UFHTED 
FIVE GATEWAY CENTER
PITTSBURGH. 15222



TO: James Smith

FROM: Mike Wright 

suamct Carcinogen Hearings

 

 

I The Proposal

OSHA is proposing to change the ground rules under which carcinogens
are regulated. The proposed standard does not cover any particular
chemical. Rather, it outlines the nature of the evidence.you need to
declare a substance to be a carcinogen and specifies that all substances
classified as carcinogens should be controlled to the lowest feasible
level. If the standard is adopted, future hearings for specific
substances can avoid many of the delays we have experienced in the past.

II The Issues

The USWA and support the proposals, with a few suggestions
for improvements. The companies are making two basic attacks against
the proposal. First, they claim that OSHA is attempting to ?freeze?
science by specifying what kind of evidence can and cannot be used in
determining whether or not a particular chemical may be a carcinogen.
This is a complicated area. Most of the testimony deals with esoteric
scientific issues and I don't think we should get very far into it.
Suffice it to say that the most eminent cancer researchers in the
country support OSHA's approach. Second, the companies argue that
controlling to the lowest feasible level may not be ?cost effective.?
They argue that OSHA should perform a complicated risk?benefit analysis
of the proposal itself and of the cost of controlling each future chemical
that may be regulated under it. This is the same kind of crap we heard
from the Council on Wage and Price Stability in the Coke Oven and other
standards. The companies have hired Foster?Snell to do an economic
assessment of the OSHA proposal. Ruth Rutenburg has been hired by the
to attempt to refute Foster~Snell. position is that it
does not intend to perform an economic analysis of this proposal since
it does not deal with any specific chemicals. The economic analyses
which are now required by Executive Order should only be performed for
each_successive chemical. OSHA also does not believe in doing a risk-
benefit analysis for particular chemicals, on the grounds that the data
isn't good enough, and because you can't put a dollar value on human
life.

6:4

July 7, 1978
Page 2
I think this area is where you can be of greatest service. We don?t
need a detailed economic critique of the Foster?Snell report. Instead,

we need a critiqns of the whole idea of a riskwbenefit analysis for
carcinogens as an alternative to simply controlling them down to the
lowest feasible level. You should plan to speak for about ten minutes.
Feel free to use any examples from past hearings or to make any other
points you feel are appropriate.

The Hearings

These hearings are the longest in DSHA's history. They began in
mid?May and will run through the end of July. The number of OSHA and
industry witnesses is about as many as all previous hearings combined.
Labor has two days on which to testify. On Monday July 10, there will
be panels from the (led by Joseph Odorcich) and several affiliated
unions. On Tuesday there will be four panels of Steelworkers. The
first panel will be yourself, George Becker, Fred Mabry, J. P. Mooney,
Daniel Hannan and myself. The second panel will be a group of Local Union
officers and Staff Representatives. The third panel will be members of
the DuPont Organizing Committee. Finally, Dave Wilson of the Sparrows
Point Plant, on his own, filed a notice to appear and he and some other
people from two local unions there will be testifying. The International
had nothing to do with Wilson's deciding to appear, but I have tried to
keep in touch with him to make sure we are all saying the same thing.



Much of this probably sounds like an overkill, but we are worried
the Council on Wage and Price Stability and White House economists
who probably be out to gut this standard and others. They have
already taken the Cotton Dust standard out of OSHA's hands, and they

will probably try the same thing with Lead. This may be the most serious-
attack on OSHA since the Act became law. Our appearance is more of a
show of strength and support than anything else.

I am passing on to you:

A copy of the relevent parts of the OSHA proposal.

. A copy of the pre?hearing statement of the 

A copy of the testimony of the Foster?Snell group.

The testimony of Richard Zeckhouser on behalf of

the American Petroleum Institute supporting risk?

benefit analysis. 

5. A statement by Richard Wilson on behalf of the
companies, supporting risk?benefit analysis.

6. A statement by Nick Ashford, on behalf of OSHA,

opposing risk?benefit analysis.



I'll call in on Monday to touch base. Thanks again for devoting your

time to this.


Enclosure