Document evBVXK6qyRaw4G3RDRLmJB7x4

S. M. ANDERSON TO: MEMORANDUM 1989 February 8 RE; NEW YORK ASBESTOS REGULATION________________ _______________ The attached article from the New York State Business Council's Capital Journal summarizes the State's asbestos regulation. S. M. ANDERSON SMA:af1 Attachment Copies To: T. S. Mock 1 M. L. Cooper 2 L. E. Tate -- 303 W. R. Duso 9 S. R. Barr -- 60 W. J. Boyea -- 73 R. K. Morrow -- 60 R. M. Overbey/D. R. Wilson -- 8 J. M. Shaw 60 L. L. Rippey, Pittsburgh Office - 6 ALCOA PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT AL-888 "Safety is Your Business" Regulation mi fi'n 0tu ii ASm'i i j^yfi *1-,s fr-- --'^T f iff-flfotm -'fn' ^nrfte.i Asbestos Work Rules Labeled A Failure After a year's experience with new state work rules for asbes tos abatement projects, busi nesses that work with the substance are calling for sig nificant reforms in what The Business Council has labeled a "failing program." New York State imple mented new regulations for as bestos abatement programs in 1988, largely to provide in creased public protection from exposure to fibers during asbes tos removal. At that time. The Business Council warned that the restrictive regulations would produce delays and in crease costs for asbestos projects in industrial settings. Now, the Council's Asbes tos Working Group has filed detailed reform recommenda tions with the Department of Labor's Code Rule 56 Revision Task Force and has shared its concerns with the Senate and Assembly Labor Committees. "We fully recognize the need to effectively control the asbestos industry through a licensing and certification pro gram, and to assure worker and public safety," said Ken Pokalsky, manager of govern ment programs for the Council. "Yet current regulations result in extensive delays in asbestos projects, and the cost of abate ment projects for member com panies has increased on average by 50 percent -- making many projects prohibi tively expensive. But the real issue is that these rigid work rules do not add appreciably to public safety." Specific areas of concern identified by the Business Council working group include: Friable vs. non-friable as bestos Friable asbestos, which is in a crumbled, powdered or ex posed condition and is capable of releasing fibers into the air under hand pressure, poses a significant health concern. However, non-friable asbestos -- in the form of floor tiles, as bestos cement and roofing felts -- is generally recognized by health, engineering and con struction experts as not present ing an exposure hazard if handled in a way that does not generate dust. Despite their drastically different risk levels, both friable and non-friable as bestos are now covered by the same rigid work rules. Distinct work rules should be established for non-friable asbestos, according to the work ing group. The group also said that Article 30 of the Labor Law should be amended to pro vide the Department of Labor with clear authority to distin guish between friable and nonfriable asbestos in its abatement regulations. Glovebags Under current New York State rules, the use of glovebags is restricted to projects involving no more than 10 square feet or 25 linear feet of asbestos material. (Glovebags are large enclosures which allow workers access to asbestos through protective gloves.) The working group said this "seemingly arbitrary restriction" poses real problems in projects where, for example, a business is remov ing asbestos from pipes that are hundreds or thousands of feet in length. The glovebag tech nology is recognized as safe by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Environmental Protection Agency, and is used in virtual ly every other jurisdiction in the country. The New York City Department of Environ mental Protection, for example, allows glovebags for projects of up to 1,000 linear feet. "The state's restrictions on glovebagging have imposed a tremendous burden on in dustry in terms of both cost and time," Pokalsky said. "Eliminating this restriction would in no way compromise on safety and would make the rules far more appropriate for industrial settings." In-plant operations Present rules exempt minor projects done by inhouse employees from licens ing and certification requirements. These exemp tions should be expanded to in clude all in-plant repairs and routine maintenance opera tions, the working group said. These projects are regulated under existing OSHA rules which protect the public, in cluding non-asbestos workers in the plant. Council Calendar Small Business Albany Presentation February 27-28 Albany Hilton Capitol Journal February 3.1989