AB 515 No, Independent Cal/OSHA Yes
Barbara Kanegsberg
AB 515 – Bad for Workers; Bad for Industry;
Bad for California
AB 515 would result in very low quantitative worker exposure numbers
(Permissible Exposure Limits, or PEL’s) that are legally enforceable throughout
California. AB 515 would require that OEHHA risk factors be used as the basis
for worker exposure limits. OEHHA (the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment), develops community-based risk factors; the chemicals included
under Proposition 65 are based on OEHHA risk assessments. The OEHHA-based
PEL’s will be inappropriately and unrealistically low. Estimates
are that exposure levels for many common chemicals could be lowered by
100 fold
or more, because OEHHA risk factors are based on community safety, not
worker safety.
I will explain why AB 515 is the wrong approach and why a strong, independent
Cal/OSHA PEL process is a better approach. Then, I’ll give you steps
you can take to make California safer for workers; and help California’s
economy to flourish.
Aren’t lower numbers inherently better?
No.
PEL numbers will be inappropriately restrictive to workers and to industry.
Using OEHHA-based risk assessments to develop PEL levels for workers
is like restricting medications for adults to the types and levels
that do
not harm
infants. We would discover that essential medications are unavailable,
or that they are available only in very low doses.
Lower PEL numbers are not necessarily better nor more protective.
AB 515 will not protect workers.
AB 515 will erroneously place relatively safe or safely handled chemicals
in a very high-risk category. The risks will not be in perspective.
AB 515 will actually divert company resources from the pressing
need to
reduce overall
risks to workers. Instead, time and money will be spent setting
up restrictions and controls for an array of chemicals. These controls
will be required
whether or not those who are experts in worker exposure deem
them necessary.
Can’t we eliminate chemicals?
Industry needs chemicals to function effectively. Advances in
telecommunication, computer technology, and medicine all depend
on hardware. Hardware
is fabricated; fabrication requires chemicals. There is no
such thing as
a chemical-free
manufacturing facility. All chemicals, even “natural” or “biobased” chemicals
that are produced agriculturally pose potential worker safety hazards. It’s
not just the chemical; it’s the process. A very mild (so-called safe)
chemical used at high temperature or pressure can pose worker hazards. Chemicals
and processes can and must be managed effectively so as to protect workers,
neighborhoods, and the earth.
Is there a better way?
Yes.
California already has an agency, Cal/OSHA, that sets PEL’s. Cal/OSHA
recently developed a new PEL process. It is a process that includes health
experts with the skills and experience to protect the worker population.
It is a process that considers feasibility.
In my opinion, the Cal/OSHA process is better. It is still
not perfect. It can and should be built upon to develop
a PEL program
that more
effectively protects workers. The current Cal/OSHA process
is still far too dependent
on OEHHA risk factors and on input from OEHHA personnel.
California needs a Cal/OSHA PEL process that is independent
from OEHHA, a process that does not adopt the approach
of AB 515.
Don’t by-pass the experts
AB 515 is a “cookie-cutter” rule that endangers workers because
it bypasses input from experts in worker safety. Using OEHHA risk assessments
to set worker exposure numbers would be analogous to calling in a group of
surgeons with training in hip replacement to do brain surgery.
What should you do?
Make it your responsibility to defeat AB 515. Support
further development of a Cal/OSHA PEL process that
is independent
of OEHHA. AB 515
must be defeated because imposing standards based
on OEHHA risk assessments
will
not protect
workers and will lead to loss of jobs.
• As a worker, understand the real dangers of AB 515 to your safety at work and to your actual job. If you are a union member, educate your union representatives.
• As an employer, calculate the true costs of AB 515 in terms of resources diverted from worker safety, lower quality product, and competitive stance.
• Contact your legislative representative; contact Governor Schwarzenegger.
• Get involved in the Cal/OSHA PEL process. Cal/OSHA must be independent from OEHHA. It’s important for worker safety, for the quality and safety of products produced in California, and for the economy of the State.
Why am I involved?
On behalf of BFK Solutions LLC, I oppose AB 515
and support an independent Cal/OSHA that is
not dependent
on Prop.
65/OEHHA. We value real advances
in worker safety; and we value the productivity
of our clients. We prefer to grow our business
in a
productive manner, not
through
the
turmoil
imposed by inappropriate rules.
We take this stand even though our business
could benefit if AB 515 passes or if Cal/OSHA
develops
unrealistic,
impractical worker
PEL’s based
on OEHHA numbers. In such an event, our consulting business, BFK Solutions
LLC would very likely grow. Businesses would call on us to help make non-optimal
manufacturing processes work, to make the best of a bad situation, to assure
that they do not jump out of the frying pan and into the fire by switching
from one high-performing chemical with a new, very low PEL to another chemical
or blend with less favorable safety, environmental, and performance properties.
We might profit monetarily, but the people and businesses of California would
lose.
