.y, Mr. Julius Jimeno September 3, 1974 Page Z For example, on page 1682 of the hearing record, Mr. Walker testified "Because the exposure levels of the proposed standard are . technologically unachievable . .continuing with a recommenda tion for a prudent exposure level. Further, on pages 1682-1683 "Firestone submits that a safe and medically sound as well as a technologically and economically feasible standard is that which provides for a 25 parts per million TWA and 40 parts per million ceiling exposure level*" and on pages 1684-1685 "Firestone's engineering studies indicate that it is impossible on the basis of the present state of technology and the engineering art to predict with any degree of certainity that the reduced levels suggested by SPX can be achieved in existing facilities . " " . it is our position that the extent to which exposure levels can be further reduced cannot presently be numerically predicted." Therefore, the Exhibits in the Firestone submission and in the Snell Report concerning 0-1 level expenditures are not definite but represent maximum economic expenditures to reach lowest possible levels - not "no detectable" which is technologically infeasible. Further on the Firestone position is found at pages 1696-1697 of the Record: "The clear conclusion resulting from the studies carried out by the Firestone engineering staff in conjunction with Catalytic, Inc., and Or. Frederick Higgins, Jr., is that Firestone would have no alternative but to cease all polyvinyl chloride manu facturing operations if the proposed standard Is adopted. The studies by the engineering and production staffs at Firestone's 23599002 BFG26482 Mr. Julius Jimeno September 3, 1974 Page 4 On page 1822 "MR. RUSKIN: So one, you made the statement that in absolutely all areas, meeting the proposed standard of below one part per million is unachievable? "MR. WALKER; That is right." la a post-hearing submission. Firestone restated its firm position on page 15 as follows: "While the technological evidence presented at the OSHA hearings was far less extensive than the medical and scientific data there adduced, the affirmative engineering and technical evidence established by Firestone and other companies unequivocally demonstrate that tlle non-detectable levels of the proposed permanent standard cannot be achieved and that it is conjectural and highly speculative that an exposure level below 25 ppm TWA is technologi cally attainable* " Further evidence of this position is found in the pages immediately following in the Firestone post-hearing submission* In short, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that "no detectable level" is technologically infeasible. This is the evidence of the hearing, this is the Firestone position, this is the Goodrich position, and this is accurate. Very truly yours. William C. Becker BFG26484 23599004