KBWOOUOBU Ine unclassmeql UGCIESSHIGG OI tne Nauonal CUTLER 5. PICKERING I666 STREET, N.W. CUTLER JOHN .TG HUGH R.I-I.5NITR J. ROOER WOLLENEIERO CHARLES HORNBLOWEFI NENRT T. RATHEIJN SAMUEL .I. MNAHAN W1LLIAM R.PERLIN SAMUELA.5TERN ARNOLD M.LERMAN ROBERT MAX O.TRI.IITT..IR. .IOEL ROSENBLOOM RWILLENS ANDREW AMACDONALD ROBERT ARTHUR DANIEL MAYERS DAVID R.ANDERSON a. RODERICK I-IELLERJII F. MATHEWS JAMES DENNIS M. FLANNERT ROBERTSON RAYMOND LOUIS R. COHEN M1CHAEL R. KLEIN STEPHEN TIMOTHY N. BLACK EALLT IszN F. DAVID LIMKE.JF. PAUL J.MODE.JR. STEPHEN BLACK 5. BOYDEN GRAY RONALD J. GREENE JAY F. GART D.WIL50N WILLIAM T. LAKE MICHAEL L.BURACK MICHAEL S. HELFER NEIL .I. KING RDEJERT a. MEGAW MELAMED G. STODDARD WILLIAM C. GIFFORD WASHINGTON, 0. c. 20006 CABLE WISHING WASH., D. C. INTERNATIONAL. TELEX1440-239 89-2402 TELEP HON 202 672-6000 EUROPEAN 5 LONDON, ECZV 6AA, ENGLAND TELEPHONE TELEXLBSI 883242 CABLE ADDRESS: WICRING LONDON December 19, 1978 DAVID HELEN I. BENDIX BARBARA E. BERGMAN ALAN SUSAN LOW BLOCH STEWART A.BLOCK ALAN N.BRAVEFIMAN LYNN BHEGMAN DANIEL L. BRENNER RIGHARD RICHARD W.CA55 .JOHN F. MICHELE MART CAROLYN MARIE N. DOLAND PATRICIA D. DOUG LRES STEPHEN P. DOYLE JAMES R. FARRANU NANCY C.GARRISON MARK CORNELIUS .J. EDWARD T. HAND ALLEN H.HARPI50N..JR. .IOHN H.HARWOOD LL In . STEPHEN HUT. JR. DAVID R. JOHNSON JAMES T. PAUL smorl-?SNY WILLIAM J. KOIABMNI-E CRNBACE s. NOVAEIO E.LAND DONALD GERALD HENRY D. LEVINE CHRISTOPHER R. BRUCE MAXIMOV MAURY J.MECHANICK LOWELL ELMILLEH J. PHILLIP L.RADOFF WILLIAM R. TOWNSEND ROBINSON JOHN ROUNSAVILLE.JR. MICHAEL s. SCHOOLER GAIL F. SCHULZ NAREN KDSER scnwamz NENTIJER ARTHUR 8.5PIT2ER ALAN ARTHUR N.WEISEORO CAROL DREECHER ALEXANDER r. szIzs ANN o. WILLIAMS ROBERT G.WILSON ROGER N.WITTEN COUNSEL Mr. Tom Hall OSHA Office of Consumer Affairs Room United States Department of Labor Third Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210 Re: OSHA Docket No. In re Identification, Classification and Regulation of Toxic Substances Posing a Potential Occupational Carcinogenic Risk Dear Mr. Hall: Enclosed herewith for filing in the above?captioned proceeding are four copies of the Comments of the?gmericanm ron and Steel Institute on Regulatory Analysis. If you have any questions regarding these Comments, please contact me at (202) 872?6061. Very truly yours, 19:} f?eil Jay King cc: Honorable F. Ray Marshall Secretary of Labor Honorable Eula Bingham Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH In Re Identification, Classification and Regulation of Toxic Sub? OSHA stances Posing a Potential Docket No. Occupational Carcinogenic Risk COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE ON REGULATORY ANALYSIS On October 26, 1978, after the close of the hearings and post-hearing briefing period in this pro? ceeding, OSHA made available to interested parties a Regu? latory Analysis of its Generic Cancer PoliCy proposal. These Comments constitute the response of the American Iron and Steel Institute to OSHA's Regulatory Analysis. As will appear below, AISI concurs in the con- clusion of the.Regulatory Analysis Review Group that OSHA's Regulatory Analysis fails adequately to deal with the potentially enormous impact of the Generic Cancer Policy and that "a more comprehensive and analytical regulatory analysis . . should be performed. f/ Report of the Regulatory Analysis Review Group at 8?9 (October 24, 1978). As noted by RARG, the Generic Cancer Policy is likely to impose costs "well in excess of $1 billion annually." Ed. at 5. Yet the Cancer Policy disregards a number of factors that are critical to achieving maximum health protection in accordance with the agency's statutory mandate. As pointed out by RARG, the Cancer Policy fails to recognize the importance of potency and risk assessment in categorizing and regulating chemical substances, makes no provision for performing risk? benefit analyses or insuring the cost effectiveness of OSHA standards, and, in general, is characterized by a pervasive inflexibility that takes no account of variations in the properties of different chemical substances, in the production processes involved, or in the characteristics of the industries that produce or use the chemicals. Ed. at 5-6, 8, 20, 31-32. These flaws characterize the OSHA proposal despite the fact that other agencies already utilize or recognize the value of employing risk assessment and cost effectiveness techniques in setting regulatory policies. 3g. at 20 n.l. approach, as noted by RARG, would make it impossible for society "to allocate its scarce resources rationally to all of the ills which it faces." lg. at 20. Not only does the Generic Carcinogen proposal allow no room for cost?effectiveness analyses in the context of individual substance rulemaking proceedings, but also the provisions of the Cancer Policy itself have not been analyzed from a cost effectivenss standpoint. For example, as RARG points out, is . . . not clear whether the protection offered by lowering the permissible exposure levels . . . is purchased with society's resources at the same rate that it is purchased for monitoring or medical examination." Ed. at 33. Yet policymakers, as RARG observes, "should have some idea of what is being purchased when large amounts of society's resources are being expended." Ed. at 26. The Generic Cancer Policy proposal provides no basis for evaluating what society is purchasing for a vast expenditure of resources, and the Regu? latory Analysis prepared by OSHA does virtually nothing to supply the missing analysis. For the most part, Regulatory Analysis merely reiterates the points discussed in greater detail in the pre? amble to the Generic Cancer Policy proposal. AISI's position on those issues has already been set forth in our Post?Hearing Brief, and we will not reiterate those points in these Comments. Instead, these Comments will be confined to a discussion of OSHA's attempt to justify its decision to forego any serious attempt at risk?benefit or cost effectiveness analysis and to impose rigid regulatory requirements on a vast array of widely differing substances in widely varying industrial contexts. To the extent it addresses economic issues at all, OSHA's Regulatory Analysis attempts to do two things: First,