Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:48:50 -0400
Reply-To: List Moderator <ecgrants**At_Symbol_Here**UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: List Moderator <ecgrants**At_Symbol_Here**UVM.EDU>
Subject: U.S. Rushes to Change Workplace Toxin Rules

This is potentially a Big Issue with regard to OSHA's oversight of  
chemical exposures.

- Ralph

U.S. Rushes to Change Workplace Toxin Rules

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 23, 2008; A01

Political appointees at the Department of Labor are moving with unusual
speed to push through in the final months of the Bush administration a
rule making it tougher to regulate workers' on-the-job exposure to
chemicals and toxins.

The agency did not disclose the proposal, as required, in public notices
of regulatory plans that it filed in December and May. Instead, Labor
Secretary Elaine L. Chao's intention to push for the rule first surfaced
on July 7, when the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
posted on its Web site that it was reviewing the proposal, identified
only by its nine-word title.

The text of the proposed rule has not been made public, but according to
sources briefed on the change and to an early draft obtained by The
Washington Post, it would call for reexamining the methods used to
measure risks posed by workplace exposure to toxins. The change would
address long-standing complaints from businesses that the government
overestimates the risk posed by job exposure to chemicals.

The rule would also require the agency to take an extra step before
setting new limits on chemicals in the workplace by allowing an
additional round of challenges to agency risk assessments.

The department's speed in trying to make the regulatory change contrasts
with its reluctance to alter workplace safety rules over the past 7 1/2
years. In that time, the department adopted only one major health rule
for a chemical in the workplace, and it did so under a court order.

In an interview, Labor's assistant secretary for policy, Leon R.
Sequeira, said officials did not disclose their interest in the rule
change earlier because they were uncertain until recently whether they
wanted to follow through and pursue a regulation.

But the fast-track approach has brought criticism from workplace-safety
advocates, unions and Democrats in Congress. Some accuse the Bush
administration of working secretly to give industry a parting gift that
will help it delay or block safety regulations after President Bush
leaves office.

"It's an insult to America's workers for the Department of Labor to be
spending its time in the last year of this administration allegedly
fine-tuning the details of how to do these regulations when, other than
the one ordered by a court, they have issued no major worker-health
regulations," said Adam Finkel, a professor at the University of
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey who is a former health standards
director at Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration. "The
reality is there's a great need to light a fire under this moribund
agency to do something -- anything -- to protect workers."

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Education and Labor
Committee, said: "The fact that the Department of Labor seems to be
engaged in secret rulemaking makes me highly suspicious that some
high-level political appointees are up to no good. This Congress will
not stand for the gutting of health and safety protections as the Bush
administration heads out the door."

Sequeira said department policy prevents him from discussing the details
of a draft rule, how it was written and by whom, until it is reviewed by
the OMB. The public will have 30 days to critique the draft after it is

"It's premature to comment," he said. "People appear to be making
assumptions about what's in the draft."

Last week, the proposal was defended in an opinion piece in the New York
Sun written by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a fellow at the
conservative-leaning Hudson Institute. She wrote that it would bring a
"rationalized approach" to risk assessments and probably move away from
the incorrect assumption in current rules that workers stay in a job,
with daily exposure to the same chemicals or toxins, for as long as 45

Furchtgott-Roth did not mention in the article that she was one of the
consultants who worked with Labor beginning in September 2007 on a
$349,000 outside study of the risk-assessment process.

The OMB has been trying to address the issue of risk assessment since
2006, when it attempted to set new standards governing how a host of
federal agencies reach their conclusions. That plan was withdrawn after
the National Academy of Sciences called it "fatally flawed" because it
lacked scientific grounding.

Early this year, Deborah Misir, a political deputy in Labor's office of
the assistant secretary for policy, worked with the OMB to draft a new
risk-assessment rule. A former ethics adviser to Bush, Misir had
complained that the department's assumption of a 45-year working life
overstated the risk of exposure.

Typically, before drafting a rule, agency officials consult with staff
members, lawyers and outside experts, and sometimes industry and other
interested parties. But Misir initially did not consult scientific and
workplace-risk-assessment experts in OSHA and the Mine Safety and Health
Administration, according to sources briefed on her work.

Charles Gordon, a recently retired Labor Department lawyer who worked on
regulations in OSHA's solicitor's office for 32 years, said the policy
office does not usually take the lead on rules involving risk
assessments. "Normally, issues of health science like risk assessment
are performed by OSHA and MSHA, that have statutory authority and
expertise in the area," Gordon said.

Misir waited until April to seek comments from the department's experts.
They objected to both the legality and substance of the proposal and
recommended that Chao not pursue such a rule, according to the sources.

A few weeks later, when the agency listed regulations "under development
or review" in its semiannual agenda, the risk-assessment proposal was
not included. But a draft was circulating among a small group of
advisers, according to a date-stamped copy obtained by The Post.

In spring 2007, the department listed 38 potential workplace-safety
regulations as works in progress. Among its priorities were a proposal
to reduce deaths and injuries from cranes and derricks, following a
spate of fatal accidents; a new rule to reduce illnesses from silica,
which can cause respiratory diseases; and a proposal to change
regulation of beryllium, a light metal that can harm the lungs of dental
and metal workers.

But virtually overnight, changing the risk-assessment process became the
agency's top priority for workplace regulations. The July submission of
its proposal broke a deadline set by White House Chief of Staff Joshua
B. Bolten, who had ordered that all agencies submit proposed regulations
before June 1 and "resist the historical tendency of administrations to
increase regulatory activity in their final months."

Nevertheless, the OMB agreed to work with Labor on the proposal. The
July 7 posting on its Web site shocked many inside and outside the
agency who had been following the events.

"This is flat-out secrecy," said Peg Seminario, director of health and
safety policy at the AFL-CIO. "They are trying to essentially change the
job safety and health laws and reduce required workplace protections
through a midnight regulation."

Seminario said she was stunned that the administration would consider
the rule its top priority, when for years it has "slow-walked and
stalled" safety rules that would reduce worker deaths and injuries from
diacetyl and beryllium.

David Michaels, an epidemiologist and workplace safety professor at
George Washington University's School of Public Health, said the rule
would add another barrier to creating safety standards, in the name of
improving them.

"This is a guarantee to keep any more worker safety regulation from ever
coming out of OSHA," Michaels said. "This is being done in secrecy, to
be sprung before President Bush leaves office, to cripple the next

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.