Document MM2z8gJJkMpVBQXE6rzexYNxy

pfoponir' ndvfnt to o-,ha asdfrtos STAMOAPnr Wednesday, fjctob-'- ). >975 At 8:00 AW I was informed that Secretary of Labor Dunlop had, t be orc.-iour, right, sinned a nrnnosed amendment to th - OSHA asbestos standard to reduce the eiqht-hour time-weiahted ,iv^rfror 2 fibers to ?. fiber oer cc Tbe `'rcrjorer! standard was annarentlv omen' -"ed in an unusual manner and wiUi unprecedented uroency since Mr. Daniel Boyd, Director of OSHA s Office of Standards, was unaware of the orooosed chanoes until the morninq after and he and his staff had nlayed no oart in the develooment of the orooosal. Mr. Boyd indicated that the chanqcs were drafted in the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor, Marshall Miller. I also learned that the renulations were to be oublished in the Federal Register on October 9, 1975. Because of a renorted leak from the U.S. Government Printing office, publisher of the Federal Reqister, Mr. Miller included the matter of the orooosed asbestos standaro on the aqenda of a press conference called the afternoon of October 1 to discuss several other oroDOsed standards beinq issued, particularly for lead and for toluene. Thursday. October 7^ 197 5 In an attempt to recreate the events leading to the Publication of the proposed standard, HSSE staff made a series of telephone calls to contacts within oovernment and labor. A few calls, surorisinqly, were made directly to J-M by government and labor officials. Our first calls were to -labor, particularly since the Asbestos Committee of the Industrial union Division of the APL/CIO had held a meeting on September 17, at which time one item on the agenda was the proposed class action suit of Manville employees against J-M. We had considered the possibility of a rpcoirni,**i- for l~voring *-he standard coming from this meeting, we have verified, however, that the consensus of the committee was not to ask for a lower level but rather to insist on increased enforcement of existing regulations on those segments of the industry not yet in compliance of the 2 fibers oer cc. level. This is in full accord with my understanding of the position or labor during my on-going meetings with reoresentatives of the IUD, APL/CIO. In addition, conversations with Georne Taylor, Chairman of the OccuDational Safety and Health Committee of the IUD, confirmed that labor had exerted no pressure on government for a reduction in standards and was as surorised as industry by the announcement. -2- l.ate Thursday mint (about 11 PM Denver t ip) I received a call fro-" Or. Irving selikoff which lasted well ovr an hour, at which time he rooat leal 1 v stated that a. he was surprised bv the standard: D. at no time in bin discussions with OSHA had h" volunteered a num.-r ai> a -.ui.s t i t or - for ? fibers -v>r cc. : and tell you what a sate level is." In oeneral nr. Selikoff denied anv resnonsibi1itv for nressurina OSHA into a reduction in the standard, and he reiterated his oft-stated nos It ion that the asbestos worker would be better served by compliance from those sen-ents of the industry not vet to 1 fibers nr cc. rather than bv an attack on those segments where the 2-fiber level nad been, tor the most raart, achieved. Because of Dr. Selikoff's aoitatio n dur ind our conversation I can only conclude that he was very much concerned over what aDoarentlv, and what I have since confirmed, was a betrayal on his part of his word and his as surances to me. He denied direct or self-initiated action in relation to the proposal for setting a new standard, a nosi tion not supported bv a number of sources. He concluded hi s call by reoustinn an nroent moofjnn ir.'.'Ol vine i'c.'.tcsencdt ives from labor. Mount Sinai, OSHA, and J-M (specifically, not *.IA) to discuss and resolve as many issues as possible in advance of J--M s response to the proposed red ulat ions, Friday. October 3, 1975 At 7:45 AM I received a ohor.e call from Marshall Miller who wanted to discuss the standard. He stated that the 0.5 fiber orooosal was OSHA's response to the circuit court's order last year reauiring OSHA to review and evaluate the 2 fibers per cc. standard bv SeDtember 30, 1975. When I questioned why 0.5 was selected, Mr. Miller stated it was arrived at on the basis of "a qusss at a feasitilif ~f "cf. ' -'-c-ent b" industry." OSHA's basic approach was to reduce the exposure of asbestos workers to the maximum extent possible, and that the 2 fibers ner cc. level could be improved. Furthermore OSHA felt tbe 2-fiher standard was really based on asbestosis rather than on carcinogenesis. He als" stated that *-we lecent data by Sit Hicnard Doli rrom Turner urotners and tne MurielNewhouse data from Cane Asbestos were factors in arriving at the 0.5 nmnosal . He was unaware that because of certain crucial data limitations these reports provided no support to changing the standard. Mr. Miller aoologired profusely for not having called me a-per our agreement, hut his reasons were not reassuring to me. Th bf-akdown in rrinnnn irflt inn was St amerl nn run confus inn surrouniiim ts# noi"hr nf nronosed standards thv wore deaiinq with ir, addition to ashestor.. sr. M11 1 e r em nn* s 1 7 q rhor rno word ino in i- h nr nmh 1 rn r h roqulations was lft nuitc loose. Further, m the event th orooosal became re-iu 1 at ion , there was extreme flexibility in torus of timinq and phasing in of the r eou lat ions. In addition, 03HA a"i iiT'-t-vu i a t - 1 w uudet t <*k 1 no a -.Lu-lv of in-- economic i,unset of the rrcc'.s-.l -f.icn Siller felt could affect the validity of tn basis for 0.5 finer ner cc. This reversal of normal procedure contributes to the mystery of the settim of this standard since it is in contrast to th procedures mandated for the other standards nrooosod at th same time. Further compound i no the mvsterv was Miller's plea for the stronoest possible comments and rebuttal ov industry. Miller swore that never aqain would a standard be set and announced in such a wav as to catch both industry and labor hv surorise. He agreed to send me a memo--after clearance bv his leoal staff--relating that the ournose of 0.5 fiber ner cc. is the neneric commitment to reduce worker exposure, but that OSHA is "prepared to alter their position on the 0.5 standard even if it should result in accusations of wafflinq, cavino in, or even beinn politically pressured." The conversation ended with, aqain, an aoolony for n.v not havino hon consulted and -.tli concern ana reqret for the emotional response to the proposal. Summary 1. It is clear that the 0.5 standard was arrived at in a clandestine wav since routine in-house procedures (i.e.. Office of Standards) were bynassed by the Department of Labor . 2. The AFL/CIO denies any pressure to reduce the 2 fibers ner cc. level and was unaware of the proposal until its announcement. 3. Selikoff's call was very emotional and his statements are of doubtful veracity, which necessitates a reexamination of our relationship with him. He is clearlv worried but this is of 'ittle solace in liqht of the mischief created by the proposed 0.5 standard. .4 Miller's call was in the tradition of "lockinq the barn door after th horse is stolen." His reasoninq that the proposal attempts to remedy the deficiencies of the 2 fihers per cc. standard (oeared to "asbestosis" not "carcinogenesis") is faulty. 5. In all of our contacts and discussions in relation to this