Document vBpKXkoGqqG90KM8zZj97ekMY

WALL STREET JOURNAL (1983 June 07) U.S. Weighs Tougher Curbs on Exposure ToWt/g^and Benzene in the JVorkplace "By Jqanx S. Linz* , SmtJItrpTirT if Tut: W*ix m*T Jkukmal 1 ~ WASHINGTON--Tbe federal government f b considering imposing stricter limits as oc-i cupafianal. exposure to two deadly sub-L stances, asbestos and benzene. f The moves, growing out of Intense pres-V sun by unions and scientific groups, would'i represent a sharp departure from the Rea* j gan administratiao's emphasis on reducing J costly government regulation.. | The Labor Department b looking at set* . ting a maximum workplace exposure limit tor asbestos of S00.000 fibers for each cubic meter of air. Tbe current level, set in 1973, b two million fibers a cubic meter. "In my personal opinion. It (the new fimit) might go lower" than 500.000. said John Martanlk. deputy director of health standards for the department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration, in an In terview. Many scientists contend tbe limit should be reduced to 100,000 fibers a cubic meter of air. Mr. Martonik said it isiTdear yet whether a limit that low b attainable and accurately measurable. At the same time OSHA chief Thorne Auchter promised quick consideration of tougher exposure leveb for benzene. He made the commitment in a letter to the Pub lic Citizen Health Research Group, run by Ralph Nader. Tbe group, along with six un*! ions and the American Public Health Associ- 1 ation. petitioned OSHA In April for a tempo-. > rary emergency standard to further limit; workers' benzene exposure. - Mr. Auchter said he hasn't ruled on that petition yet. But meanwhile, his letter noted, be would hasten regular rule-making proce dures. "We have decided to issue, on an ex pedited basis, a permanent (new) standard by June MM," hb letter noted. "We share the concern... that benzene has the capac ity to pose a very serioufc risk to work- Action In ITS . - ' In 1978. the job-safety agency tightened lb benzene rules after receiving evidence linking high exposure leveb to leukemia. The rales reduced allowable exposure to one pan benzene for each million parts air from 10 parts a million, the previous standard. Bat in 1980, the Supreme Court threw out tbe tougher standard, saying OSHA had failed to establish first that it would remedy a "significant risk of material health Im pairment." Until now, the agency hasn't at tempted to reexamine the benzene rule us ing the court's 1950 guidelines. ~ An estimated 600,000 workers are exposed to benzene. About 35,000 are exposed at-lev eb greater than one part a million, where the consumer health group thinks the stan dard should be.placed..That level, an even lower one of part a million and others, arm be examined. Mr. Auchter said in his letter. He Indicated a new benzene standard would be proposed by November. Benzene b used frequently as~an interme diate chemical in the manufacture of pias-, tics, as well as an ingredient in solvents such as paint remover. | ~, Meanwhfie. Rougher exposure Bruits for I ' tre likely to be propond by later this summer. Mr. MartanOc sud^dnd a new. nde could be isdend by fan. The agency ear .Her had said It planned to revise the as-' bestas standard by September 1985. He said the speedup partly reflects new scientific evidence linking exposure at low leveb to asbestosb. a lung disease, and mesothe lioma. a cancer of tbe lining of the lungs. OSHA has estimated 1.4 mlllioe workers have -been exposed to asbestos, once used widely in producing ships, floor tiles, brake linings and roof coatings. - Builders' Requirements In, 1975, the agency suggested lowering the asbestos standard to 500.000 fibers a cu.hic meter of air. but It never acted on the jutposaL The proposal excluded tbe con struction industry. That industry wfD be in cluded in any new lower limits, Mr. Marto- nik said. However, be'noted, OSHA abo b fmcMring modifying builders' compliance . requirements to mke sure they're appropri ate to tbe industry. Such alterations might mollify certain employers' objections to. tougher exposure levels. OSHA's attempt to reduce worker expo- . sure to benzene and asbestos mightn't please tbe White House. Tbe Office of Man agement and Budget recently tried unsuc cessfully In block the job-safety agency tram continuing to require engineering contrab to reduce textile workers' exposure to cotton dust. Budget-office officials contended that otherjnethods would be less_OsUy. , Abo. some unions aren't entirely happy with OSHA's action on tbe two hazardous chemicals. They want the agency to step up its enforcement efforts while the current standards are being strengthened. Other wise, "millions of workers will be exposed unnecessarily" to the substances, said Shel don Samuels, health, safety and environ ment director for the AFLGO's Industrial Union Department i ALCOAO 000008787