Document zz3RmgoDaYBo7qbJa31ZGrmB0

* tA,K nei e PrOC- ,!COf A n Executive Committee l v'W'W CONFIDENTIAL July 12, 1983 OSHA Proposes Asbestos Standard REF: (1) JFW correspondence, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Proposed Asbestos Standard - AACPP Options and Recommended Action Plans, June 28, 1983 (2) JFW correspondence, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) - Exposure Standard for Asbestos, June 17,1983 (3) JFW correspondence, same title, April 20, 1983 (4) JFW correspondence, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) - Preliminary Risk Assessment for Asbestos, March 21, 1983 ACTION REQUIRED: Review for information, corporate discussion and follow on decision at next Executive Committee meeting As directed, AACPP Counsel and Staff met on 7-8-83 with Bob Muth (ASARCO), co-chairman of the AIA/NA Steering Committee for OSHA's upcoming rulemaking related to a revised asbestos standard. The two (2) hour meeting could be characterized as cordial and cooperative, yet candid. . At the outset, AACPP's reasons for meeting were outlined with emphasis placed on the criticality of crocidolite fiber to the A/C pipe industry and, its willingness to cooperate with AIA/NA in developing an effective rulemaking strategy. Salient points from the general discussion which ensued are as follows: 1. Mr. Muth confirmed that along with Phil Casgraine, QAMA attorney, he would co-chair AIA/NA's Steering Committee. Ed Warren, K&E, and Bob Pigg, AIA/NA Staff, are the other members of the Committee. While Mr. Muth personally would welcome AACPP participation on the Steering Committee, he acknowledged there were political obstacles within AIA/NA to AACPP. involvement. Further, since the Steering Committee is scheduled to meet for the first time on 7/14/83, he could not expand on the limits of authority vested in the Steering Committee or its reporting relationship to the AIA/NA Executive Committee. 2. Canadian fiber interests have agreed to fund "full" industry participation in the pending OSHA rulemaking on a 3:1 dollar basis with AIA/NA. Mr. Muth indicated that current financial resources of AIA/NA were limited and any unencumbered contribution from AACPP would be welcome. -1- D 003594 3. Considerable concern is being expressed by the Europeans that OSHA's proposed rulemaking may well result in promulgation of.a more stringent occupational standard for asbestos thereby reigniting all of the contentious issues recently resolved through EEC Council approval of DG V. 4. Canadian fiber suppliers are not predisposed to a ban on blue fiber but rather harmonization of worldwide regulations covering asbestos, i.e. promotion and defense of regulations paralleling DG V. Staff indicated that while AACPP preferred no fiber type distinction, it acknowledged that it would be difficult to refute the precedent that has been set and DG V, with a PEL for fiber mixtures based on calculation, i.e. Belgium formula, was acceptable to the industry. However, the ability of the A/C pipe industry to comply with a regulation based on a PEL reduced to 0.3 f/cc. for chrysotile and 0.2 f/cc. for crocidolite was not known at this time. A serious bone of contention between the chrysotile and blue fiber suppliers is that the latter are perceived by the former as "hiding" from the legal and financial intanglements created by third party liability suits. This peripheral problem exacerbates present concerns about crocidolite. 5. Mr. Muth stated a guarantee from AIA/NA to AACPP relative to blue fiber, or ~for that matter any issue raised by special interests, was unrealistic and impractical. The very nature ot the rulemaking process precludes rigid constraint! since, when push comes to shove, AIA/NA will have to settle for the least onerous regulation which is supported by facts placed in the record and, concomitantly saleable to potential adversaries, e.g. labor, etc. 6. Given the options available to the A/C pipe industry, Mr. Muth was of the personal opinion that there was "a lot to be said" for the industry defending its own special interests, i.e.`crocioolite fiber. Mr. Muth cited the advantages of a Tocused issue and the inherent capacity of AACPP vis-a-vis AIA/NA for rapid decisionmaking because of membership size. Further, as a participant of record, AACPP could introduce counterproposals to "model" standards advocated by OSHA, AIA/NA or other interested third parties. Based on the aforementioned points, AACPP Counsel and Staff concluded that discounting resource availability options which AACPP might reconsider in order of desirability would include: A^CertainTeed and J-M Pipe join AIA/NA (Option 2) and simultaneously, AACPP pursue Option 4. JB^AACPP pursue Option 4. C. CertainTeed and J-M Pipe join AIA/NA (Option 2). 2- - D 003595 The relative advantages and disadvantages of each of the above Options need not be repeated. Thus, the fundamental question requiring resolution is what resources, Ue. dollars, can AACPP commit to defend its special interests in blue fiber. In this regar?. it is stairs opinion that unless AACPP is in a position to commit its own resources to Option 4 it would be ill-advised to accept financial support from the South African Asbestos Fiber Producers Advisory Council. ' Regardless of what rulemaking option is eventually selected, AACPP should determine as soon as possible what fiber levels, segregated by fiber type, can be~met by plant, by station, throughout the industrvT including current recommended work practices Tor field cutting and machining of A/C pipe. Availability of hard data is critical and, in the final analysis, could determine wmcn option is selected, if any. Hard data would also provide the AIA/NA Steering Committee with the degrees of freedom available for developing a standard for asbestos which would be acceptable to the A/C pipe industry both at the plant level and in the field. r> Staff will follow up with the Chairman to determine an acceptable time and place to convene another meeting of the Executive Committee to resolve AACPP's future course of action. J JCJ/ajb cc: A. Kahn, Esq. copies to: Executive Committee L. Ambler L. Taylor A. Verploegh . 0171061201 Chrono -3- D 003596 Galiforxia Water Service Com pasty liso N'ohth First Strsst P. O. Box nso Saw Jose, CA 93103 (408) 898-1414 July 6, 1983 Dr. William 0. Lynch, President American Water Works Association c/o Stearns & Wheeler 10 Albany Street Cazenovia, NY 13035 Dear Dr. Lynch: I am writing to you at the direction of the Committee on the Use of Asbestos in Water Utility Construction given at our meeting of June 7, 1983. This letter is by way of a complaint that there seems to- be something wrong with our organization's ability to deal with a very important subject. Four years ago, our organization was asked to make a statement for the benefit of the laymen public as to what we as professional water managers, most of whom have devoted our entire professional life to the water industry, thought of the presence of asbestos in drinking water. In response, the Water Quality Division appointed a broad spectrum ad hoc committee under the chairmanship of Dr. George E. Symons to examine the available evidence and come forth with some kind of statement. Such a statement was in fact developed after a great deal of work by a very distinguished panel and submitted in November of 1981. Since that time, the statement has been lost in a bureaucratic tangle of Division, T & P Council, etc., and NO statement has emerged. We believe the statement should be examined immediately at the highest level of AWWA as originally drafted and confirmed for immediate release. Very truly yours, Jeptha A. Wade, Jr. Chairman: Committee on Use of Asbestos in Water Utility Construction Vice President-Chief Engineer JAWrvip Enclosure (Letter of George E. Symons to Alan Hess 11/10/81) cc: Mr. Dave Preston - Executive Director Dr. George E. Symons - Chairman WQD Ad Hoc Committee on Asbestos in Drinking Water Mr. Robert S. Bryant - Chairman, Asbestos Pressure Pipe Committe Mr. Eugene Bowers - California Director Mr. Joseph C. Jackson - A/C Pipe Producers Association Mr. H. E. Snider - Chairman, T & P Council D 003597 American Water Works Association | 6666 West Quincy Avenue | Denver. Colo. 80235 | 303 794-771' November 10, 1981 REPLY TO: GEORGE E. SYMONS. PhD. 813 Edgowood Avenue Lcirchmont N. Y. 10538 (914) 834-0584 - Memo to: Alan Hess, Chairman Water Quality Division - AWWA From:. George E. Symons, Chairman WQD Ad Hoc Committee on Asbestos in Drinking Water Re: 'Alan: Transmittal of Recommended AWWA Policy Statement on' Asbestos in Drinking Water In accordance with the charge to this Committee, r when it was appointed in 1980, the attached policy state ment is submitted for consideration by the Division. The Committee recommends favorable action by the Division in the belief that the public is entitled to have the informed professional opinion of the Water Works Industry. . The final text of the statement as submitted is the result of six drafts being reviewed by every member of the Committee. The wording of each sentence in the state ment received eight or more votes of approval. (The Chair man and ex-officio Committee members did not vote.) Except for one successful working meeting held in June 1981 in St. Louis, all committee work was done by correspondence or telephone. More than 100 articles and manuscripts were reviewed by the Committee.. The Committee Chairman wishes to thank the Divi sion for the selection of a committee roster of working members v/ho represented broad and diverse interests. The text represents compromises of these many viewpoints and interests which enhance the strength of the statement. Kf'Ufiri't 1 | I f* * npyf i'*'*: . 'n'> i'ic /. /' * jonr; n f t * c \ io ii'p*; r> !; t - i/ I'r II . n Af t ' . / %rr .1 * *l n r,n p ri C if t D 003598 Alan Hess, Chairman November 10, 1981 Page Two If the Governing Board of the Division desires further information on the Committee's efforts, the Chair man will provide it. With the transmittal of the enclosed statement, I believe that the Ad Hoc Committee having com pleted its assignment, ceases to exist, but perhaps the. Division may wish to acknowledge the service of the indivi dual Committee members. * . Respectfully submitted for the Committee, y . Committee Roster L. G. Anderson R. E. Bald R. S. Bryant . C. A. Buescher H. A. Cornell J. R. Courchene George E. Symons, Chairman . R. S. Holmgren R. Hunsinger J. C. Jackson J. R. Millette D. L. Peterson J. E. Singley K. M. Stone R. P. VanDyke- J. Wade Ex Officio J. M. Symons J. DeBoer GES:tt D 003599 PROPOSED AWWA POLICY STATEMENT ON ASBESTOS IN DRINKING WATER Submitted to the AWWA Water Quality Division by the Ad Hoc Committee on Asbestos in Drinking Water, November 10, 1981. The American Water Works Association believes there is no demonstrated risk associated with the ingestion 'of asbestos in drinking water. In accordance with this policy, the Association recommends that: 1. The Association keep its members fully informed on the subject of asbestos in drinking water. 2. Water utilities share this information with their cus tomers and with local health authorities, when appro priate to the local situation. 3. Every water utility should be prepared to respond promptly, to the extent of its knowledge, to public inquiries made about asbestos in the local drinking water supply. 4. Utilities which use asbestos containing materials in the water system should follow approved AWWA procedures for handling, cutting, machining, and tapping such ma terials . 5. Utilities should minimize the possibility of asbestos fibers in drinking water by striving to meet the Asso ciation's water quality goals regarding noncorrosivity and turbidity and its policy on the treatment of- public water supplies. 6. Unless a definite causal relationship between asbestos in drinking water and adverse health effects is demon strated, standards and regulations with respect to asbestos in drinking water should not be promulgated. 7. Research on asbestos in drinking water should continue. D 003600 Executive Committee -f~. (*/&&&-------- F. Welch, Vice President !nl.srrC:l r- ffc '/--i /--, ry'- C! !'.Urc!'?.i/* f.o CONFIDENTIAL June 28, 1983 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Proposed Asbestos Standard AACPP Options and Recommended Action Plans REF: (1) JFW correspondence, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) - Exposure Standard for Asbestos, June 17,1983 (2) JFW correspondence, same title, April 20, 1983 (3) JFW correspondence, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CSHA) - Preliminary Risk Assessment for Asbestos, March 21, 1983 ACTION REQUIRED: Review for discussion at Executive Committee meeting Purpose . This "options paper" was prepared at the request of the Chairman, Board of Directors. It discusses the background, current status, asbestos industry strategies, information needs, options and Staff recommendations for A/C pipe industry actions in the forthcoming OSHA rulemaking. Background Appendix A summarizes major events in development of OSHA standards for asbestos. The post-1975 events are of particular importance to the current situation. The most recent development is a request by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (AFL/CIO) that OSHA issue an emergency temporary standard of 0.1 f/cc. (Appendix B), as an 8 hour time-weighted average. . Current Status of Rulemaking - OSHA Strategy A. Projected Schedule Assuming OSHA does not issue an emergency temporary standard, the Notice for Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is scheduled tentatively for issuance in late July. It will (a) update the 1975 NPRM with new medical data and risk assessments, and (b) schedule a public hearing date. Most of the components of the NPRM have been drafted so internal review by OSHA could proceed quiekly. Prior to publication in the Federal Register, OSHA must submit the NPRM and a regulatory impact analysis to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB must act on the submission within 80 days. It is not known how long OMB approval might take or whether OMB will approve a major regulatory proposal that uses economic and technological feasibility data that is approximately seven years old. Assuming the NPRM is issued in late July, a 60 day comment period would follow. Although Kirkland & Ellis (K<5cE) undoubtedly will request an extension of thecomment period, it is unlikely that OSHA will grant it on grounds that the underlying issues have been known since 1975. Thus, written comments would have to be submitted by late September. Public hearings would follow in October, probably for four weeks or D 003601 -1 - more. OSHA hearings provide for cross-examination of all testifying witnesses, medical and scientific authorities, etc. Afterward, a 60 day deadline would be set for filing post hearing briefs. A final rule is tentatively scheduled for promulgation in January, 1984. This entire time schedule Is quite optimistic; delays couicroTCm-al miV mncture in the proceeding^ ' '^' '` ` The potential political content of this proceeding also merits comment. Assistant Secretary Auchter's concern about his political survival catalyzed the current situation. Likewise, it is unreasonable to expect OMB to take the political risk of delaying such a labor-charged, emotion-charged issue. OMB may want this proceeding to move promptly so the Administration can point to tougher worker protection standards by election time. B. Construction Industry Regulations The NPRM will address permissible exposure levels (PELs) for general manufacturing and construction industries. OSHA intends to publish in early 1984 a proposal addressing development of "special provisions" of the asbestos standard for the construction industry e.g. work practice controls, recordkeeping, medical surveillance. In sum, the acceptability of controlling construction exposures by means of recommended work practices will be addressed in a separate proceeding in 1984. C. Health Issues OSHA has the burden of demonstrating that the existing 2.0 f/cc. standard is inadequate. Since the NPRM effectively reopens the 1975 rulemaking, OSHA will rely on its 1975 justifications plus additional evidence produced since that time. This will include OSHA's in-house risk assessment (Reference 3) as well as the work being done by Dr. Selikoff. . The major issues will be whether permissible exposure levels (PELs) of 0.5 f/gc. (TWA) and 5.0 f/cc. (ceiling) provide adequate margins of safety to protect employees "e'xposed to'asbestos. The fact that the Simpson Committee Report (U.K.-1979), the European Economic Community (EEC-1983) and Canadian provincial governments, to name but a few, have reduced PELs to 1.0 f/cc. (chrysotile) and 0.2-0.5 f/cc. (crocidolite) lends strong support to the reasonableness of standards below 2.0 f/cc. Given the vagueries of risk assessment and QSHA's latitude in selecting margins of safety, a 0.5 f/cc. standard probably would be sustainable in court.----- The greatest concern to the industry is the threat of a 0.1 f/cc. standard, as OSHA-NIOSH work groups and labor unions have recommended. Although" OSHa may be able to develop medical evidence supporting a 0.1 f/cc. standard, demonstrating technological and economic feasibility at that level becomes a much more difficult task where inadequacies may result in a court-reversed standard. D. Fiber Type Distinctions - Crocidolite Distinctions between the carcinogenicity of chrysotile and crocidolite were not even raised in the 1975 NPRM. Moreover, neither OSHA staff nor its contractor iMt. Sinai School of Medicine) favor developing separate 'standards.for chrysotile and amphibole asbestos (amositeTcrocidolite). To qo sdVwould require OSHA to develop a "record supporting such action, which in'turn could slow the rulemaking. However, it is possible that OSHA will solicit comment on fiber type distinctions because of the -2- D 003602 regulatory precedents set by the EEC, the United Kingdom and other countries. Rather than proposing PELs for amphiboles, OSHA may request public comment on a scheme for regulating amphibole-chrysotile mixtures by an EEC-type formula: Mixture PEL = (% chrysotileXchrysotile PEL) + (% crocidoliteXcrocidolite PEL). E. Technological Issues These will involve definition of asbestos for regulatory purposes, availability/efficacy of substitute fibers and products, feasibility of monitoring and exposure reduction by engineering and work practice controls. OSHA will use the original (1978) and updated (1980) versions of the RTI/CONSAD technological feasibility assessment to support its arguments. The 1980 RTI report concluded that an "average" level of 0.2 f/cc. can be attained in primary manufacturing operations. This is clearly the weakest portion of OSHA's case as most of the data are 1976 or earlier and of questionable reliability. F. Economic Issues To minimize the economic consequences of the 0.5 f/cc. proposal, OSHA will rely on the RTI/CONSAD economic impact analysis. This analysis, like the technological feasibility study, was compiled on a product-by-product basis. It concludes that a 0.2 f/cc. standard can be met in primary manufacturing industries at an annual cost of $17- $60 million. For the A/C pipe sector, the estimates are $1.854 million to comply with. 0.5 f/cc. and $6.33 million for 0.1 f/cc. , '~ Kirkland & Ellis-AIA/NA Strategy Discussions with both parties indicate that a rulemaking strategy has been discussed but not approved formally or implemented pending acquisition of funding. AIA/NA has approximately $150,000 in a legal contingency fund and expects to receive approximately $250,000 or more from Canadian asbestos interests. K&E has been directed not to initiate any contacts with OMB, the agency with the greatest potential to slow down or reshape the rulemaking. AIA/NA's tax status does not permit it to engage in Congressional lobbying. Based on discussions with Bob Pigg (AIA/NA), Ed Warren and Tim Hardy (K&E) and industry contacts, the following "preliminary strategy" emerges. A. Permissible Exposure Levels - Chrysotile and Crocidolite AIA/NA probablv will base its position on^a2.0.f/cc. standard for the asbestos mining industry and a 1.0" f/cc. chrysotile standard for manufacturing and construction "industries. AIA/NA will argue for a fiber type distinction, possibly proposing that crocidolite exposures be regulated* to 0.5 f/cc. (TWA). It is not known whether AIA/NA 'will take the extreme position of proposing a ban oncrocidolite, as ORC recommended. ` These exposure levels would be considered "nice to have" acknowledging that most manufacturing industries could survive with the 0.5 f/cc. standard likely to be promulgated. In fact, it is the judgment of K<5cE that a_0._5 f/cc. standard would be^a^ significant victory for the asbestos industry. Like wlie, a 0.2 f/cc. or a "mixture formula standard" for crocidolite would be an acceptable "fall back" in the fmalTules^ The basic difference between industry's position and OSHA's position will be risks D 003603 -3- posed by exposures to 1.0 f/cc., 0.5 f/cc. and 0.1 f/cc. K&E will use its brief to the Ontario Royal Commission on Asbestos as the primary vehicle to combat a 0.5 f/cc. or lower standard. This will be augmented by a "state of the art" risk assessment by Dr. Kenny Crump and testimony by medical experts. K&E's tact will be to present the medical evidence in its totality to offset the selective, "worst case" scenarios that OSHA and Selikoff are likely to depict. B. Technological Issues The weakness of OSHA's case supporting technological feasibility of a reduced standard is matched by the weakness of AIA/NA's case against feasibility. K&E will try to counter the OSHA/RTI/CONSAD report with historical exposure data and industry compliance information ascertained through Opinion Research Corporation's data collection for the EPA TSCA Section 8(a) proceedings. These data, however, are now incomplete, three years old and may not reflect current compliance, for better or worse. They certainly do not take into consideration the closure of A/C pipe plants during that period. The RTI/CONSAD report has not been analyzed by AIA/NA. Engineering or technical information has never been collected on how low workplace exposures can be reduced with available technology. Of all the technological issues, the most critical is the reliability of the membrane filter method for measuring low-level work exposures. The AIA/NA "Round Robin Study," which demonstrates definitively that this monitoring technique cannot reliably monitor asbestos levels below 0.5 f/cc., should refute NIOSH's 1979 report to the contrary. C. Economic Issues AIA/NA has never critiqued the accuracy and relevancy of the RTI/CONSAD economic impact analysis. As in the case of technological issues, there can be little ? doubt that the original data base is outdated. To the best of Staffs knowledge, no additional economic information, other than AACPP's economic impact assessment of a ban on asbestos, has been compiled to support an adequate, objective analysis. AIA/NA will obtain expert economic advice to assess the RTI/CONSAD report and assist in the new data collection and analysis. As in past efforts, heavy reliance would be placed on product sectors gathering and analyzing product-specific information. In summary, there will be an overall legal/scientific strategy comprised of "sub strategies" for health, economic and technological feasibility issues. Only the health issue strategy will draw a distinction between chrysotile and the amphiboles. The economic and technological feasibility, of complying with a standard for crocidolite was never requested by OSHA and never developed by AIA/NA or AACPP. Impact of AIA/NA Strategy on Aye Pipe Industry A. Chrysotile Strategy The A/C pipe industry will benefit from all AIA/NA efforts supporting a 1.0 or 0.5 f/cc. standard. B. Crocidolite Strategy The only issue that divides the interests of AIA/NA and AACPP is distinguishing -4- D 003604 the carcinogenicity and exposure standards for crocidolite and chrysotile. This has come about because; . \2. There is a substantial body of scientific evidence and medical opinion that amphiboles are more closely linked with mesothelioma. Human epidemiologic studies depict worse health evidence for amphiboles. Animal and in vitro studies do not demonstrate fiber type differences. Asbestos regulations in the U.K., EEC, Canada and elsewhere distinguish between chrysotile and crocidolite. 3. There are concerns that chrysotile might be regulated on the basis of the carcinogenicity of crocidolite, i.e. to the lowest detectable ievel rather than a 1.0-0.5 f/cc level. This concern, however, has never been evinced in world asbestos regulations. 4. . There are a variety of "political factors" operating. These include the non representation of the A/C pipe industry interests on AIA*s Executive Committee and the possibility that chrysotile producers (particularly since they will provide substantial financial support) may wish to see crocidolite usage restricted for economic reasons. ~ The A/C pipe sector used to account for 20-25% of total chrysotile usage in the U.S. This share slipped to 9.5% in 1982. On the other hand, the sector uses 100% of crocidolite imported into the U.S. So A/C pipe producers do not carry as much purchasing and political clout with chrysotile suppliers as they have in past years. 5. In K&E's judgment, the fiber type issue can be argued either way. However, it believes that by making a fiber distinction argument (assuming that OSHA does not issue a special standard for crocidolite or amosite) the final rule might be judged arbitrary and capricious and reversed in court. AIA/NA's crocidolite strategy is an attempt to "give away the symbols but retain the substance." Industry concedes that amphiboles are more dangerous but ensures that a mechanism, such as a "livable" standard or an EEC mixture formula, is included in the ' final rule so industry can continue using crocidolite. The crocidolite issue is at the same time a "throw away card" for AIA/NA (since none of its members use crocidolite) and an important tactic in the K&E legal strategy for chrysotile. The important question for AACPP is whether the A/C pipe industry can survive with the possible outcomes of a cro.cidolite standard: 0.5 f/cc., 0.2 f/ce., an EEC type mixture formula or ban. Moreover", acknowledging the "throw away" nature of the issue, is there a possibility that AIA/NA might support a ban on crocidolite to preserve a 1.0 or 0.5 f/cc. exposure standard for chrysotile? It is difficult to believe that the Canadian chrysotile suppliers would be so short sighted as to cause or endorse such action and in so doing impair or obsolete A/C pipe markets in the U.S. and other parts of the world. This_ possibility, however, cannot be dismissed because Canada and other countries do - manutacture A/C pipe without crocidolite.^, ` ------' -5- D 003605 Options for AACPP Participation in Rulemaking Option 1: AACPP does nothing. Advantages: Disadvantages: ' ' o No diversion of AACPP financial resources or Staff time. o Concedes the crocidolite issue; leaves outcome to companies with little or no interest in its continued use. o Does not provide complete A/C pipe industry data on economic/technological feasibility of reduced chrysotile standard. Option 2: A/C pipe manufacturers (CertainTeed Corp. and J-M Pipe Co.) join ALA/NA Advantages: Disadvantages: o Strengthens AIA/NA financially. o A/C pipe industry represented in its entirety; industry may be able to influence crocidolite strategy. o No need for parallel or conflicting efforts by y AACPP. y. Neither AACPP nor A/C pipe manufacturers /^ assured of say in strategy development. ^ A/C pipe interests have few votes among many. "V o A/C pipe industry funds may be used to argue a case (crocidolite) not in its own best interests. Option 3: AACPP supports AIA/NA strategy; provides financial and informational support with stipulation that AIA/NA endorse a standard or formula permitting crocidolite use. Option 4: o Strengthens AIA/NA legal contingency fund. o Cost could be less than CertainTeed and JM joining. Necessary economic and technological feasibility data provided to support AIA/NA strategies. AACPP may be able to influence or moderate the fiber distinction argument. .n Disadvantages: May be less effective than Option 2. UJA/j, AACPP concedes fiber distinction issue with the hope that a reasonable standard or a mechanism, .such as a formula, can be put into place that ^allows the' A/C pipe industry to continue using AAOUvfet crocidolite. .....L..o..c. .k.s....A../.C....p..i.p..e...i.n..d..u..s..t.r.y...i.n..t.o....strategy that might / t hhu /ho*-* , restrict Congressional, agency or OMB contacts. L#A<LP ` AACPP supports ALA/NA chrysotile .strategy.. but_opposes crocidolite strategy. ' Advantages: o Economic and technological feasibility data to support reasonable chrysotile standard are provided to AIA/NA. o Finances not given to support crocidolite -6- D 003606 $ r l? / Disadvantages: distinction. o AACPP free to develop and present industry arguments/action plans against fiber distinction, o Financial support for crocidolite defense might come from crocidolite producers, o AIA/NA may find this option unacceptable and decline AACPP information, o AACPP and AIA/NA pitted against one another in hearings and cross-examination, o Asbestos industry does not present a unified front before OSHA, OMB and others. Option 5: AACPP proceeds independently. Advantages: Disadvantages: o A/C pipe industry has complete control over all strategy and tactics including chrysotile and crocidolite health issues, economic and . technological feasibility, and fiber type distinction. o Duplicative of AIA/NA efforts on chrysotile standard. o Extremely costly. ' o AACPP has little time to prepare comprehensive defense. Staff Recommendations Staff recommendations are based on the following reasonable assumptions: 1. All U.S. A/C pipe manufacturers can comply with a 1.0 f/cc. chrysotile standard and if necessary, 0.5 f/cc. in manufacturing and construction. 2. Industry can probably comply with a 0.5 f/cc. crocidolite standard or a mixture standard. Ability to comply with 0.2 f/cc. is not known, but unlikely. yjJij) * 3. Prohibiting the use of crocidolite would result tin severe economic impacts and possible closure of U.S. A/C pipe plants, 'jOj" 4. Since A/C pipe industry exposure levels are around 0.5 f/cc., AACPP information on current compliance and economic/technical feasibility are not likely to be used (other than for background information) in AIA/NA's case for a 1.0 f/cc. standard. If AIA/NA changes its strategy to support a 0.5 f/cc. standard, which seems unlikely, A/C pipe industry data would be valuable. ' 5. AIA/NA will not change its crocidolite strategy. This is because it has already submitted to CPSC's Chronic Hazards Advisory Panel on Asbestos comments arguing for fiber type distinction. That position cannot be - reversed without irreparable loss of face and credibility. Proceeding with the crocidolite strategy may also be a stipulation of Canadian funding. Staff recommendations are phased. Option 3, supporting AIA/NA strategy, should be explored with AIA/NA, K<5cE and Canadian chrysotile interests. Financial and -7- D 003607 informational support should be predicated on a "guarantee" that AIA/NA will not concede a crocidolite standard less than 0.5 f/cc. or a formula-type standard that makes A/C pipe manufacturing impractical. The lowest acceptable crocidolite level needs to be determined through industry or independent studies. If discussions with AIA/NA, K&E and Canadian chrysotile interests are not constructive and the crocidolite assurances are not made, then Staff recommends Option 4, supporting the AIA/NA chrysotile strategy, but opposing the crocidolite strategy. This is the safest and most conservative option as it permits the A/C pipe industry to safeguard both its major interests in the rulemaking: a reasonable chrysotile standard and no separate standard for crocidolite. AACPP also would not decrease in any way K&E's chances of reversing the final standard in court. As a matter of fact, this option would increase those chances by reaffirming OSHA's predisposition on the crocidolite issue thereby setting up the agency for a court reversal. Information Needs and Projected Costs Information needs will be dictated by final option selected. Option 3: AACPP supports AIA/NA strategies; provides financial and informational support. . Issue Information Needs Costs Financial Support for AIA/NA None $40-50,000 Health None . None Exposure profiles (chrysotile and crocidolite; past and current) - manufacturing plants (all work stations) - construction (crocidolite only); industrial hygiene studies Effectiveness or ineffectiveness of control techniques recommended by RTI/CONSAD .. - engineering . . - work practices $1200-$1S00 $2400-$3000 $3-$5000 $1200-$1800 Engineering/technical information on how low exposures can be reduced $1800-$2400 Data/comments on substitutes (characteristics, costs, suitability) - asbestos - product . $1200-$1800 -8- D 003608 Economic Feasibility , Liaison with AIA/NA or AIA/NA for tasks related to information needs OSHA hearings Historical costs of compliance for 2.0 f/cc.f 1.0 f/cc.and current exposure levels - capital investment - annual operating costs - medical/industrial hygiene costs $1200-$1800 Estimated costs of 0.5 and 0.1 f/cc. standards $1200-$1800 Total costs $4200-$6000 $1800-$3000 $59,200-$78,400 Option 4: . AACPP supports AIA/NA chrysotile strategy, but opposes crocidolite strategy. Issue Information Needs Costs Health Scientific/medical evidence supporting non-distinction of crocidolite - epidemiologic studies ' - animal studies - in vitro studies - new evidence $2400-$3000 Technical Feasibility Same as Option 3 $10,800-$15,800 Economic Feasibility Same as Option 3 $2400-$3600 Liaison with K&E, AIA/NA and/or other attorneys $4700-$6000 Legal Services . Preparation of/assistance with: - written comments testimony of medical expert cross-examination of opposing witnesses - post-hearing brief $40-$50,000 OSHA hearings . Total Costs $1800-$3000 $61,600-$S1,400 D 003609 -9- Action Plans - Lobbying In addition to AACPP support of or participation in the rulemaking proceedings, alternative action plans should be considered. The most obvious is a lobbying program coordinated by AACPP. Lobbying against the OSHA standard would involve several tiers of government. From the bottom up, these are: (1) OSHA (2) OMB (3) Vice Presidential Task Force of Regulatory Relief (4) Congress (5) White House ' A. OSHA . ' If AACPP pursues Option 3 (AIA/NA support) there is no reason to lobby OSHA. If Option 4 (Oppose crocidolite strategy) is accepted, AACPP's interests would be served well by tracking agency opinion and input on the crocidolite issue. B. OMB * There are two opportunities to lobby OMB -- during its review and approval of the proposed regulation and during the same process for the final standard. K3cE has excellent contacts within OMB and, if permitted, will use them effectively to advance AIA/NA positions. . The same line of reasoning applies to OMB lobbying as for OSHA: no for Option 3, yes for Option 4. The need to lobby OMB on crocidolite would be predicated on OSHA proposing a separate standard for amphiboles or issuing a separate amphibole standard in the final rulemaking. Thus, any OMB lobbying plans should be contingent on these developments. C. Vice Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief Simply stated, the Task Force's mission is to find a balance between achieving the goals of regulation and avoiding excessive costs. In that respect it is an adjunct to OMB, although OMB is more important in day to day review of the economic impacts of pending regulations. Any OMB contacts by AACPP would almost automatically require comparable lobbying with the Vice Presidential Task Force. D. Congress It also is possible to mount's lobbying campaign with Senators or Congressmen representing states where A/C pipe plants are located. The objective would be to persuade these Members of Congress that OSHA's proposed standards would adversely affect the A/C pipe industry, possibly resulting in plant closures, unemployment and lost tax revenues. This effort might include: (a) AACPP Staff contact with Members of Congress and their staffs to describe firsthand the potential adverse impacts of further OSHA regulations. Urge the Members to intervene on the industry's behalf -10- D 003610 with Assistant Secretary Auchter. (b) Congressional visitations by senior managers in the A/C pipe industry. (c) Asking sympathetic labor unions to send letters endorsing industry's position to Congressman and Senators. (d) Other. E. White House . To the best of Staffs knowledge, the A/C pipe industry's only potential entre to the White House or Presidential Staff would be through Ed Harper, a former officer with CertainTeed Corporation. While this is a distinct possibility, practically speaking it is not known (a) whether Harper is in a position to affect the outcome and (b) whether Harper would be receptive in meeting with industry representatives in the first place. Regardless, this is a lobbying resource that should not be ignored. Any AACPP lobbying program should commence after the proposal is issued and must be based on foreknowledge of the A/C pipe ind.ustry's current compliance levels. If all A/C pipe plants are at or below 0.5 f/cc., it obviously will not be possible to lobby a 1.0 f/cc. standard with any of the executive agencies or Congress. On the other hand, the prospect of a 0.1 f/cc. standard is real enough to justify "preventive lobbying." The same rationale applies to the possibility of a separate standard for crocidolite. Staff has lobbied executive agencies and served as a member company resource in corporate lobbying programs. A broad-based lobbying program on this issue is not priced easily or accurately as it dimensions are still unknown. A "ballpark" estimate for lobbying the manufacturing standard would be $12,000-$18,000 plus direct costs for briefing packages, entertainment, etc. . A summary of options, tasks and estimated costs is attached as Appendix C. If you have any questions prior to the Executive Committee meeting, please do not hesitate to call. JFW/ajb Enclosures cc: A. Kahn, Esq. copies to: Executive Committee L. Ambler L. Taylor A. Verploegh 0172062801 Chrono D 003611 APPENDIX A Major Events in Development of OSHA Standards for Occupational Exposure to Asbestos May 29, 1971 12 f/cc (TWA) standard promulgated. November 4,1971 AFL/CIO petitions for emergency temporary standard of 5 f/cc. OSHA publishes standard on December 7,1971. January 12,1972 OSHA issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for permanent standard of 5 f/cc. February 1,1972 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends 2 f/cc. standard. July 7, 1972 5 f/cc. standard goes into effect. October 9,1975 OSHA proposes to lower standard to 0.5 f/cc. and to develop separate standard for construction industry. July 1,1976 2 f/cc. standard goes into effect. December 15, 197.6 NIOSH recommends to OSHA that standard be lowered to 0.1 f/cc. ("lowest detectable level"). February 7,1980 AACPP and AIA/NA transmit to OSHA a "Recommended Standard for Occupational Asbestos Exposure in Construction and Other Non-Fixed Work Operations," culminating twelve months work on the Recommended Work Practice Program. April 17, 1980 NIOSH/OSHA Asbestos Work Group endorses 0.1 f/cc. standard. Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary for OSHA says that a new rule could be in place within 6 months. May 16,1980 OSHA Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health endorses AACPP/AIA/NA position paper on work practices; monitoring and medical surveillance requirements for construction are not resolved. January 2,1981 OSHA-NIOSH accept Advisory Committee recommendations that separate health standards be developed for construction industry. March 12,1981 K&E, AIA/NA and AACPP representatives meet with Assistant Secretary Auchter to request "relief from overzealous government regulation." A joint government-industry program is proposed to: (a) reject NIOSH recommendations and withdraw 0.5 f/cc. OSHA proposal, (b) implement workable standards for the construction industry and (c) coordinate plan for 0 003612 March 10,1982 March 21,1983 April 7,1983 May, 1983 May 31,1983 June 14, 1983 government regulation of asbestos. "Suggested OSHA Program on Asbestos Regulation" prepared by IC<3cE and informally transmitted to OSHA. Document recommends beginning regulatory proceeding to issue cost effective construction standard and reaffirm efficacy of 2.0 f/cc. standard. During unrelated litigation, OSHA inadvertantly releases "Preliminary Risk Assessment for Asbestos." Document endorses reduction of standard to 0.5 or 0.1 f/cc. At meeting with K<3cE and AIA/NA, Assistant Secretary Auchter announces that OSHA will propose a new standard by early summer, 1983. Auchter's actions clearly prompted by "political survivorship" on the heels of EPA Administrator's resignation and strong Congressional inquiry into OSHA inaction. OSHA contracts with Dr. Irving Selikoff (Mt. Sinai School of Medicine) to prepare medical evidence supporting standard reduction. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers petitions OSHA to issue emergency temporary standard of 0.1 f/cc. Organization Resources Counselors (ORC) recommends that OSHA lower standard to 0.5 f/cc. and prohibit use of crocidolite. D 003613 "'nssoanTson of ^rr.tui.A 3 ran^cHsnisTS RnQ . ' neFSQSPflce iboTMers MACHINISTS BUILDING, 1300 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20035 Area Code 202-857-5200 .. CL15 -- Asbestos ' May 31, 1983 33S135S Mr. Raymond ,J. Donovan Secretary of Labor U. S. Department of Labor Washington, DC 20210 Dear Seeretary - Donovan: ,?F1CIAL COURESPOIIDSNCB TURK TO P.COU S-2519 On behalf of our 900,000 members, the International Associ ation of. Machinists and Aerospace Workers requests an Emergency Temporary Standard to reduce the', permissible exposure level for asbestos to 100,000 fibers per cubic meter air. This unusual response- o'*f an Emergency Temporary Standard is necessary to meet the exceptional circumstances presented by continued worker exposure to asbestos. '} Assistant Secretary Thorne Auchter has been sitting on a Risk Assessment for Asbestos and the recommend a t.i o n s of a joint OSHA/NIOSH committee since he took office.. The time for action is long overdue. :` It is our understanding that Assistant Secretary Auchter is planning to propose a reduction in `the permissible exposure limit to 500,000 fibers per cubic meter, as an eight hour time-weighted average. We know that Doctor Irving Selikoff has told him that this level of asbestos exposure is dangerously high--indefensibly high. The only exposure level that can be honestly supported is the lowest detectable level. . ----- -- -- . We request the 100,000 fiber level on an- emergency basis not because it is "safe"... no asbestos exposure is safe... but because it represents the lowest`reliably detectable level using current measurement techniques. the rulemaking hearings which will follow the issuance of- the Emergency Temporary Standard pur suant to Section 6(c) of the Act, OSHA should give very careful consideration to requiring measurement technology which permits reliable detection of asbestos concentrations below 100,000 fibers per cubic meter. .. Iron .pur experience, we believe that for the majority of work settings an exposure limit of 100,000 fibers per cubic meter can be net^uSing: "a .tonbination of engineering and work practice control measures. . ir:\ *: / D 003614- Because it is well understood that the permissible exposure limit alone will not fully protect workers from the risk of asbes tos cancer, we request that in your emergency rulemaking you make the work practice provisions of 1910.1001(c)(2) mandatory for all operations exposing workers to asbestos, regardless of level. The specific minor wording changes we request to accomplish this are shown in the Attachment to this letter. % The IA.M is sponsoring a series of medical screening pro grams for asbestos-exposed workers and their spouses. The results have been devastating. 50Z of our members who partici pated in. the screening were found to have, abnormal chest x-rays. We have also seen evidence of asbestos disease among spouses participating in this program. A national review of deaths among I AM r a ilroad-'members conducted by Dr. Thomas Hancuso, IAM medical consultant, 'identified 42 cases of mesothelioma (see Mancuso Study attachment). These findings and the host of similar find ings by the scientists at Mt. Sinai^ document beyond questions the horrible risk of asbestos cancer faced by workers and their f ami 1 i es .... Unf or tuna t e ly , these serious qualitative health risks were unappreciated at the time of ".'the 1972 revision of the asbes tos standard. However, the scientific evidence is now clear. There is a documented risk to workers and their families, demon strating a significant risk of grave danger for all exposed workers. 1 . t , * j ^ It is therefore of the utmost importance that OSHA take steps to require full protective clothing, showers and separate change areas to protect all asbestos-exposed workers and their families as soon as possible, regardless of exposure level. We request that these measure? be included in the Emergency Tempor ary Standard, by means of minor wording changes in 1910.1001 (d)(3). The specific minor wording changes necessary to accom plish this are shown in the Attachment. As you are no doubt aware, the danger of cancer from work place exposure has been well documented in the scientific litera ture in recent years- These references have been enumerated by the Department of Labor at 40 F.R. 47653 (October 9 , 1 975 ), by NOISH in Revised Recommended Asbestos Standard, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-169 (December ,-x.l.7 6, ) and by t"he NI0SH-0SHA Asbestos Work Croup in Workplace Exposure to Asbestos. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No- 81-103 (April, 1980). . The scientific evidence requires that immediate regulatory action be taken. The Reagan Administration has consistently attacked the basic fiber and web of the Occupational Safety and V >t \* D 003615 Health Act by developing no new standards u , t, . standards, and destroying enforcenent. This negl l cc" of"So * * 1" * Health Adninistration oove in this direction iy^Uslllg 'a,'"/,"4 gency Temporary Standard for asbestos. * g an Ener- 1 iI Ii i * i i -T- -3c. D 003616 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF OPTIONS, TASKS AND ESTIMATED COSTS Option 3: Support AIA/NA strategies provide financial and information support Option 4: AIA/NA chrysotile strategy; oppose crocidolite strateev Contribution to AIA/NA Health Issues Feasibility Issues -Technical -Economic K&E-AIA/NA Liaison OSHA Hearings Legal Services Total $40,000-$50,000 -0- $10,800 to $15,800 $2,400 to $3,600. $4,200 to $6,000 $1,800 to $3,000 -0$59,200 to $78,400 -0- $2,400-$3,000 $10,800 to $15,800 $2,400 to $3,600 $4,200 to $6,000 $1,800 to $3,000 $40,000 to $50,000 $61,600 to $81,400 D 003617