On Wednesday, ProPublica noted that the Washington Post reported that political appointees at the Department of Labor were trying to push through regulations making it more difficult to regulate workers’ exposure to chemicals and toxins. It didn’t disclose the proposal (which is required), but Bush’s pet at the DoL, Elaine Chao, is attempting to change the methods used to measure risks to American workers. This is a shady attempt to tie the hands of the next administration in its ability to protect Americans.
Not surprisingly:
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.
Today, the WaPo obtained a copy of the 11th hour rule and reported the following:
The Labor Department has refused to discuss or disclose the proposal, which has spurred anger and condemnation from unions, Democrats in Congress and public health scientists.
So, what’s in this 28 page document? Let’s look at a few tidbits:
The Acts also state that, “in addition to the attainment of the highest degree of health and safety protection for the employee, other considerations shall be the latest available scientific data in the field.’ In sum, the OSHA Act and Mine Act reflect a basic principle that agency actions should be based on the best scientific information available at the time of the agency action.
Out of curiosity, when did this administration give one whit about scientific data (unless, of course, it supports their own agenda)?
I believe that this pretty well sums up this administration’s thoughts on safety:
The agencies are statutorily required to eliminate significant risk to the extent economically and technologically feasible.
(snip)
This is another aspect of risk characterization that is provided in the Benefits chapter of the full Economic Analysis that accompanies the Department’s proposed and final rules.
Additionally, parts of the agencies’ risk analysis generally appear in the Economic Analysis section of proposed and final rules. The Economic Analysis includes an analysis of worker exposures to the health hazard of interest, estimates of the sizes of the exposed worker populations in affected industry sectors, the number of exposure-related illnesses that occur in those populations, and the number of illnesses potentially avoided by the new standard.
So, what is it they are trying to accomplish here? In a nutshell, they are trying to change the measurement of acceptable levels of exposure. To wit:
For occupational health risks from toxic substances and hazardous chemicals, OSHA and MSHA historically report their “best estimate” of the risk to workers exposed to a health hazard. This is typically an estimate that the agencies refer to as a “maximum likelihood” estimate derived from the statistical procedure of fitting a mathematical exposure-response curve to dose-response data.
And this is based upon:
The Supreme Court has confirmed that OSHA, “is free to use conservative assumptions in interpreting the data with respect to carcinogens, risking error on the side of overprotection rather than underprotection.’
And to get to the most fundamental purpose of the attempt at this ruling is to change how they measure carcinogens by using “peer reviewed data” most of which will be forthcoming from the very industries the rulings will affect (think Energy Task Force).
And while I was surfing, I happened on the following Executive Report from OMB Watch, from 2002, which I thought tied in nicely:
Industry Targets EPA Data Quality
Government agencies are busy working on their data quality guidelines in order to release drafts for public comment by May 1, as they move toward the implementation deadline of Oct. 1, set by the Office of Management and Budget in January.
A great deal of concern surrounds these guidelines, as business groups are gearing up to use them to challenge regulatory protections.
Looks like business groups didn’t have to invest time, effort or money into the effort. The Bush All-For-Industry-Nothing-For-Workers administration has them covered.
UPDATE: This from ThinkProgress:
Rep. George Miller (D-CA) pledged today to introduce legislation that would “block an eleventh-hour effort by the Labor Department to make it more difficult to limit workers’ exposure to chemicals on the job.” Miller said he was determined to stop the “secret rule” that has been described as “a parting gift” to industry from the Bush administration.
Good for you, Mr. Miller!
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
2 Comments
July 25, 2008 at 12:22 pm
The next president, most likely Barack Obama, has the ability to change anything that the boy Bush put into place. Since the “Bush rules” aren’t really based on law and are based upon the frat boy president’s interpretation of policies, the next president may interpret these policies differently and then apply them in the manner that they choose. After January 20, 2009, say bye-bye to all those boy Bush signing statements.
July 25, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Just as boy Bush wasn’t beholden to policies of previous presidents, so too, the next president need not be beholden to boy Bush’s policies. Let’s just hope that what’s left of this lame duck doesn’t do too much more damage until it’s over. If we can survive until then and if the old, confused man McCain doesn’t get placed in the White House, we will be on the move to better days.