Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 3 · column 5 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
conducted by the state Department of Air Pollution Control.
Dr. Ernest Dixon, testifying for Avtex, attempted to discredit a series of studies that found carbon disulfide to be harmful at low levels, labelling them unreliable, flawed, and exceedingly cautious.
“At low levels (carbon disulfide) just does not produce cardiovascular or neurological damage,” said Dixon.
In addition, Dixon criticized the state’s safety formula for the general public whereby workplace safety guidelines are multiplied by one sixtieth.
“This , empirical mathematical method creates a margin of safety that is far greater than warranted by the low toxicity of carbon disulfide at low exposure levels,” said Dixon.
In contrast, the DAPC staff report stated that, “The factors used by Virginia are by no means the most conservative in use by regulatory agents . . . Virginia's acceptable ambient limit is one of the highest concentrations allowed."
Avtex lawyer Clayton Walton was prohibited from including information on residential and non-residential areas on grounds that the information was irrelevant to ambient air concentration.
Inappropriate meteorologists information may have lead to higher reported concentration, according to Avtex testimony given by Dr. Robert Tartiff, an environmental scientist from the Medical College of Virginia. J. Steven Sheppard III, assistant attorney general and representative for the DAPC, argued that the company had certified the reported information as correct.
Data compiled by the DAPC modeling revealed that Avtex carbon disulfide emissions exceeded state concentration standards as many as four days in a row. The staff report emphasized that these levels were not highly unusual for Avtex.
“The modeling results leave no doubt that the significant ambient air concentration . . . has been and will continue to be exceeded due to carbon disulfide emissions from Avtex,” according to the DAPC staff report.
The DAPC recommended that the board refuse Avtex’s request to relax the standards, saying in their report that any relaxation of the existing standards would be “cont
89.3%