RE: The US takes another step backwards!!

[Guest guest]

Two republicans in Washington want the US to have most out-of-date

occupational safety and health standards in the world.

Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) has introduced bill HR 5554 and Sen

Enzi (R-Wyo) has introduced SB 2066 forcing OSHA to stop

using " non-consensus " standard.

These bills are particularly target the ACGIH TLVs. which OSHA

references under the Hazard COmmunication standard. These bills would

make it illegal for OSHA to use the ACGIH TLVs and would

forbid OSHA and employers from making employees aware of the current

Standards.

These bills would make the US THE ONLY Country in the world with 40

year old employee exposure standards and would BAN informing employees

of more recent information. ALL 52 other industrialized nations have

more up to date exposure standards than the US right now!!

More censorship of the truth by the right wing business controlled Bush

administration.

(FMI see current issue of the Synergist p. 27)

Please contact you representative and these two business sell outs and

let them know what you think about " unprotecting " american workers.

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob:

I generally agreed with your position and statements, until you went off

with: " More censorship of the truth by the right wing business controlled

Bush administration. " Based on this statement, I am assuming you are a

left-wing socialist Democrat! Both extremes are bad, and your tirade

against the Bush administration is ugly. I personally would rather have a

right-wing Republican business-controlled government, than a left-wing

Democrat-controlled government that taxes and spends, restricts personal

freedoms, and chokes the economy to such a standstill that the quality of

life for everyone suffers - example: France.

Of course, something more moderate and middle-ground would be better.

OSHA got slammed when our Republican-controlled government rolled back PELs

to 1970 concentrations. It was BS! And I agree that the U.S. is far behind

other industrialized nations in protecting our worker's health with lower

exposure criteria; especially when presented with compelling data to suggest

the lower PELs have merit. Then again, I live in a Democrat-controlled

state where they lowered exposure limits across-the-board by moving the

decimal point several places to the right, without any compelling data to

substantiate it...all in the " interest " of protecting workers. Both

situations stink!

I believe there is merit to the bills sponsored by Norwood and Enzi, and I

hope that merit will allow, or compel, OSHA to move more quickly to up-date

its standards and PELs. I believe OSHA has become a bit complacent because

it could piggy-back onto other standards, e.g., ACGIH, NIOSH, etc. These

bills disallow the piggy-back. I believe where we should REALLY focus our

efforts is telling our elected representatives that the reasons/data the

industry-sponsored lobbyists will use to argue against lowering OSHAs PELs

are similar to the reasons/data used by the Detroit automakers in 1970 when

they said that cars cannot be made lighter in weight and more fuel

efficient. It was BS then, it is BS now.

However, to say that these Bills represent " censorship of the truth " ....that

is also BS.

For what it is worth....

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

> Two republicans in Washington want the US to have most out-of-date

> occupational safety and health standards in the world.

>

> Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) has introduced bill HR 5554 and Sen

> Enzi (R-Wyo) has introduced SB 2066 forcing OSHA to stop

> using " non-consensus " standard.

>

> These bills are particularly target the ACGIH TLVs. which OSHA

> references under the Hazard COmmunication standard. These bills would

> make it illegal for OSHA to use the ACGIH TLVs and would

> forbid OSHA and employers from making employees aware of the current

> Standards.

>

> These bills would make the US THE ONLY Country in the world with 40

> year old employee exposure standards and would BAN informing employees

> of more recent information. ALL 52 other industrialized nations have

> more up to date exposure standards than the US right now!!

>

> More censorship of the truth by the right wing business controlled Bush

> administration.

>

> (FMI see current issue of the Synergist p. 27)

>

> Please contact you representative and these two business sell outs and

> let them know what you think about " unprotecting " american workers.

>

>

> Bob

>

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been

> specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material

> available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,

> human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

> We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit

> to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included

> information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted

> material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use',

> you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>

[Guest guest]

Bob, I thought the proposed legislation was to make rulemaking more transparent. As I understand the bill the govt. will not be permitted to use any standards as set for private use by any non-governmental organization UNLESS there have been adequate public hearings and reliable government examination to the satisfaction of the Secretary. While the ACGIH is known to be expertly opinionated on many hazards the bill seems to be saying it is the government's exclusive responsibility to study and promulgate much like the FDA and EPA do in their exclusive arenas. I'm not sure it is a good thing to allow any private organization to speak for the government which is what would be happening if OSHA took blindly any set of non certified standards from a private organization such as ACGIH even though they may be feeling they are working in public's best interest. Anyway, there seems little chance the bills will be heard or come to a vote during this Congress. I believe that means they expire and would have to be reintroduced into the next Congress after February 2007. Here's the proposed bill that seems to me to provide considerable transparency and fairness. Just an opinion... Ken Gibala ================================ SEC. 2 ADOPTION OF NONGOVERNMENTAL STANDARDS UNDER THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT.(a) Adoption by OSHA- The Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is amended by adding after section 6 the following:`ADOPTION OF NONGOVERNMENTAL STANDARDS`Sec. 6A. (a) Effective on the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall not promulgate or incorporate by reference any finding, guideline, standard, limit, rule, or regulation based on a determination reached by any organization, unless the Secretary affirmatively finds that such determination--`(1) has been adopted and promulgated by a nationally recognized standards-producing organization under procedures whereby it can be determined by the Secretary that persons interested and affected by the scope or provisions of the standard have reached substantial agreement on its adoption;`(2) was formulated in a manner which afforded an opportunity for diverse views to be considered; and`(3) has been designated as such a standard by the Secretary, after consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies.Such finding and a summary of its basis shall be published in the Federal Register and shall be considered a final action subject to review by a United States District Court in accordance with section 706 of title 5, United States Code.`( With respect to rulemaking proceedings initiated by the Secretary but not finalized prior to the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall, within 180 days of the date of enactment of this section, investigate and identify the use of, influence of, or reliance upon any finding, guideline, standard, limit or any other recommendation that has not been made by an organization and procedure that does not comply with the requirements set forth in subsection (a). The Secretary shall publish the results of such investigations in the Federal Register and, in any final rule, standard, or official recommendation that is prescribed under such proceedings, shall not incorporate, use, or rely upon any finding, guideline, standard, limit, or other recommendation that does not comply with the requirements set forth in subsection (a). The Secretary's actions under this section shall be subject to review by a United States district court of appropriate jurisdiction.'.( Approval of State Plans- Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667) is amended by adding at the end the following:`(i) The Secretary shall not approve a State plan under this section that incorporates by reference any finding, guideline, standard, limit, rule, or regulation based on a determination reached by any organization, unless the Secretary determines that the standards adopted in such plan are standards that--`(1) have been adopted and promulgated by a nationally recognized standards-producing organization under procedures whereby it can be determined by the State that persons interested and affected by the scope or provisions of such standards have reached substantial agreement on their adoption; and`(2) were formulated in a manner which afforded an opportunity for diverse views to be considered.'. ============================= Re: The US takes another step backwards!! Two republicans in Washington want the US to have most out-of-date occupational safety and health standards in the world.Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) has introduced bill HR 5554 and Sen Enzi (R-Wyo) has introduced SB 2066 forcing OSHA to stop using "non-consensus" standard.These bills are particularly target the ACGIH TLVs. which OSHA references under the Hazard COmmunication standard. These bills would make it illegal for OSHA to use the ACGIH TLVs and wouldforbid OSHA and employers from making employees aware of the current Standards.These bills would make the US THE ONLY Country in the world with 40 year old employee exposure standards and would BAN informing employees of more recent information. ALL 52 other industrialized nations have more up to date exposure standards than the US right now!!More censorship of the truth by the right wing business controlled Bush administration.(FMI see current issue of the Synergist p. 27)Please contact you representative and these two business sell outs and let them know what you think about "unprotecting" american workers.Bob .

[Guest guest]

Are these standards for mold, toxic chemicals, or both?

> Two republicans in Washington want the US to have most out-of-date

> occupational safety and health standards in the world.

>

> Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) has introduced bill HR 5554 and Sen

> Enzi (R-Wyo) has introduced SB 2066 forcing OSHA to stop

> using " non-consensus " standard.

>

> These bills are particularly target the ACGIH TLVs. which OSHA

> references under the Hazard COmmunication standard. These bills would

> make it illegal for OSHA to use the ACGIH TLVs and would

> forbid OSHA and employers from making employees aware of the current

> Standards.

>

> These bills would make the US THE ONLY Country in the world with 40

> year old employee exposure standards and would BAN informing employees

> of more recent information. ALL 52 other industrialized nations have

> more up to date exposure standards than the US right now!!

>

> More censorship of the truth by the right wing business controlled Bush

> administration.

>

> (FMI see current issue of the Synergist p. 27)

>

> Please contact you representative and these two business sell outs and

> let them know what you think about " unprotecting " american workers.

>

>

> Bob

>

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been

specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material

available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,

human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17

U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to

those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information

for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted

material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you

must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>

[Guest guest]

The following is the HR 5554. I don't see how the law prevents the

secretary from incorporating the ACGIH levels, however they are not

law now. This legislation is to prevent the endless posting by OSHA

of their " Clarifications " enacted as law, which I am torn about. Ot

does not make these things " illegal " if they weren't " legal and

enforceable law " anyway. I think the synergists went off on the

usualy anti Republican drum beating. Politicizing ANY issue and

labeling as either the " right " or Left " having moral high ground in

this area of E, H, & S, is not very honest. Remember, it was Al

Bore and Carol Browner who de-emphasized asbestos. I do have the

Memo of then Administrator Browner stating " Asbestos is a problem of

the past " , and all the while ignoring the Libby Mine problems. Yes

that is right, Ms. Browner ignored the Libby problem.

So as you see, in the EH & S field we have NO political friends.

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5554

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 to prohibit the

promulgation of safety and health standards that do not meet certain

requirements for national consensus standards.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 8, 2006

Mr. NORWOOD (for himself, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. WICKER, and

Mr. TIAHRT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------

A BILL

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 to prohibit the

promulgation of safety and health standards that do not meet certain

requirements for national consensus standards.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Workplace Safety and Health

Transparency Act of 2006'.

SEC. 2. ADOPTION OF NONGOVERNMENTAL STANDARDS UNDER THE OCCUPATIONAL

HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT.

(a) Adoption by OSHA- The Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970

(29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is amended by adding after section 6 the

following:

`ADOPTION OF NONGOVERNMENTAL STANDARDS

`Sec. 6A. (a) Effective on the date of enactment of this section,

the Secretary shall not promulgate or incorporate by reference any

finding, guideline, standard, limit, rule, or regulation based on a

determination reached by any organization, unless the Secretary

affirmatively finds that such determination--

`(1) has been adopted and promulgated by a nationally recognized

standards-producing organization under procedures whereby it can be

determined by the Secretary that persons interested and affected by

the scope or provisions of the standard have reached substantial

agreement on its adoption;

`(2) was formulated in a manner which afforded an opportunity for

diverse views to be considered; and

`(3) has been designated as such a standard by the Secretary, after

consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies.

Such finding and a summary of its basis shall be published in the

Federal Register and shall be considered a final action subject to

review by a United States District Court in accordance with section

706 of title 5, United States Code.

`( With respect to rulemaking proceedings initiated by the

Secretary but not finalized prior to the date of enactment of this

section, the Secretary shall, within 180 days of the date of

enactment of this section, investigate and identify the use of,

influence of, or reliance upon any finding, guideline, standard,

limit or any other recommendation that has not been made by an

organization and procedure that does not comply with the

requirements set forth in subsection (a). The Secretary shall

publish the results of such investigations in the Federal Register

and, in any final rule, standard, or official recommendation that is

prescribed under such proceedings, shall not incorporate, use, or

rely upon any finding, guideline, standard, limit, or other

recommendation that does not comply with the requirements set forth

in subsection (a). The Secretary's actions under this section shall

be subject to review by a United States district court of

appropriate jurisdiction.'.

( Approval of State Plans- Section 18 of the Occupational Safety

and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667) is amended by adding at the

end the following:

`(i) The Secretary shall not approve a State plan under this section

that incorporates by reference any finding, guideline, standard,

limit, rule, or regulation based on a determination reached by any

organization, unless the Secretary determines that the standards

adopted in such plan are standards that--

`(1) have been adopted and promulgated by a nationally recognized

standards-producing organization under procedures whereby it can be

determined by the State that persons interested and affected by the

scope or provisions of such standards have reached substantial

agreement on their adoption; and

`(2) were formulated in a manner which afforded an opportunity for

diverse views to be considered.'.

SEC. 3. ADOPTION OF NONGOVERNMENTAL STANDARDS UNDER THE FEDERAL MINE

SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT.

Section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30

U.S.C. 811) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(f)(1) Effective on the date of enactment of this section, the

Secretary shall not promulgate or incorporate by reference any

finding, guideline, standard, limit, rule, or regulation based on a

determination reached by any organization, unless the Secretary

affirmatively finds that such determination--

`(A) has been adopted and promulgated by a nationally recognized

standards-producing organization under procedures whereby it can be

determined by the Secretary that persons interested and affected by

the scope or provisions of the standard have reached substantial

agreement on its adoption;

`( was formulated in a manner which afforded an opportunity for

diverse views to be considered; and

`© has been designated as such a standard by the Secretary, after

consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies.

Such finding and a summary of its basis shall be published in the

Federal Register and shall be considered a final action subject to

review by a United States District Court in accordance with section

706 of title 5, United States Code.

`(2) With respect to rulemaking proceedings initiated by the

Secretary but not finalized prior to the date of enactment of this

subsection, the Secretary shall, within 180 days of the date of

enactment of this subsection, investigate and identify the use of,

influence of, or reliance upon any finding, guideline, standard,

limit or any other recommendation that has not been made by an

organization and procedure that does not comply with the

requirements of paragraph (1). The Secretary shall publish the

results of such investigations in the Federal Register and, in any

final rule, standard, or recommendation that is prescribed under

such proceedings, shall not incorporate, use, or rely upon any

finding, guideline, standard, limit, or other official

recommendation that does not comply with the requirements of

paragraph (1). The Secretary's actions under this section shall be

subject to review by a United States district court of appropriate

jurisdiction.'.

[Guest guest]

Ken,

If you reading the legislative history of OSHA in promulgating exposure

standards and then court delays from industry it takes 3 -5 year per

chemical at best. Given this history, it would take OSHA 900 x 5 =

4500 years to just catch up to the German OELs. (This is not my

opinion, you can find this comment in the legislative record to the

1992 attempt to update the PELs.)

To catch up to all of the OELs worldwide would take 5,550 x 5 or some

25,000 years. I think the US has to start thinking like the rest of

the world and believe the experts when it comes to toxicology.

EVERY other nation (some 50) that has laws regarding OELs use the

ACGIH TLVs as the foundation. The oldest OELs of any other countries

dates to 2003. The US has the most out of date OELs of any nation.

Yes, we are behind the rest of the old in OELs and many other areas.

Don't forget the more sick workers the more money the medical

establishment makes. (and if the workers die before 62, then they don't

get SS.) There are reasons why Japan and France have a long life

expectancy then the US.

Bob

[Guest guest]

Live Simply,

The AIHA article specifically states the attack is on the ACGIH TLVs.

Bob

[Guest guest]

Note:

Over the past 4 years or so there was a joint group (effectively a FACA -

Federal Advisory Committee) made up of labor, big business, OSHA, NIOSH, etc.

that was looking to update the PELS in a more rapid manner. This was not

publicized. This was very close to succeeding (eg Taking the new TLVs and WEELs

or other valid OELs). UAW, AFLCIO, DOW, DuPont, Kodak, etc. as was OSHA and

NIOSH; and AIHA and ACGIH of course were in support. It was crushed when the

US Chamber (on behalf of small businesses) put the hammer down saying they

refused to go along. It was clear to me that the big companies do want more up

to date limits - and I know some involved in that group that pushed very hard to

lower the limits. Look at the internal limits for DOW, BP, Exxon, DuPont,

Ashland, Huntsman, GE, Dow Corning, Rhom & Hass, Kodak, FMC, Rhodia, pharma

companies, etc. - they use the TLVs, WEELs, MAKs or a fraction thereof - and

they do this in other countries where no regs require it.

As for California. CAL OSHA is begginning to look at a more science based

system (thanks in part to Len Welsh) and is now in the developmental stages of

forming a true PEL board to create these limits properly DHS on the other hand

is still far from understanding how to scientifically create and properly

support a limit.

I'll be quite now, before I get in trouble as I have pending things involving

these actions.

Tony

...........................................................................

" Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

PO Box 34140

Indianapolis, IN 46234

cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any

consultant can give you the other 10%â„ 

This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally

privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual

or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if

this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read,

copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please

delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender

by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any

attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended

in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages

express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may

not be copied or distributed without this statement.

Re: The US takes another step backwards!!

Bob:

I generally agreed with your position and statements, until you went off

with: " More censorship of the truth by the right wing business controlled Bush

administration. " Based on this statement, I am assuming you are a left-wing

socialist Democrat! Both extremes are bad, and your tirade against the Bush

administration is ugly. I personally would rather have a right-wing Republican

business-controlled government, than a left-wing Democrat-controlled government

that taxes and spends, restricts personal freedoms, and chokes the economy to

such a standstill that the quality of life for everyone suffers - example:

France.

Of course, something more moderate and middle-ground would be better.

OSHA got slammed when our Republican-controlled government rolled back PELs to

1970 concentrations. It was BS! And I agree that the U.S. is far behind other

industrialized nations in protecting our worker's health with lower exposure

criteria; especially when presented with compelling data to suggest the lower

PELs have merit. Then again, I live in a Democrat-controlled state where they

lowered exposure limits across-the-board by moving the decimal point several

places to the right, without any compelling data to substantiate it...all in the

" interest " of protecting workers. Both situations stink!

I believe there is merit to the bills sponsored by Norwood and Enzi, and I hope

that merit will allow, or compel, OSHA to move more quickly to up-date its

standards and PELs. I believe OSHA has become a bit complacent because it could

piggy-back onto other standards, e.g., ACGIH, NIOSH, etc. These bills disallow

the piggy-back. I believe where we should REALLY focus our efforts is telling

our elected representatives that the reasons/data the industry-sponsored

lobbyists will use to argue against lowering OSHAs PELs are similar to the

reasons/data used by the Detroit automakers in 1970 when they said that cars

cannot be made lighter in weight and more fuel efficient. It was BS then, it is

BS now.

However, to say that these Bills represent " censorship of the truth " ....that is

also BS.

For what it is worth....

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

> Two republicans in Washington want the US to have most out-of-date

> occupational safety and health standards in the world.

>

> Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) has introduced bill HR 5554 and Sen

> Enzi (R-Wyo) has introduced SB 2066 forcing OSHA to stop

> using " non-consensus " standard.

>

> These bills are particularly target the ACGIH TLVs. which OSHA

> references under the Hazard COmmunication standard. These bills would

> make it illegal for OSHA to use the ACGIH TLVs and would forbid OSHA

> and employers from making employees aware of the current Standards.

>

> These bills would make the US THE ONLY Country in the world with 40

> year old employee exposure standards and would BAN informing

> employees of more recent information. ALL 52 other industrialized

> nations have more up to date exposure standards than the US right

> now!!

>

> More censorship of the truth by the right wing business controlled

> Bush administration.

>

> (FMI see current issue of the Synergist p. 27)

>

> Please contact you representative and these two business sell outs and

> let them know what you think about " unprotecting " american workers.

>

>

> Bob

>

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

> always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are

> making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding

> of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,

> scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this

> constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

> for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed

> without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

> receiving the included information for research and educational

> purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

> copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

> beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

> owner.

[Guest guest]

The other issue in this that we waltz around is " knowing " just whom

the employee is. Yes, the " undocumented " worker. How do we track

exposure to 25%-30% of a workforce that we cannot coorelate their SSN

or ID numbers and names, as they change them?

It is kind of like we are just writing them off, and hoping it comes

out in the wash. I think we are going to have a blossoming of

occupational illness and injury in the undocumented community, just as

we have seen the uptick in asbestos related death and illness.

If you cannot regulate and compy with something as simple as asbestos

regulations, what hope do we have for more comples ones?

[Guest guest]

Dana:

Yes, I agree that there are some employers who hire undocumented workers, and there are some employers that don’t give a damn regarding employee exposure - documented or undocumented. However, I know of quite a few employers that hire workers with questionable SSNs, and they take darn good care of their workers! Because, when OSHA shows up at the gate, OSHA doesn’t care if the worker is an undocumented person or full-blooded American. If the employer is negligently exposing a worker to an unsafe condition that is against the law, OSHA is going to slam that employer with a fine. I see it all the time. And if the employer whines that the person is undocumented and doesn’t deserve the same protections (believe it or not, I have actually seen this happen), then the OSHA inspector is going to turn that company upside-down and inside-out with an audit.

This said, the undocumented are also taking a lot of dangerous jobs in small construction projects and small trades that get under the radar, and these folks are being injured and harmed. And I agree with you, we will see a blossoming of occupational illnesses and injury in the undocumented community. If our Government can get some reasonable immigration reform passed, and provide for the Guest Worker program, then hopefully these injuries and illnesses will subside in this class of worker. It is good for the worker, it is good for the community.

For what it is worth....

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

The other issue in this that we waltz around is " knowing " just whom

the employee is. Yes, the " undocumented " worker. How do we track

exposure to 25%-30% of a workforce that we cannot coorelate their SSN

or ID numbers and names, as they change them?

It is kind of like we are just writing them off, and hoping it comes

out in the wash. I think we are going to have a blossoming of

occupational illness and injury in the undocumented community, just as

we have seen the uptick in asbestos related death and illness.

If you cannot regulate and compy with something as simple as asbestos

regulations, what hope do we have for more comples ones?

[Guest guest]

Ken & others,

In my former life as a consultant for 13 years with Halliburton, I

helped promulgate rules for DoD, DOE, and OSHA. So I feel I can

speak with some confidence here that this law VERY CLEARLY is

intended to make sure that science (such as TLVs) does not get

promulgated as a rule without industry AGREEING (not just

commenting) on the rule.

If anyone is saying " this is about transparency " , they are doing

what's called political spin, there's no question in my mind about

it after reading the proposed law Ken graciously included in his

post.

This law even comes right out and says it, but with code words

perhaps the general public could miss (and be mislead about by

politicians who want to get it slipped by on behalf of their paying

constituency). It says that " the Secretary [of OSHA] shall not

promulgate or incorporate by reference anything " unless the

Secretary has determined that " persons interested and affected by

the scope or provisions of the standard have reached substantial

agreement on its adoption. "

If the intent was transparency, they would have said the Secretary

can't promulgate anything without " adequate notification of the

public " or " adequate public involvement in the process " or other key

words of that nature. " Persons interested in and affected by the

scope " is code for " industry that is going to bear the costs of

increased regulation. "

That's just the way it is. Make up your own mind whether it's a

good or bad idea; just don't be lulled by political doublespeak.

M. Cavanaugh, CIH

Blue Ridge Industrial Hygiene, Inc.

>

> Bob,

>

> I thought the proposed legislation was to make rulemaking more

transparent. As I understand the bill the govt. will not be

permitted to use any standards as set for private use by any non-

governmental organization UNLESS there have been adequate public

hearings and reliable government examination to the satisfaction of

the Secretary. While the ACGIH is known to be expertly opinionated

on many hazards the bill seems to be saying it is the government's

exclusive responsibility to study and promulgate much like the FDA

and EPA do in their exclusive arenas. I'm not sure it is a good

thing to allow any private organization to speak for the government

which is what would be happening if OSHA took blindly any set of non

certified standards from a private organization such as ACGIH even

though they may be feeling they are working in public's best

interest.

>

> Anyway, there seems little chance the bills will be heard or come

to a vote during this Congress. I believe that means they expire

and would have to be reintroduced into the next Congress after

February 2007.

>

> Here's the proposed bill that seems to me to provide considerable

transparency and fairness.

>

> Just an opinion...

>

> Ken Gibala

>

> ================================

>

>

>

> SEC. 2. ADOPTION OF NONGOVERNMENTAL STANDARDS UNDER THE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT.

>

> (a) Adoption by OSHA- The Occupational Health and Safety Act of

1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is amended by adding after section 6

the following:

>

> `ADOPTION OF NONGOVERNMENTAL STANDARDS

>

> `Sec. 6A. (a) Effective on the date of enactment of this

section, the Secretary shall not promulgate or incorporate by

reference any finding, guideline, standard, limit, rule, or

regulation based on a determination reached by any organization,

unless the Secretary affirmatively finds that such determination--

>

> `(1) has been adopted and promulgated by a nationally

recognized standards-producing organization under procedures whereby

it can be determined by the Secretary that persons interested and

affected by the scope or provisions of the standard have reached

substantial agreement on its adoption;

>

> `(2) was formulated in a manner which afforded an opportunity

for diverse views to be considered; and

>

> `(3) has been designated as such a standard by the Secretary,

after consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies.

>

> Such finding and a summary of its basis shall be published in

the Federal Register and shall be considered a final action subject

to review by a United States District Court in accordance with

section 706 of title 5, United States Code.

>

> `( With respect to rulemaking proceedings initiated by the

Secretary but not finalized prior to the date of enactment of this

section, the Secretary shall, within 180 days of the date of

enactment of this section, investigate and identify the use of,

influence of, or reliance upon any finding, guideline, standard,

limit or any other recommendation that has not been made by an

organization and procedure that does not comply with the

requirements set forth in subsection (a). The Secretary shall

publish the results of such investigations in the Federal Register

and, in any final rule, standard, or official recommendation that is

prescribed under such proceedings, shall not incorporate, use, or

rely upon any finding, guideline, standard, limit, or other

recommendation that does not comply with the requirements set forth

in subsection (a). The Secretary's actions under this section shall

be subject to review by a United States district court of

appropriate jurisdiction.'.

>

> ( Approval of State Plans- Section 18 of the Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667) is amended by adding

at the end the following:

>

> `(i) The Secretary shall not approve a State plan under this

section that incorporates by reference any finding, guideline,

standard, limit, rule, or regulation based on a determination

reached by any organization, unless the Secretary determines that

the standards adopted in such plan are standards that--

>

> `(1) have been adopted and promulgated by a nationally

recognized standards-producing organization under procedures whereby

it can be determined by the State that persons interested and

affected by the scope or provisions of such standards have reached

substantial agreement on their adoption; and

>

> `(2) were formulated in a manner which afforded an opportunity

for diverse views to be considered.'.

>

> =============================

>

>

>

>

> Re: The US takes another step backwards!!

>

>

> Two republicans in Washington want the US to have most out-of-

date

> occupational safety and health standards in the world.

>

> Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) has introduced bill HR 5554 and Sen

> Enzi (R-Wyo) has introduced SB 2066 forcing OSHA to stop

> using " non-consensus " standard.

>

> These bills are particularly target the ACGIH TLVs. which OSHA

> references under the Hazard COmmunication standard. These bills

would

> make it illegal for OSHA to use the ACGIH TLVs and would

> forbid OSHA and employers from making employees aware of the

current

> Standards.

>

> These bills would make the US THE ONLY Country in the world with

40

> year old employee exposure standards and would BAN informing

employees

> of more recent information. ALL 52 other industrialized nations

have

> more up to date exposure standards than the US right now!!

>

> More censorship of the truth by the right wing business

controlled Bush

> administration.

>

> (FMI see current issue of the Synergist p. 27)

>

> Please contact you representative and these two business sell

outs and

> let them know what you think about " unprotecting " american

workers.

>

> Bob <mailto:iequality-unsubscribe ?

subject=Unsubscribe>

> Recent Activity

> a.. 2New

Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJn

djQzdm1yBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTYwMDA2MTE0N

gRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMTU1NDA4MDY3>

> b.. 1New

Links<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJoMHNq

Zm9nBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTYwMDA2MTE0NgRzZ

WMDdnRsBHNsawN2bGlua3MEc3RpbWUDMTE1NTQwODA2Nw-->

> Visit Your Group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNWdiaDQ3BF9TAzk

3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTYwMDA2MTE0NgRzZWMDdnRsBHNs

awN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzExNTU0MDgwNjc->

> Get Low Fares

> Yahoo!

Travel<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12ksmmbs8/M=493064.8985666.9760618

..8674578/D=grphealth/S=1705061146:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1155415267/A=3848487

/R=0/SIG=13cvtha6s/*http://travel.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFhZ3VhaHU2BF9

TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHBvcwM0BHNlYwNncm91cHMEc2xrA2VtYWlsLW5jbQ-->

>

> Flights, Hotels,

>

> Cars, Cruises...

>

> Yahoo! Mail

> Get it all!

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12ku77mjj/M=493064.8985657.9760727.86745

78/D=grphealth/S=1705061146:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1155415267/A=3848570/R=0/S

IG=12j26nlu5/*http://usrd.yahoo.com/evt=42411/*http://advision.webeve

nts.yahoo.com/handraisers>

>

> With the all-new

>

> Yahoo! Mail Beta

>

> Ads on Yahoo!

> Learn more

now.<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12kidc1po/M=493064.8985663.9760769.8

674578/D=grphealth/S=1705061146:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1155415267/A=3848643/R

=0/SIG=131q47hek/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/srchv2.php?

o=US2005 & cmp=Yahoo & ctv=Groups4 & s=Y & s2= & s3= & b=50>

>

> Reach customers

>

> searching for you.

> .

>

[Guest guest]

" It says that " the Secretary [of OSHA] shall not

promulgate or incorporate by reference anything " unless the

Secretary has determined that " persons interested and affected by

the scope or provisions of the standard have reached substantial

agreement on its adoption. " "

With whom I have talked with at OSHA national in DC is this was

aimed at the willy nilly " clarification " process. This is where

OSHA came out with an interpertation based on a question asked by a

party. THis was to include " all effected parties " and not some " off

the cuff " interp. to a letter making a " defacto " regulation by

simply answering a question.

I do not think this is spin in which to include the " industry " but

all effected parties..that includes the workers and their

organizations. THey have input and are part of the industry as much

as the employing side of the industry.

Making it an attack by the right or anything else in reading more

into it than there is. This IS about making it more in line with

how EPA and FDA have been promulgating the rulemaking. OSHA has

simply been rulemaking by clarifications, short circuiting the

process of public input.

[Guest guest]

:

So eloquently put. Thanks.

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

On 8/16/06 8:40 AM, " cavanaughmm " <no_reply > wrote:

> Ken & others,

>

> In my former life as a consultant for 13 years with Halliburton, I

> helped promulgate rules for DoD, DOE, and OSHA. So I feel I can

> speak with some confidence here that this law VERY CLEARLY is

> intended to make sure that science (such as TLVs) does not get

> promulgated as a rule without industry AGREEING (not just

> commenting) on the rule.

>

> If anyone is saying " this is about transparency " , they are doing

> what's called political spin, there's no question in my mind about

> it after reading the proposed law Ken graciously included in his

> post.

>

> This law even comes right out and says it, but with code words

> perhaps the general public could miss (and be mislead about by

> politicians who want to get it slipped by on behalf of their paying

> constituency). It says that " the Secretary [of OSHA] shall not

> promulgate or incorporate by reference anything " unless the

> Secretary has determined that " persons interested and affected by

> the scope or provisions of the standard have reached substantial

> agreement on its adoption. "

>

> If the intent was transparency, they would have said the Secretary

> can't promulgate anything without " adequate notification of the

> public " or " adequate public involvement in the process " or other key

> words of that nature. " Persons interested in and affected by the

> scope " is code for " industry that is going to bear the costs of

> increased regulation. "

>

> That's just the way it is. Make up your own mind whether it's a

> good or bad idea; just don't be lulled by political doublespeak.

>

> M. Cavanaugh, CIH

> Blue Ridge Industrial Hygiene, Inc.

>

>

This E-mail scanned for spam and viruses by ATG Internet.

[Guest guest]

Yes, Ms. Cavanaugh, I can agree with everything you are saying.... especially the political nature of the proposed legislation. BUT the fact is the bill seems unlikely to have a second reading before this Congress retires and the bill expires. The proposal surely has provided tens of thousands of contributions to the sponsors just to post something that has no chance of passing. Bottom line---- I'd think there are more important matters today than these shenanigans happening in Washington. BTW, I see no evidence the Secretary or the Administration is favoring the proposed bill. Your comment on the need to let science govern policies of this nature [my paraphrase] opens another thought of just what is the value of science. We've all, more or less, witnessed the contests of the scientists in the courts for the 25 years it took to decide whether tobacco is unhealthy. It was simply our judicial system that provides science shall govern that caused the 25 year delay. For a similar instance take the Alpine ozone court case. The government took Alpine to court and "proved" they were selling air purifiers that "were" not doing what they were advertised to do. This was not a case of fraud but one of not providing a regulatory agency with proofs to their satisfaction. The government had their scientists and Alpine had theirs and though a good amount of what the government had claimed as false advertising was proven in that court to be "fact" and allowed against the claims of the government. However there were a number of claims that the court found could not be "scientifically" authenticated and the company was fined over a million dollars as the government's scientists had been more convincing. However the agreement of Alpine to pay the fine was coupled with a request to the court that Alpine would be allowed in the future to make those disallowed claims provided they had appropriate scientific evidence. The judge not only allowed that request but also defined that scientific evidence could be independently peer reviewed science that did not have to be approved by the government. To date under those terms probably 85% of the claims Alpine was fined for making without proper and valid proof are now allowed as scientifically factual. It has been estimated that within two more years the successor to Alpine will be allowed to be saying all what the government had said was not fact. Science has not changed... The facts have not changed. It is just that what is considered as fact today was not accepted as fact eight years ago. The question now in regard to the suggestion of letting science prevail is whose science shall be used for regulatory purposes? Ken ---------------------------- Re: The US takes another step backwards!!> > > Two republicans in Washington want the US to have most out-of-date > occupational safety and health standards in the world.> > Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) has introduced bill HR 5554 and Sen > Enzi (R-Wyo) has introduced SB 2066 forcing OSHA to stop > using "non-consensus" standard.> > These bills are particularly target the ACGIH TLVs. which OSHA > references under the Hazard COmmunication standard. These bills would > make it illegal for OSHA to use the ACGIH TLVs and would> forbid OSHA and employers from making employees aware of the current > Standards.> > These bills would make the US THE ONLY Country in the world with 40 > year old employee exposure standards and would BAN informing employees > of more recent information. ALL 52 other industrialized nations have > more up to date exposure standards than the US right now!!> > More censorship of the truth by the right wing business controlled Bush > administration.> > (FMI see current issue of the Synergist p. 27)> > Please contact you representative and these two business sell outs and > let them know what you think about "unprotecting" american workers.> > Bob <mailto:iequality-unsubscribe ?subject=Unsubscribe>> Recent Activity> a.. 2New Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJndjQzdm1yBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTYwMDA2MTE0NgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMTU1NDA4MDY3>> b.. 1New Links<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJoMHNqZm9nBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTYwMDA2MTE0NgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bGlua3MEc3RpbWUDMTE1NTQwODA2Nw-->> Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNWdiaDQ3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTYwMDA2MTE0NgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzExNTU0MDgwNjc->> Get Low Fares> Yahoo! Travel<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12ksmmbs8/M=493064.8985666.9760618.8674578/D=grphealth/S=1705061146:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1155415267/A=3848487/R=0/SIG=13cvtha6s/*http://travel.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFhZ3VhaHU2BF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHBvcwM0BHNlYwNncm91cHMEc2xrA2VtYWlsLW5jbQ-->> > Flights, Hotels,> > Cars, Cruises...> > Yahoo! Mail> Get it all!<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12ku77mjj/M=493064.8985657.9760727.8674578/D=grphealth/S=1705061146:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1155415267/A=3848570/R=0/SIG=12j26nlu5/*http://usrd.yahoo.com/evt=42411/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/handraisers>> > With the all-new> > Yahoo! Mail Beta> > Ads on Yahoo!> Learn more now.<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12kidc1po/M=493064.8985663.9760769.8674578/D=grphealth/S=1705061146:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1155415267/A=3848643/R=0/SIG=131q47hek/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/srchv2.php?o=US2005 & cmp=Yahoo & ctv=Groups4 & s=Y & s2= & s3= & b=50>> > Reach customers> > searching for you.> .>

[Guest guest]

The the criticism of the republican bills was the AIHA Synergist.

Are you saying the AIHA Synergist is wrong?

I reference the Synergist page.

Bob