Document X8DZz9Y1Rdv1Eg97j6VLXjL9g

I i UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION METALS DIVISION . P.O.BOX 579 NIAGARA FALLS. N.Y. 14302 TEL: 716-278-3376 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 rt portions of Federal OSHA and other federal regulations would not appear to s 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 H8R:vs Attachment cc: J. Reis T.A. Dougherty bcc: G.F. Rouse F.J. Shortsleeve/R.W. Rebholz Harrison B. Rhodes Technology Manager A085uC UCC 014058 CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Vol. 20 No 4 January 30. 1981 New Review Agency Rejects Cal-OSHA Proposals Three separate Cal-OSHA standards proposals have been rejected recently by the Office of Administrative Law for failure to meet the requirements of AJ3 1111, McCarthy, D-San Francisco. This bill was enacted in 1979, but was not effective until July 1, 1981., fA~ proposalio ` expand' .g^Tsfing. standards "for jclearhig ' of.. asKesfop* spills Is t]WJatesT * rejected. Tt was ^qptecl^late iast year,, t-- l despite criticism and questiorisTalsed at the public tiearingT ~~J' Rejection: Several Grounds The asbestos proposal was rejected on two separate grounds established by AB 1111. The first was the failure by Cal-OSHA to explain their ` `final^ general statement'' tEereasons [7o'rjrejectingjhe arQumentsjn opposP ^as TegutredThy . stature. The second was a failure to meet the requireerrngnTfotv'clarity.^ pne-of the basic cri`te- ria piovideS tor in 1111. Other grounds for rejection arose The third proposal rejected dealt out of other statutory requirements, in with repair work on metal forming or Labor Code SectKju}^ ,l_4?r_l^and 144.6. cutting machines such as punch pres- Cfiie is a requjremept. -showing ses, to be in accordance with "estab- tra^""fKS*^n^saCj^r^t^tunduly lished engineering practice." It also burdensome op.joter^tate commerce"-., was rejected for failure to include in a_<n?dj *thefot.heFr is fo--r -a- s-howiin-g th-at t.he tj-,c fjnaj genera] statement the facts froposaV Ts feasible. Both of these which had been relied on in proposing femmed from bills carried a few years the change. ago by Sen. Newton Russell, R-GIen- dale. The bills had been drafted and Significance: Employer Opportunity sponsored by this Association's Safety The significance of these develop and Health Committee. ments is substantial, and for industry, encouraging. It provides a new oppor Forklifts: "Vertical Sideways?" tunity and incentive for employers to_ Another proposal rejected dealt participate in the standards process.jit with operation of forklifts when work- potters some assurance that employers ers are standing on the lifting plat- Should"noFalwaysScpect^&ie worship form. It had required the mast to be iCajiTbrnlaL- as ' has* Seen". the case `^.vertical in a sideways direction as Ujrequentfy. ~ well as forward and rearward." It failed to meet the requirement of^ Cal-OSHA: "Painful ShocIC**^ clarity but was also rejected because '------ t-or state olticials, the meaning is the final general statement did not set somewhat different. The situation is 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. AOS 591 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 S^ndaFgg^.oaja^-.^<pyld-J?rrJa.t<. to ftmtrionThrbTreduced'to'a mere'copy'"3*' --"-------- --*. UCC 014059