Methylene chloride standard and foam manufacturers

July 3, 1997

The Honorable Thad Cochran
United States Senate
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Senator Cochran:

Thank you for your letter of April 9, 1997 on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Bob Smith, regarding the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Methylene Chloride (MC) Standard. We wish to assure you that OSHA is aware of the concerns raised by Mr. Smith regarding the impacts of the MC rule and has addressed these concerns in the preamble to the final rule and the Final Economic Analysis. We would like to take this opportunity to clarify some of the misimpressions being raised about the risks of MC exposure and the methods available to reduce those risks for the U.S. workforce. Please accept our apology for the delay in this response.

The OSHA MC rulemaking was initiated in 1986 when the Agency published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in response to a petition from the United Auto Workers (joined by several other unions) to regulate MC because it was shown to be carcinogenic in laboratory animals. In 1991, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which included a proposed 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 25 ppm, a short-term exposure limit of 125 ppm and ancillary provisions covering exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, regulated areas, etc. In 1992, the Agency convened informal public hearings on the proposed standard in Washington, DC and San Francisco, CA. In addition, the rulemaking record was opened several times to receive public comment on feasibility and risk assessment issues.

The final MC rule (published in the Federal Register on January 10, 1997 (62 FR 1493)) is based on careful evaluation of all available information, including information submitted to the record by the polyurethane foam fabricating industry. OSHA's rulemaking record (now in excess of 48,000 pages of information) contains extensive data regarding the feasibility of compliance with the final rule, including information on substitutes for MC, modifications to control or process equipment and alterations in work practices. Many of these feasible methods of compliance are as simple and common-sensical as providing adequate ventilation, or covering tanks and containers when not in use. Data in the record indicates that the final MC regulation is feasible in all affected industries, including the polyurethane foam fabricating industry. OSHA must base its findings on its rulemaking record and must promulgate a regulation that is technologically and economically feasible for all affected industries.

OSHA has determined that the final MC standard is feasible in all affected industries without the need for substituting to alternative chemicals. It is not OSHA's intention to force industries to abandon MC, nor to promote the use of more flammable substitutes for MC.

However, the Agency recognizes that some employers may choose to substitute another chemical for MC for a particular application rather than implement engineering or work practice controls to reduce worker exposure to MC vapors. OSHA recognizes that the employer would need to evaluate many factors in making a decision to substitute away from MC, including potential impact on product quality, hazards of the substitute and costs of implementing substitute technology. The hazards of any chemical substance under consideration must be evaluated by the employer, as required under the Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200).

Thank you for bringing your concerns, and those expressed by your constituent, to my attention. Your interest in occupational safety and health is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Greg Watchman
Acting Assistant Secretary

[Requester letter reproduced on OSHA page; omitted here.]