Document xzGZw2EpX0KBbQMr0xRXV6jVG

FRICTION MATERIALS STANDARDS INSTITUTE, INC., E-210 ROUTE 4, PAEAMUS, N. J. 07652 BULLETIN N 0. 6 1 2 October 12, 1977 OSHA PROPOSED RULEMAKING FOR SUBSTANCES POSING AN OCCUPATIONAL CARCINOGENIC RISK On Tuesday October 4, 1977, OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on suspected carcinogenic substances in the Federal Register, In this proposed rulemaking, substances would be classified: Category I Category II Category III Category IV Toxic substance confirmed as carcinogenic in humans Toxic substance indicated as a potential carcinogenAny toxic substance not classified in Category I or II Toxic substance not found in the American workplace. The proposed regulations then draw up standards for the Categories for control through establishing permissible exposure limits, monitoring, regulated areas, respirators, medical surveillance, etc. Asbestos would be a Type I carcinogen and would require that workers' exposure be kept to "lowest level feasible." While the indications are that OSHA does not intend to re-write the Asbestos Regulation, it appears that this "ill-in-the-blanks" proposal is patterned after the asbestos regulations. Presumably, substances such as lead, benzene, etc would be conttolied by establishing the Category, and then filling in exposure limits, etc. The full text of the notice covered 100 pages in the Federal Register of Tuesday October 4, 1977 starting on Page 54147. A single copy of these proposed regula tions is available on request. (Additional copies at $5.00 each). A write-up on these proposals from the NEW YORK TIMES Is enclosed. EWD/erc Enclosure: cc-Active Members-List C Regional Members E. W. Drislane Executive Director FMSI 06937 G FRICTION MATERIALS STANDARDS INSTITUTE, INC. BERGEN MALL OFFICE CENTER ' ' E. 210 ROUTE 4 EARAMUS. N. L 07652 OCT 0 6^77. ' * ' THE NEW. ; , . '...i Health Hazards and the Workplace^ : , By DAVID BURNHAM ',t WASHINGTON--Seven years after the T>ast-have'been ?argued, and < Congress approved, the Occupational reargued as each' individual carcinogen Safety and Health Act, the Federal' - came under regulation: . Government this week laid out ah' en- : One issue the Government wants'to ; forcement plan that, if upheld; by the, - decide as a general policy is what kinds ; courts, could1 have a significant impact' ,of proofs' will'be' required to declare ' ' oh - the health.hazards found in the that a given substance causes cancer.- L workplace. . 1 - ' > The second > issue 'is what - action the : TJp to the present, although'the Oc . Government will' expect" abusiness to:, cupational Safety and Health Adminis- take after a substance is declared a. 1 tration has been subjected to an,almost carcinogen.', ** ' v.7 ' -endless, barrage of criticism .by -busi-: V . As spelled'out in the 278-page Labor? nessmen, many experts agree it has " .Department! proposal, - -evidence -de- - . been largely ineffective in confronting veloped -..during - specifically .defined l'.': . the health problems created by indus .> tests' lonA mamalian animals ' could -be 7 trial processes., v .- r; , , - ,, - the basis: for determining that 'a toxic '", ; in more than six years of operation, substapce. is . a carcinogen' and, once ,' for example, OSHA has managed to , so determined, that the1 exposure limit.? `Df.'jEfflla'.Bi) _ put into effect regulations limiting "will be setas low as feasible.'.''* * -T' i]-ht-; j,:- ....... the exposure of only 17 of the more than-1,500 carcinogens that scientists believe are present in the nation's factories, hospitals, chemical plants, beauty shops, mines, cleaning stores and even office buildings.. . . . . '' ; .. * A report by the General Accounting Office last spring said that at the exist Assuming the' hew comprehensive. , .But' the/proposal, could: rasultliSE cancer proposal survives the expected tremendous .-increase , _ Governments} challenges by business- and., industry, 1 pressure .on industry to limit the temlsfj the potential impact of the.plan is enor-', , sions of cancer-causing agents and this mous.;During the last 75 years'- of'in- -7r would cost') money--first?industry?* creasing industrialization, for example, ' "money, "then. the public's 'money when* , deaths from cancer have risen from - -it buys-what industry sell. -The j>lasti^sm 64 per 100,000 in 1900, to 162.8 per " industry, representing a segment oftrojf 100.000 in 1970. and 171.5 per 100,000 dustry that would he particularly, ing pace it would take OSHA more tfjanZa century to regulate substances already, identified as hazards and that . nfw... and dangerous. - products: were being added to the'environment every dy.4; .f -T "Thus," the. General Accounting Of fice report concluded, "the bleak health conditions, which Congress sought to ..improve (in the Health Act of 1970)- in "1978. Cancer is now killing about fected, said that 'it shared the Goveriit|` 1.000 persons per day in the United ment's concern in wanting to reducaS States and each year 900,000 new cases ,. occupational exposure to carcinogcuisS are diagnosed. . , . ' But it denounced the plan'as "nothing?* ; -, - -?.' more than ari .attempt by a regulatory > Somewhere between 60 percent and > agency to devise a `quick'fix'^met' ' -90 percent of .;these cases, 'scientists' of dealing with the admittedly,xliffii now `believe,:,.are; triggered! by. sub < task of reducing the risks of,occ dances in the environment of America, tionalhealth *hazards. jR> but! ^rnany of which originally are generated V formula`Wiirprovidelflreu'iSit answ still exist, and many may be getting i'n th e workplaces, worse." - osha; \ ,.< , 'But' on Monday, Labor Secretary " While the ,'human , anguish 'behind Ray'Marshall and Dr. Eula Bingham, . these statistics is impossible to qualify, tfje bead of the' OSHA, made a . 'the costs can be estimated."According proposal that would provide a drastic to some studies, about $1.8 billion a change in the agency's approach to year is spent in the United States solely, health problems and a great -increase for hospital care for: cancer patients, in the.pressure on business to confront S3 billion .to $5 billion a year is spent T X these problems. - ' I . tor all kinds of treatment Of cancer and perhaps. $12 .billion a year is lost JMr.' Marshall. and , Dr. Bingham in earning power and. productivity be- recommended the Federal Govem- cause of cancer. . :[ : ' . .OSHA proposal ;dbes hot -end 'in the.1' T workplace: Other' Federal' agenciehi-^f-j such as the< Consumer, Product SafeLyES Commission, ' and*: the . Environmehitid^^ Protection .'Agency--regulate careifcm genson? a substance-by-substance, basisr Should this - approach vsunSi^ legal challenges--which past individuujf cases would; suggest ris likely-4-tn.fi? they, too, could begin a` broader, ' speedier,cleanup driyp: sXT meht's first comprehensive plan to con- Mr. Marshall referred to these broad In' a membfahduin accompanying |__ t&I the hundreds of substances that er costs to society--some of which are proposal, OSHA -said that' it'vyas faSMi - produce cancer and the abandonment reflected. ip higher health-care preml oouraging full discussiori. Written `-aifbttr of-the present substance-by-substance , urns paid for the general population-- i' nHssion^ 'shouidTbe'iehbr^o.'the .OSHAS approach. Under the plan, model fill-in- when asked whether he had calculated . Docket^^OfficeriCDocket'HMBB? the-blanks regulations would be estab whaij the hew-comprehensive enforce^ RoomiS6212;!tlnited States Departmeht/ lished for carcinogens. More important, ment plan would cost industry: The ' of Labor, Third Street and Constitution^ perhaps^ the proposal provides that the . Secretary said that he believed the poli- v Avenue,1 N.W.,, WashihgtohrD.C. 20210," -Government will argue on a-once-and- cy, when implemented, would save by Decr8?A' publiclhearirig has MeggC J far-alT basis two key policy issues that ' society a great deal Of money.",; ` " -' scheduled f4)e^ih-On'jSla^i!i|^?lS78:| FMSI 06938 FRICTION MATERIALS STANDARDS INSTITUTE, INC., E-210 ROUTE 4, PARAMUS, N. J. 07652 BULLETIN N 0. 6 1 0 September 26, 1977 UNITED AUTO WORKERS PETITION TO ESTABLISH AN EMERGENCY TEMPORARY STANDARD FOR OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS Enclosed is a copy of a letter written by Mr, Douglas A, Fraser, President of the United Auto Workers to Mr. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor. This letter was written on July 6, 1977 and I received a copy of it at the recent meeting of the Asbestos Information Association in Washington. Mr. Fraser is petitioning the Secretary to establish rules for occupational exposure to asbestos as the proposal appeared in the Federal Register on October 9, 1975. Along with medical surveillance, record keeping requirements, regulated areas and other controls in the workplace, there was the proposal to establish the 0.5 fiber per cubic'centimeter maximum concentration for asbestos fibers. This proposal was to be areduction from the current 2 fiber per cc level. By petitioning for an emergency standard, Mr. Fraser, among other things is attempting to speed the regulatory process and have the new standard finalized as soon as possible. A copy of this letter is forwarded to you as a matter of information. EJD/erc Enc: cc-Active Members (List C) Regional Members (U.S.Dues) E. W, Drislane Executive Director FMSI 06939 OOOO EAST JEFFERSON AVE. DETROIT, MICHIGAN 40214 PHONE <3131 926*5000 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO,MOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA-UAV/ DOUGLAS A. FRASER, MSIDENJ EMIL MAZEY, sfcsfM*r.rASU*f VICE-PnESIDENTS V. PAT GREATHOUSE KEN BANNON DENNIS McOERMOTT IRVING BLUESTONE ODESSA KOMER * MARC STEPP MARTIN GERBER | July 6, 1977 __ ,, The Honorable Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor, Washington,D. C. 20210 Dear Secretary Marshall: i m<i&7 On behalf of the UAW I am writing to petition you to exercise your authority under Section 6(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U. S. C. 655(c), to establish the proposed modification of the Occupational Standard for Exposure to Asbestos, 29 CFR 1910.1001, as an emergency temporary standard. In addition, the UAW petitions that as speedily as possible thereafter you commence hearings and promulgate a permanent standard consistent with recent medical findings, under Section 6(b) of OSHA, 29 U. S. C. 1655(b), and 29 CFR 1911. 3. This petition is made on behalf of UAW members engaged in the manufacture of friction products, the repair and remanufacture of brakes and transmissions, maintenance workers in contact with asbestos insulation, chemical formulation workers and others who are regularly or incidentally exposed to this highly Liazardous material. These workers may suffer irreparable harm if tlie normal, time-consuming standa rd - s etting process is pursued. The risk to health is documented by data presented in tL\e preamble to tiie proposed standard, which notes that cancer canarise from both brief and low-level exposures to asbestos fibers. That proposal was dated September 30, 1975, over one and one-half year s ago. Thus', any additional delay in acting on the proposal through normal channels, which could take additional years, may r exI! in car. ei'. of leny, cancer and n< es o' n n.l i on >a which would have been prevented by improved control over the workplace. The delay in promulgation of the standard affects our members in two major ways. First, we are aware of several plants in the friction products industry which apparently arc in compliance with the current standard of 2 fibers per cubic centimeter , but in which obvious steps to control airborne asbestos exposure have not been taken. The current standard thus allows pollution to the: limit of 2 fibers per cubic: centimeter, and worker s arc expos ed to levels of asbestos fibers which' could easily be 1 o w e i' ed. FMS1 06940 2- - In addition, the current requirements for protective clothing and locker room facilities are tied to the measurement of levels of airborne asbestos fibers in excess of 2 fibers per cubic centimeter. In our experience the clothing of workers becomes quite visibly contaminated with asbestos containing dust or mud where airborne asbestos measurements do not indicate a requirement for hygiene practices under the current standard. Therefore, workers may take asbestos home, serving to provide a continuing source of preventable exposure to themselves, and a completely unconscionable exposure to their families. While these issues have been pursued through collective bargaining, the weakness of the current standard is a major obstacle. Where such demands are won, the companies employing our members are placed at a competitive disadvantage to other employers. 1 We are prepared to submit data and to testify in support of these assertions. We are aware that the standards-setting machinery of OSHA is currently greatly overloaded with the need for initial regulation of many substances. The solution to this problem, however, should not be to delay action but to increase staffing and support for these activities. . The environment of asbestos-using operations which are apparently in compliance with the current standard of 2 fibers per cubic centimeter are visibly dusty although not highly contaminated. Our members arc well aware of the health hazards of the dust which they come in contact with every day and demand better control. The fact that the application of the current OSIIA standard does not furnish relief is damaging to the credibility of the entire OSIIA effort. For these reasons, the UAW is filing this petition to request that the proposed modification of the Occupational Standard for Exposure to Asbestos, 29 CFR 1910.1001 be adopted as an emergency temporary standard, and that as soon as possible thereafter, a permanent standard r.u, is: ,;i. ent with recent medical evidence be proinul;1 ted. I would appreciate an early reply as to the steps which will be taken iri this area. Sincerely, , I) A !': i; ior-opeiiM 9d c< :J) ) . j'.ula llinghuin OS1 IA Docket 11 -013 INTERNATJONAD UNION UAW. - FMSI 06941