Document 4vB2GwjM2b77qrDvoRgqxgg7G

I i UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION - METALS DIVISION P.O.BOX 579 NIAGARA FALLS, N.Y. 14302 . TEL: 716-27B-337B February 12, 1981 Hr. B.J. Pigg Asbestos Information Association/ North America 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway Crystal Square 4, Suite 509 Arlington, Virginia 22202 Dear Bob: Attached is a report on an interesting development in California, i.e. rejection of the Cal-OSHA revised standard on cleanup of asbestos by the Office of Administrative Law. You may recall that the AIA/NA provided substantial tes timony and much of what was suggested was incorporated into the revised standard. The end result was a substantive modification of the original proposal to a rule which was stringent but, if enforced in a reasonable manner, appeared to be livable for industry. No action by the AIA/NA beyond keeping informed of Cal-OSHA actions is suggested at this time. I have, however, asked our company representative in California to provide whatever information is available on the background and implications of this OAL action. It is also noteworthy for AIA/NA members with operations in California ~t portions of Federal OSHA and other federal regulations would not appear to v nd up to the tests applied by OAL. If OAL persists in the use of these tests it could have a substantial impact on the future of state enforcement of federal regulations. Very truly yours HBR:vs Attachment cc: J. Reis T.A. Dougherty bcc G.F. Rouse F.J. Shortsleeve/R.W. Rebholz Harrison B. Rhodes Technology Manager A085SC UCC 014058 k 1 CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Vol. 20 No. 4 January 30, 1981 New Review Agency Rejects Cal-OSHA Proposals Three separate Cal-OSHA standards Other grounds for rejection arose The third proposal rejected dealt proposals have been rejected recently out of other statutory requirements, in with repair work on metal forming or by the Office of Administrative Law for Labor Code Section^ 1471-F^and 144.6. cutting machines such as punch pres failure to meet the requirements of AB One is a i^dui^eg0pj^iiT showing ses, to be in accordance with "estab 1111, McCarthy, D-San Francisco. tInat,' iLTe^proposabJ^T-not'-;"unduly lished engineering practice." It also This bill was enacted in 1979, but was burdensome^oji.interstate commerce was rejected for failure to include in not effective until July 1, 1981. and the other is for a showing that the i the final general statement the facts fjA proposal i i. To ' expand t? 1 i .existing, T-no.ap' o" safl,1_*ls f-easible.. Both. o-f t-hese which had been relied on in proposing standards Hpr^cleaifbpt^'of.. asbestos' femmed From bills carried a few years the change. spills" is ropgsalUl~k* ago by Sen. Newton Russell, R-Glen- f***rejected.Tt wS ado^tedjate,iast.year,, dale. The bills had been drafted and Significance: Employer Opportunity t despite criticism and questions'raised sponsored by this Association's Safety The significance of these develop f at the public hearihgT," / -> and Health Committee. ments is substantial, and for industry, encouraging. It provides a new oppor Rejection: Several Grounds Forklifts: "Vertical Sideways?" tunity and incentive for employers to_ The asbestos proposal was rejected Another proposal rejected dealt participate in the standards process.Ht on two separate grounds established with operation of forklifts when work- potters some assurance that employers, by AB 1111. The first was the failure ers are standing on the lifting plat- f^houId"not^alway^xp&crffie wr~ _* j~n by Cal-OSHA to explain in _Their form. It had required the mast to be vCaliTornia,^ as r fias*l5eenb tbe case "finalI general statement" tEeTeasons .."vertical in a sideways direction as tfreguently. ~ Cfor"" {fi,on.^-a^s"' jnr:equired;___ statur,e9 THe __well as forward and rearward." It failed to meet the requirement of{ Cal-OSHA: "Painful Shoe' second was a fail^ure to me_e_ t the clarity but was also rejected because i-or state otticiais, the meaning is requirem^rpf.v'clarltyrl pne:of the the final general statement did not set somewhat different. The situation is basic criteria provideB for in AB 1111. forth the facts relied upon in proposing now reversed as bureaucrats, for the the change. first time, are being required to know, understand and comply with laws aimed at them. This comes as a somewhat painful shock. It may re quire time for adjustment. A08591 The Cal-OSHA Advisory Committee last week featured some discussion of the subject, with rather pessimistic views being expressed by state of ficials such as Don Vial, Art Carter, and Richard Wade. Vial deplored the process as being "legalistic," and Richard Wade questioned whether all "performance-type" standards would lej __________ ____ _ ' farcrlonTT)rTSTriESJucedToVme"re"copy ^ UCC 014059