Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0279-0133
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2012-03-29T04:00Z

Summary of Meeting with Labor Union Representatives and other NGOs on Worker Protection Measures in SNURs on 2/29/12 (EPA East Building, Room 3371) 4:00 -5:00 pm. 
Attendees from Outside EPA: 
Lee Anderson, Charlotte Brody  -  Blue Green Alliance
Anna Fendley, Mike Wright  -  United Steelworkers
Darius Sims  -  United Auto Workers
Bill Kojola  -  AFL-CIO
Jaydee Hanson  -  International Center for Technology Assessment
Jennifer Sass  -  National Resources Defense Council
John Morawetz  -  International Chemical Workers Union Council
Dave Lagrande  -  Communication Workers of America
EPA Attendees:
Jeff Morris, Ken Moss, Greg Schweer, Nhan Nguyen, David Widawsky, Anjali Lamba, Jim Alwood

Proposed Agenda received from Labor Union representatives:

(1)    Basic concerns with the worker protection measures in SNUR's
      a.       Concerned about the potential adverse health consequences of exposure to CNT's
      b.      SNUR reliance on PPE doesn't follow exposure control hierarchy used in  occupational health and safety
      c.       SNUR uses least effective control method  -  PPE
      d.      Control hierarchy used throughout OSHA standards/NIOSH recommendations
      e.      Workers need adequate protection  -  EPA SNUR approach fails with PPE as sole approach
      
(2)    EPA regulations for worker protections under SNUR's
      a.       Is EPA approach governed exclusively by 40 CFR 721.63?
      b.      Are there any existing EPA options, other than 40 CFR 721.63, for improving worker protections beyond PPE?
      c.       If there are existing options, what are they and how can they be exercised for SNUR's? What can EPA or unions/organizations do?  
      d.      Does 40 CF721.63 need to be revised in order to improve worker protection control methods for SNUR's?
      e.      If so, what is the process to initiate rulemaking to revise the regulation   

Discussion
The NGO representatives stated upfront they did not believe that they had given EPA input when SNUR regulations were being developed in the 1980s or for any of the SNURs EPA had published previous to the proposed SNUR on December 28, 2011.  The issue of regulations for carbon nanotubes had focused their attention on the bigger issue pertaining to all SNURs requiring control of worker exposure by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) instead of following the industrial hygiene hierarchy of controls.  
The NGOs noted that the generally accepted industrial hygiene hierarchy of controls used to reduce or eliminate worker exposure to chemicals (i.e., chemical substitution, followed by engineering controls like ventilation, containment, and administrative controls, and finally use of PPE is not addressed in SNURs or 5(e) Consent Orders issued under TSCA for new chemical substances.  
EPA stated that we agreed with that hierarchy, i.e., engineering and administrative controls should be employed before protective equipment is used to control exposures, and that the preambles to our final general SNUR rules in 1988 and 1989 stated that preference.  Such a preference is also stated in TSCA section 5(e) Consent Orders that contain New Chemical Exposure Limit (NCELs).  However, EPA explained that it is not practicable or possible for EPA to identify and mandate specific exposure controls in SNURs suitable for each site engaged in the manufacture, processing, and use of new chemicals.
EPA explained that our SNUR regulations allow persons who manufacture, import or process a chemical substance identified in a SNUR to request that EPA review a written request for use of engineering and other controls as an alternative to PPE use.  Such a request must be made according to procedures at 40 CFR 721.30.  
NGO representatives stated that because EPA does not expressly state in the regulatory text of SNURs that engineering controls must be implemented, the perception by the regulated community is that personal protective equipment is EPA's preferred method for controlling worker exposure.  The representatives stated that neither discussions of EPA's preference for engineering controls in rule preambles nor the provision of a mechanism in 40 CFR 721.30 for developing alternative controls to PPE are adequate mechanisms for ensuring that employers utilize engineering controls to reduce exposure before employing PPE use.  They also stated that regulated employers would choose the path of least resistance and choose the mandated personal protective equipment over other possible methods of preventing exposure.  In addition, they noted that EPA had stated publicly that no PPE-related enforcement actions have been taken for PPE provisions contained in such SNURs.
At least one representative strongly suggested that EPA adopt an OSHA-like approach of requiring unspecified best available control technology or most feasible but unspecified exposure controls in our SNURs and consent orders. 
EPA stated that adopting an OSHA-like approach may not be possible when EPA finds there is a potential unreasonable risk.
EPA indicated that it would carefully review any written comments submitted by the NGOs and that EPA would be willing to meet with them again, if needed, should the NGO representatives develop a proposed detailed approach for including exposure controls in consent orders and SNURs that EPA can review.    
The NGO representatives also asked whether there was a provision in TSCA that enabled someone to petition the Agency to undertake rulemaking.  EPA stated that TSCA section 21 provides such a mechanism.  
In conclusion, while both sides agree that the industrial hygiene hierarchy of controls should be used for controlling worker exposures, further discussion is needed on potential ways to implement the hierarchy in TSCA regulations.