Document yBbRk8kYkGY6xK4o7ZapL0LE

Anthony J. Diglio Director Corporate Environmental Activities (215) 461-8339 AIR J* PRODUCTS Xs: 2 March 1987 D. F. Baker Oex: This is in reply to your request concerning the CMA Executive Committee March meeting's action items. CW\ requests the Executive Committee member's approval of their proposed legislative positions on: - Nonattainment - Clean Air Act - Acid Rain - Clean Air Act - Worker Notification - Gaydos/Metzenbaum Bills The CMA proposed positions are attached. Your approval Is recomnended. AJD:pbr Attachment: CMA Proposed Positions AP00036910 1 / CMiZSt CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION February 26, 1987 TO MEMBERS OF TBB EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Gentlemen: Enclosed ace the additional policy materials on air legislative Issues (acid rain and rionattainment) and occupational disease notification, mentioned in my cover letter of February 19, which will be presented for approval at the Executive Committee's meeting on Tuesday, March 3. These supplement materials previously provided in your meeting .book. Also enclosed are the minutes of the January 26, 1987, Execu tive Committee meeting. I look forward to seeing you on Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. C4 1 tr Charles W. Van Vlack Vice President-Secretary AieW,,OODDUURCCT=ST.^iv<eMo,eAU--.. FfR * 7 1387 D. F. BAKER'S OFFICE 1 Formerly Manufacturing Chemists Association--Serving (he Chemical industry Since 1S72. 2501 M Street, NW eWashingtfen, DC 20037 Telephone 202/887-1100 Telex B9617 {CMAVTH) AP00036911 o CLEAN AIR ACT REAUTHORIZATION NONATTAINMENT ISSUES ISSUE Nonattainment of ambiant air quality standard# BACKGROUND Undar tbs existing Clean Air Acty all air quality management districts must naat ambiant air quality standards by Dacaabar 31, 1987. Tha Act provides that rigid sanctions (i.a, construction bans, cutoff of federal highway and sewage treatment grant funds) be imposed on all areas not meeting standards by the deadline. These provisions could seriously harm industry by preventing new construction or major modifications of industrial processes. Hearings addressing nonattainment were conducted during February by Congressman Vaxman'a Subcommittee on Health and Environment, During these hearings, EPA Administrator Thomas testified that one of the first steps he faced with very little discretion was imposing a construction ban on nonattainmant araas in southern California and Houston. Proposed legislation resulting from these hesrings is expected very shortly. CMA must have a position on nonattainment in March to actively participate in the debate on this issue. RECOMMENDED POSITION CMA supports revisions of the Clean Air Act which would ensure implementation of reasonable measures to achieve attainment of ambient air quality standards. An attainment strategy should ensure progress of each area toward attainment using coat affective and efficient control measures for all sources. Sanctions sueh as Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(2)(I) - ban on nsw source construction; and 176 withholding of federal highway funds and sewage treatment plant funds, should only bs applied for areas not attaining standards and not implementing a program leading towards attainment. ACTION REQUIRED Approval of recommended position. ' u. " 1C 3/3/87 AP00036912 CLEAN AIR ACT RAUTHORIZATION ACID RAIN ISSUES ISSUE Acid Rain BACKGROUND Four bills dealing with acid rain have bean introduced early in the 100th Congress. Each of the bills would amend the existing Clean Air Act rather than stand alone. The control provisions specified in the proposals are also similar to legislation introduced during the 99th Congress. The impact on the chemical industry of these control provisions could be significant. In assessing Congressman Vaxman'a acid rain bill from the 99th Congress, CMA concluded that significant costs of as much as one billion dollars annually eould be incurred by the chemical industry if the control provisions were implemented as written. These costs would impact the chemical industry In increased energy costs for purchased power, process' emissions controls, and industrial boiler emission reductions. Subsequent testimony during 1986 Congressional hearings confirmed that industry eould face substantial cost increases with questionable benefits. CMA presently does not have a formal position regarding acid rain amendments; however, e formal position would aid the Association1 s participation within existing industry coalitions. The following recoonended position was approved by the Environmental Management Committee on February 11, 1987. The position recognizes that EPA presently has adequate authority to control emissions considered to be aeid rain precursors; however, if additional legislation is determined to b necessary, then th axistlng Clean Air Act regulatory framework should not be disrupted by additional amendments. RECOMMENDED POSITION No major legislation is required to address add rain* EPA already has sufficient authority to develop additional control measures using National Ambient Air Quality Standards, New Source Performance Standards, control technology guidelines, and state Implementation plans. Before Congress adopts additional legislation to reduce acid rain precursors, issues such as the benefits received from additional legislation, coat of controls, relative contribution of emission source estegories to the overall acid rain problem, and availability of control measures should be fully considered. If legislation to control acid rain is determined to be necessary, then any amendments should be incorporated within the existing Clean Air Act. ACTION REQUIRED Approval of recommended position. EC 3/3/87 AP00036913 1 Worker notification* Legislative Principle* Background! Attached you will find a chart which features a comparison of toy issues of the Worker notification bills and CMA' a proposed legislative principles. The last colunn of this chart expand* upon the summary of QiA's proposed principles that was sent to you ae part of the March 3 meeting book. Action requested! Approval of the legislative principles in the last column of the chart. EC-3/3/87 AP00036914 AP00036 SO COMPARISON OP KEY RASUMB OP WORKER RISK NOTIFICATIOH BILLS AND PROPOSED CHA LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLES 1/25/87 ISSUE GAYDOS (100th Congress, H.R. 162) MEIZENBAHM (100th Congress. S.79) PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLES 1, Who aafcca detenlnttloa of rick for caployce POfBlOtlOiUT Uofc AiKiiainc Board In H.N.S (9 boOki - liclitint Secretary of Bealth, S IDS employees, 3 fhyil' clana) Itfik Aiieiawit Board la H.H.S <5 atakeri - all PUS eaployees) Risk Assessuent Board (In DCD, 10 wberi appointed by CDC Director, selected solely on scientific quail' flections fro* a lfct of candidates supplied by NAS), seek decision will be baaed upon recasaendatlon of expert (peer review) panel appointed by Board for each substance. 2. Ubat is the basis for the deternination of risk? Epldeaiological, aalual and labor atory studies, and other evidence showing Incidence of disease In an exposed eaployee population 30 percent greater than incidence of disease in s comparable nou-sxposed population. Ope statistically significant study (epldeaiological, animal, laboratory) showing an incidence af disease for which an eaployee population La exposed' to tha saac hazard at coapsrable Intanaltlss or durations. Two atep proceaa for identifying populations at rlak. First, there nut be strong evidence thee husaa exposure to a substance is likely to result In disease. In evaluating that evidence, medical, health, nod epidemiological principles oust he considered including consistency of association, specificity of assoclatlon, strength of association, dosaraeponse relationships, biological plausibility, temporal relationships, statistical significance, signifi cance of conflicting or negative studies, role of contributing causal factors and the extent and serious ness of rlak. Second, intensity and duration of exposure oust be con sidered to determine which popula tions to notify. nOooo 04 O*os ISSUE CAYDOS (100th Congress. H.R, 142) HBZEMBALM (100th Congress. 8.7 PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLES 3. Duties of the Risk Asseasment Board 1) Review medical end scientific report! concerning incidence of disease associated with occupational exposure*; 2) identify and designate population* at riek of disease that should receive notification; and 3) develop a torn and wettwd of not!' flcstlon. 1) Review nedical and scientific re ports concerning Incidence of disease associated with occupational expo sures; 2) Identify and designate populations at risk of disease that should recelva notification; and 3) develop a for* and Method of notifi cation. 1) Review medlcel and scientific re ports to first determine whether there ie strong evidence that human exposure to a substance is likely to result In diseasej 2) evaluate in tensity and duration of exposure to determine which populations to notify; 3) identify end designate populations at risk of disease that should receive notification; sod 4) develop a fora and method of noti fication. (Rots - the two step process for Identifying populations at risk must be reflected in the Board's duties) 4. Uho notifies employees? Secretary of H.R.S, certified private employers, state sod local governnents. A private cuployar who has been found to willfully violate a recordkeeping, notification or hazardous coanunlcatloo requirement under the OSSA or MSMA nay net be certified. Secretary of H.H.S, certified private employers, state and local goveruneats. Ketutbnm. (However, certified employers will need addresses available through Federal records) 5. Uho is notified? Employers. Current and peat eat' ployeea at risk of contracting an occupational disease. Baployers, Current and past em ployees at risk of contracting an occupational disease. A wininun of 100.000 employee# must be notified per year. Caydoa. (Ibere must be no minimus quotas for notification) 4. Priorities for notification Risk Assessnent Board sust first review ewployee populations exposed to hazardous occupational exposures likely benefit free nedlcal survelllance or health counseling. Risk Assessnent Board must first designate ewployee populations at risk likely to benefit fron medical swrveftllsnce or health counseling. Hetzenbsun. ISSUE 7. Keane of notification S. Content* of notification Who is a former employee for purposes of Notification? 10. Now is medical surveillance provided? CAYDOS (100th Congress. H.R, 162) MBtZEWUUM (100th Congress, S.79) PROPOSED IJiCIStATIVE PKIHCIFLES Individual notification plua public service anaouncenenta and other neana of notification of general papula tion. Also telephone hotlines for additional information. Individual notification. Alan telephone iwtllM for additional information. Either bill. Information on the Identity of (die hazard, diseases associated with tbs hazard .and latency periods. Also, counseling Information re nedlcel monitoring, aeareet certified health center, employer responsibilities and government hotline ember. No comparable provision. Information on the identify of the hazard, dleaaaac aaeoclated with the hazard aad latency period*. Also, counseling information re nedloai monitoring, atarift certified health canter, oploytr responsibilities and pawraaeat hotline nuaher. Finally, a concise summery of the MSDS an the hazard nuet ha part of notice. Former employees ahall he notified if exposure occurred within 30 yeere of notification. Infomation regarding the nature and magnitude of the risk, contributing risk factor*, and, where appropriate, reco--ended medical surveillance. Metecnbeun. 1. Reoulrea emolovera who have contrlbuted to the exposure to provide testing, evaluation and medical monitoring requested by notified enployeee. 1. b^ilrw employeTM dw have contributed to the exposure to provide testing, evaluation end andleal nooitoriag requested by notified enployeee. 1. Eeployere who have contributed to the expocure provide aedlcal sur veillance for current end former enployeee either by actually con ducting the appropriate surveil lance chet ia recommended by the government or by contracting for the surveillance services. If aa saployee chooses a physician not designated by the employer, the employer will pay the customary and reasonable fee for the recom mended medical surveillance. ISSUE 11. Um fays for nedlcal surveillance! CAYDOS <100 Congress. H.R. 162) terZENRAUM (100 CoAftresa. 8.79) PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLES i 2. Also established ten health centers to conduct research and provide education, training and technical assistance to physi cians and other professionals and to provide nedlcal surveillance for enoloveea. Reouires. within 5 years, the establiahaenc of not leas than 1 center In each state. 2. Also establishes ten health centers to conduct research Mid provide education, training and technical assistance to physi cians sad other professionals and to provide aedlcal surveillance for enoloyeca. Peralta establishneat of not sore then 1 center in each state. 2. Not an issue. tkployers suit provide or sake avails' hie nedlcal surveillance at a cost If tha exposure occurred daring cur rant coploywent and at coat If no' part of exposure occurred during current aaployaene. Employers oust provide or sake available aedlcal surveillance at no coat If tha exposure occurred during current employment and at coat if no part of exposure occurred daring cur rent eaployweat. Either bill. AP00036 12. Uhat la the likely lapace on core and workers' coapensstioa elsLeaf Unscientific basis for identifying populations at risk will lead to substantially increased and unwar ranted llttgstlon/coapeaaatloo clalaa. Unscientific besla for Identifying populations at risk will lead to substantially increased end unwarranted lltlgatlen/ceapensatlon clalaa. Use of sound science In identifying populations at risk will reduce nonaeritorious clalaa. 13. Language llateing uaa of notification In core sad workers* coepcMo tion clalaa Notification of mi eaployec and Initiation of aedlcal nonltaring shall not affect a data for conpenaatlon or donates. Notification of an aaployee and initiation of nedlcal aonltorlng shall not affect a clala for conpenaatlon or daaagea. The determination to notify end the notification of the eaployec shall not affect e clala for coapeneatloa or dsnagea, nor shall either the deteminacloo or the notification be adaiaslble in any litigation or worker's conpenaatlon proceed legs. U. Standard for Judicial review Dateralnafcion of hoard act aside If arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Daternlnatleo of Board net aalda if arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. DeteminatLon of govemaent act aside If not supported by evidence on the record (substantial evidence teat) AP00036919 ISSUE 15. Discrimination prohibited Id. Benefit Reduction Prohibited 17. Procedure CAYDOS (100 Conitreas. H.R. 162) HET7ENEAW (100 Correas. .79) PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLES DLtermination against eapioyeee in population at risk la specifically prohibited. Dlecrlninatlon agalnat employee* la a population at rlak ia specifically prohibited. Not an iasue. If It la medically determined that tha employee ahould be tngmrarlly er permanently transferred to a leaa hazardous or nonexpoaed job, the employee will retain earnings, acnlorlty and other beneflta. Notice, comment, and a bearing If it la medically determined that tbe employee should be temporarily or permanently transferred to a leaa hasardoue or nonexposed job, the employee will retain earnings, seniority and other benefits, if a leaa hasardoue or non exposed job la not available, benefits are retained for a maximal of 12 moatha. Notice, comment and a hearing. Hetzenbaum, with the addition the employee may be transferred for a period up to 12 months. Bearing should be clarified ao that interested parties can submit evi dence and conduct cross-examination