Document 6kxKME15yKnQ62863ddXE6Q1

n| NEWS FEATURES HI i OSHA's Morton Com talks to CE The Occupational Safety and Health Administration head tells of his aggressive plans to upgrade the agency, and gives his opinions on a number of touchy issues facing the chemical process industries. |~| Formidable--that's the best way to describe the problems that buffet Morton Com, assistant secretary of labor in charge of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Perhaps never before has an agency made so many enemies so fast--from industry, labor and even other gov ernment bodies. Billed by its critics as a nitpicking nonproductive en forcer, the agency has been blasted bv^^winds of controversy since its in^Hbn five years ago. Com admits that there are people in his agency who believe that, due to the controversial and evolving na ture of the health and safety field, OSHA will be challenged on every thing it does. -,, But Corn, for one, certainly doesn't see his agency's woes as in surmountable. He's reorganizing his staff, starting in-house training pro grams, spearheading a massive revi sion of consensus standards (adapted from voluntary standards-setting groups, such as ANSI), and placing more emphasis on long-neglected areas such as worker health. And he's trying to overcome OSHA's im age as a political tool. "OSHA must be a professional agency, buffered from political whims," he maintains. *In a recent interview with CE, the agency chief discussed his views on where the agency should be going and how it should get there: CE: Why is OSHA now putting so much emphasis on health? In the past, OSHA has done little in the health end. When I entered the agency, I was greeted with a compliance staff of 1,050 safety officers, 135 health officers and 113 apprentices. Of 81,000 in spections last year, 7,000 were for health. Of the 100 most frequently violated standards, only one was health oriented. But the perception of the public seemed to be that we had the most impact to achieve in health. So, I made the policy determination that we would increase our level of activ ity in health but hold the level on safety. I've set a short-term goal of an equal number of health com pliance officers and safety officers, building up the health staff to the 1,050 level. CE: Some sectors of the chemical process industries, such as chemicals, feel singled out as an OSHA target with regard to worker health. Is this your intention? CORN: I don't think I have singled out the chemical industry--I've sin gled out the chemical problem in in dustry. I believe there is a problem out there with the working popu lation exposed to a whole variety of chemicals. We must have some obli gation from manufacturers and users of chemicals to assure people who work with those chemicals that they are safe. That is where I believe the burden of proof belongs. You need only go into any plant, not necessarily in the chemical indus^y, and get a list of materials re ceived at the loading dock for the last six months. That's a very humbling experience. You see tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of pounds of dozens, if not hundreds, of chemicals. That's the question I'm addressing, not the chemical indus try. The chemical industry just uses a lot of chemicals, so naturally we come to it/but J don't think we're focusing on it. CE: Do you have any firm figures on the actual extent ofthe health problem? CORN; We don't have good figures. There is a great dichotomy between the results of a study that the Na tional Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSHj had performed that indicated a very great incidence of industrial disease when diagnosed by industrial physi cians, compared with the figure that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) came up with, which is based on a sampling of what physicians in gen eral report. BLS estimates 2,000 cases per year; the health commu nity estimates 100,000-400,000. We could say that those are the limits-- the boundary conditions--and . the real incidence is in between. CE: How do you plan to narrow this uncertainty? ^t CORN: We will have a statistical unit soon that will be the funneling point between BLS and OSHA. And I've hired the first biostatisti cian/epidemiologist in OSHA. I didn't think we'd make any progress as an agency until we got some of those rare people on board. I think that they are the key to this. They CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AUGUST 30, 1976 UCC 093745 57 Ij II ' i: it i 1 ,1 rid*. NEWS FEATURES iaia* -tj ? understand how to sort' out occupa ards first. But the question has impli tional factors. cit, in it that protective gear is as ef CE: How do you plan to carry out health inspections in the chemical process indus tries? Will you concentrate on companies with the worst record? Will you look at specific chemicals or types ofoperations? fective as engineering controls. All my experience suggests protective gear is nowhere near as effective as permanent changes. The protective gear must be worn all the time, and any letup affects the person. The su CORN: That is evolving. The pervisor must constantly provide agency is almost starting from control. The devices themselves have scratch in the health area. Right a lot of problems. For instance, with now, vve're looking at certain sub ear plugs or ear muffs, there are in stances, and we're answering com fections. There's irritation due to plaints. -That essentially will tie up dust. When you add together the offr limited health resources for the constant surveillance, the discom next year and a half. So we're not fort, the built-in inadequacies, you going to have too much flexibility reach the conclusion that the devices Urtt-iLwe build up our numbers. are an interim solution. CE: Haw are you doing in building up those numbers in your health ranks? It may take some firms longer to do the job the right way--that's re lated to-the economic facts brought CORN: We are hiring, but we can't up in the question. So, I'll stretch it hire industrial hygienists. We get out. Our scenario in the inflationary very few--we get beginners. We're impact -statement for noise is 15 starting a three-year career-develop years for some industries. And I'll in ment program that will begin in voke a never-before-used clause of September. Over an about-three- the act that says we can enter into year period, with about ten weeks of agreements with employers to exper classroom training, we will grow our iment where a solution doesn't exist. own compliance officers. We are just I'll do whatever I can to bring about facing the facts that you can't hire change. qualified industrial hygienists. CE: What are your views on setting CE: How do you plan to measure im standards on a chemical-by-chemical basis? provements in occupational health? CORN: . In -the short term, the CORN: Well, that's what we are single-agent-standard approach will playing with. We have contracts out serve us well--we have so few stan with several "think firms" to assist us dards now. But in the long run, we in this formulation, and our own have to search for other ways of han policy group is working on it. dling this problem. Some of our ef I don't think you can measure forts focus on looking for those ways. health impact from hard statistics-- But I'd rather not open that up for you can't wait through a 15-year in general discussion until I have a cubation period to see if you're little more to show. changing the cancer rate or the pneumoconiosis [lung disease caused CE: What is the status ofthe program to by dust inhalation] rate. So we're go complete standards on 400 chemicals? ing to use surrogate measures. I pro CORN: It is moving. The ketone A pose measuring the number of per package has come forth, and the ke sons removed from risk--our field tone B group is almost ready. people are already collecting data on this. Of course, there'is an assump CE: Do you care to comment on the proj tion of continuity of exposure. ect's timetable? CORN: No, I don't. CE: Since industry has a practical limit ort the dollars it can spend on safety and CE: In setting standards, will OSHA fiealth, what is the rationale of OSHA's adhere to the action-level concept, in which pushing for costly engineering noise con firms must start certain procedures when trols rather than protective gear, when per worker exposures reach halfthe standard? haps the money could be better spent on CORN: I think our staff is con controlling more-dangerous hazards? vinced that the action level is not an CORN: Of course, I think we across-the-board concept. For cer should pick the more-dangerous haz tain compounds, it imposes an un necessary burden on the employer. It revolves on the issue of what hap pens at the level of the standard. If what happens is not a major effect, then I don't think the action should be invoked at half the level. So each of the standards is being looked at for the relevance of the action level. CE: Which items are in OSHA's high est priority category? CORN: Lead is high priority. We are vigorously pursuing coke-oven standards and cotton-dust proposals. We're getting ready for proposal on sections O and P--that's a revision of consensus safety standards. Vigor ously preparing sections D [walking and work surfaces] and L [fire pro tection and anhydrous ammonia] for promulgation. And we're vigorously pursuing noise, arsenic, and ketones, and trying very hard to get a resolu tion of the ground-fault circuit-inter rupter safety standard. And there are some I'd rather not mention that are not even in the perception of the public at this poijit--however, I have alerted those - segments of industry and labdr that will be impacted. CE: Will OSHA do resource-assessment studies--for example, on the number ofhy gienists and industrial physicians avail able--to determine how quickly industry can comply with the medical requirements ofthe standards-completion project? ~ CORN: I wouldn't want to say that we'd do that routinely. We do a whole economic assessment. And part of that could be resources. CE: Will there be an inflationary-impact assessment ofthe sum ofthe effects ofall of the standardsfor chemicals? ' f corn: We're not doing that yet-- that hasn't been built into OSHA's framework. But I am very sympa thetic to that kind of impact study. Certainly, the total impact of regu lations on different sectors is what the people in those sectors have to deal with. But we just don't have ev erything under our jurisdiction to do that kind of study. It would have to be done by the Council on Wage and Price Stability, or some um brella organization. CE: What are you doing to foster cooper ative efforts among OSHA, NIOSH, labor and industry in standard-setting? CORN: I've invoked many things. 58 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AUGUST 30. 1970 UCC 093746 S I'm totally committed to getting rid of the perception that industry, la bor and OSHA are adversaries. This was a relatively closed agency. I have gone public with just about everything we're doing. We're getting the views of labor and mam agement before the standard is is sued. We're saying here it is, here's the best we think we've got, do you see problems with it? You have al ready had an opportunity on the proposal. You've had an opportu nity in the hearing and an opportu nity for comments. We're at the end of the line now, let's go around once again before the standard goes out. All those steps have been injected in the last seven months. Now if that doesn't lessen the feeling that this is a mysterious edict that comes out of Washington, then really I don't know what else to do. I'd welcome further suggestions. CE: Will OSHA push for standards that set firm exposure limits, or will the agency lean toward describing work prac tices and controls? CORN! We are moving toward both--our standards include the ex posure limit we seek to achieve; but we are increasingly considering spe cific engineering controls that we have confirmed can be used acrossthe-board. It's not one or the other, it's really a combination of both. CE: Do you believe that there are safe threshold levels for chemical carcinogens? CORN: I don't think there are. I be lieve it's a continuum of response. The single-hit theory in the radi ation field leads me to believe that we're dealing with similar circum stances with chemical carcino genesis--but I can't prove it. CE: How do you feel about the no-de tectable-level concept for safeguarding against chemical carcinogens? CORN: Well, I think that's a mov ing target, and the people out there need a constant target. In general, I'm not in favor of phrasing regu lations "no detectable level," because next week somebody's going to come along and detect something lower. CE: How do you plan to promulgate health standards more quickly? CORN: I-can't change the process-- it's dictated by law. But I can change the number of people ad dressing it. We're expanding the health-standards group by 20, and Congress, I'm told, is authorizing ad ditional positions. We're changing the management structure , in the agency; we've broken the healthstandards group into subgroups. We're trying to draw on the outside world and on our sister agency [NIOSH] for toxicologists, physi cians and health specialists, and we are trying to recruit such people. CE: What then--under your new setup for more-quickly promulgating standards-- would you consider a reasonable time pe riodfrom start to finish? CORN: Our people think 14 to 18 months is the minimum time with the procedures that are inherent in the process. It's been taking in excess of 22 months--in many cases, much longer. CE: By 1980, NIOSH expects to de velop about 100 criteria documents on chemicals. How would you be able to handle thisflow? CORN: We've discussed our con cerns with NIOSH, not only because of the number but because we at present have no input to their prior ity system. Criteria documents are determined by NIOSH without con sultation with OSHA. Therefore, we receive many of them, superimpose our priorities, and put several of them on the shelf, because our prior ities from field experience do not suggest the same ones that NIOSH's system suggests. I think it is essential that the two agencies reach a joint priority system. CE: What is the status of the agency's efforts to revise the consensus standards adopted when OSHA was first formed? CORN: I'felt a great deal of our credibility was embodied in that long-talked-about and never-ini tiated effort to revise consensus stan dards. It's taken a huge effort on the part of the agency, but the standards are coming. We're now consolidating the comments and the hearings on sections D and L. That will come forth as a proposal probably by the end of September. VVe're on a De cember schedule for revision of the Q Morton Corn, the congenial 42-year-old OSHA chief,'comes across as tough but realistic in his quest to safeguard workers. "I'm not saying there aren't bonafide management/labor differences of interest in industry. But let's cut health and safety out of that." Trained as an undergraduate at The Cooper Union in New York City, Com received his bachelor's degree in chemical engineering in 1955. This background nourishes his view that good engineering is a key facet in solving health and safety problems: "Anyone can engineer a solution; but can you engineer a good solution at a reasonable cost?" After gamering master's and doctor's degrees in both industrial hygiene and sanitary engineering at Harvard University, Com joined * the faculty of the University of Pittsburgh in 1962. Before being tapped for OSHA last December, he most recently held posts there as professor in the Dept, of Occupational Health and adjunct professor in the Dept, of Chemical Engineering. "This job's a killer," Com confides at the end of another long day. "But I don't think a year is enough for wfiat I've started," alluding to the uncertainty of being a Presidential appointee in an election year. CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AUGUST JU. 1976 59 UCC 093747 [news features - t 1 ` sections on machine guarding and small tools. And then we'll start the next section. We're just going to keep going until we revise them all, CE: Many chemical manufacturers would prefer performance standards over specifications standards. Will OSHA move in this direction? CORN: That's the direction I'd love to go. That is the thrust of all of the revisions of consensus safety stan dards--we are trying to frame the re visions on the basis of satisfactory performance to the extent we can. I don't like locking people into specifi cations standards. Our goal is to abate a condition. If there are other ways of doing it, and we can eval uate those ways, then those options should be in there. But how to do that is what we're struggling with. Take a staircase, for example. The real question is: What load will it withstand? But how would the per son charged with compliance deter mine that: and how would a com pliance officer charged with evaluation determine that? It's much easier to go in and measure so much high . . . that's why you've got spec ifications standards. CE: We understand that you are making efforts to classify serious chemical hazards. Willyou elaborate on this? CORN: Well, there is a table that has gone through our advisory com mittee that lists the substance, the mode of action in the body, and the level at which it is believed that a serious citation should be issued. The compliance officer will go down the list to see how a particular chemical agent acts, take measurements and check the guideline to determine whether to issue a serious citation. Once these guidelines are put in our manuals, the information will be provided to all those we deal with. - CE: When might that be? CORN: The advisory committee has approved the list. It is now being put in a format to go out as a field directive. U think we're talking of a time frame of a month or two. CE: You mentioned to us in June that you were trying to pinpoint those health and safety areas that had the highest death rales. Please describe this effort. CORN: I'm trying to relate the haz- ards to the problem, but good data are very hard to obtain. We're work ing from workmen's compensation data and from Blue Cross/Blue Shield data. I've got people looking at numerous possibilities of discov ering where the hazards are. We've got to know where to put our efforts. Now I'm talking about the sub-divi sions: I'm after those statistics, des perately after them. I'd like to be able to tell our compliance officers, here's why we're stressing cranes . . . they're where the action is. CE: Some industry safety experts main tain that about 90% of industrial accidents occur as a result of unsafe acts, rather than unsafe work conditions. CORN: I take issue with that. The figure stems from a book that is very largely flawed in its logic. There are no data to support this. I concede that the behavior of the person contributes to the acts--as does the physical condition. I do not think sufficient data are available to assign percentages to either of these factors. CE: In light of the alleged leukemia hazard that confronts styrene-butadienerubber workers, what is your response to labor's push far an emergency standard? CORN: NIOSH is exploring the validity of the link. There are many chemicals in such facilities. We are accumulating data and are making inspections of SBR plants. Until I get some guidance as to what the agent is, I'm reluctant to move with an emergency standard. I'm not casting doubt on the problem. What I'm saying is I don't have enough data at this point to know what to regulate. CE: The National Cancer Institute has recently issued warnings on chloroform and trichloroethylene because they have pro duced cancers in test animals. What are your plans for these chemicals? CORN: I have not acted on them either. We are evaluating the nature of the animal data. There are people who think that the minute I hear any word of such things, I should immediately act. I'm impressed with all the wheels that turn when we act, and I feel a great responsibility to have enough infor mation to feel thfet any action is a re sponsible one. CE: What is your position on legislation that would exclude small businesses from ` OSHA's scrutiny? CORN: There's no rational basis to an exclusion--the problems cut across all establishments. Ninety per cent of these establishments under our coverage employ 25 or fewer people. I'd rather not exclude them, but recognize that a small business has problems associated with com pliance. In fact, we have just pub lished recommendations on how to ease the difficulties, and are now im plementing many of these sugges tions. To me, this is an eminently sensible way to proceed, CE: Why does OSHA seek onsite con sultation rights similar to the privileges given in OSHA-approved state plans? CORN: I think consultation has a lot to offer. The image of OSHA as a punitive police organization has to be moderated with a helping hand. Offering help with educational ma terial, for example. Letting people clearly know their responsibilities. Currently,. 35 states have onsite consultation programs. I will have a report on each state plan--I've asked for information on the nature of requests, how long the reporting takes, what kinds of hazards are being discovered--the whole break down of what's happening out there. It's a new area and it's going to take a great deal of thought as we inch our way along. CE: Since your position is filled by Pres idential appointment, depending on the re sults of the November election, the succeed ing administration may replace you. How has this uncertainty affected the agency? CORN: There's a great anxiety in the agency. I have - been telling people all my efforts are based on the belief that OSHA must be a pro fessional agency: We've changed job descriptions, we're reorganizing, we've started projects, we're chang ing our operations manuals. It's go ing to be awfully hard to stop these things if you believe in them as an organization. I've been telling the organization and the public not to personalize the organization--focus on what OSHA is and what you want it to be, Larry J. Ricci 60 CHEMICAL E.'id.'SEtktNC AUGUST 30, UCC 093748