The Bush administration’s last minute efforts to dismantle or inhibit environmental and worker protections in favor of business interests march on unabated.
A new rule proposed by the Labor Department and pertaining to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) would make it more difficult – perhaps functionally impossible – to establish broad standards for exposure to hazardous substances in the workplace.
The proposed rule states,
Risk assessments shall utilize the best available evidence, and the latest available scientific data in the field, including industry-by-industry evidence relating to working life exposures.”
While few would question the need for sound scientific data, it is the “industry-by-industry evidence” and “working life exposures” provisions that are drawing criticism.
Furthermore, regulating agencies would be required to publish “advance notice of proposed rule-making,†not only soliciting, but having to respond to “public†comment — apparently regardless of merit — prior to enacting a new regulation.
Together, these steps would add years to the already lengthy process of developing standards to protect workers’ health and safety.
Of ongoing OSHA efforts, the New York Times notes, “Currently, it is assessing substances like silica, beryllium and diacetyl, a chemical that adds the buttery flavor to some types of microwave popcorn.â€
True, but OSHA has been trying to establish a standard for silica exposure (pdf) since 1994. Regulations regarding diacetyl “have failed to make significant progress†in ten years.
How any new standards could ever be set under the proposed rule is unclear, but adding an AFL-CIO estimated two years to a process that already takes up to a decade or more — while workers continue to be at risk — is only part of the problem. By calling for “industry-by-industry evidence,†the administration is calling for data that in many cases does not exist – a fact it acknowledges — and that would be both time-consuming and costly to gather. It is also often unnecessary – except as a stonewalling tactic.
Once it has been established that a certain level of exposure to a substance leads to adverse health effects in one industry, is it really productive to examine the health effects in every industry that exposes workers to that substance in order to set an acceptable standard of exposure?
In a September 28 letter to the Department of Labor, the Communication Workers of America (CWA) also questions by whom and what authority the proposed rule was written:
…the proposed risk assessment rule was developed by political appointees within DOL’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy without the necessary involvement from safety and health experts within OSHA and MSHA. This office has no expertise in risk assessment and no authority under the OSHAct and/or MSHAct regarding the development and issuance of occupational safety and health rules.”
The CWA letter also notes that the idea of requiring OSHA to respond to all public comments regarding risk assessments, “regardless of their validity or merit†prior to issuing rules was considered and rejected in 1987.
In calling for a withdrawal of the proposed Dept. of Labor rule, the CWA joins the AFL-
CIO, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the American
Industrial Hygiene Association, the American Public Health Association, and OMB
Watch.
“This proposal does not affect the substance or methodology of risk assessments, and it does not weaken any health standard,†said Leon R. Sequeira, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy, but rather, would permit OSHA and MSHA to “cast a wide net for the best available data before proposing a health standard.â€
A wide net, indeed. So wide as to render it ineffective in the eyes of critics.
Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, George Miller (D-CA) said the proposed Labor rule would “weaken future workplace safety regulations and slow their adoption.â€
Margaret M. Seminario, the AFL-CIO’s Director of Occupational Safety and Health: “This rule is being pushed through by an administration that, for the last seven and a half years, has failed to set any new OSHA health rules to protect workers, except for one issued pursuant to a court order.â€
President-elect, Barak Obama, is on record as critical of this and other Bush administration actions in the area of workplace safety and regulation. Unlike executive orders which are fairly simple for a subsequent administration to overturn, regulations such as the Bush administration is enacting require Congressional review and thus are more difficult, though not impossible, to reverse.
Of course, the real question shouldn’t be how difficult overturning these rules might be, but why they are being enacted in the first place. Judging from who’s lining up on each side of the matter, the answer seems obvious.
