Document 7Re8QvLRbLwR2Zkjzxdb4jzDa

TCC HOST SCHEDULE qrUNE 1988 YEAR HOST GROUP LOCATION first quarter COORDINATOR GROUP I (PORT ARTHUR - ORANGE - BEAUMONT) 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2C01 2 C 03 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 ALLIED CHEMICAL TEXACO CHEMICAL POLYSAR PENNWALT QUANTUM CHEMICAL DUPONT GOODYEAR CHEVRON M03IL CHEMICAL P D GLYCOL BETZ LAB FIRESTONE DUPONT ORANGE PORT NECHES PORT NECHES BEAUMONT PORT ARTHUR BEAUMONT BEAUMONT ORANGE BEAUMONT BEAUMONT BEAUMONT ORANGE ORANGE SHERRILL HARRIS H. M. SIMER L. J. MATHEWS ROBERT CHURCH ED HARRIS KEN WEIS W. A. THOMAS FRANCIS LYNE W. D. MITTERLEHNER WALTER TREY3IG ED BIRNSTIEL BOB WHITEHEAD W. E. THOMAS SECOND ODARTER GROUP III (WEST - NORTH - OR EAST TEXAS) 19B9 1991 1993 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 HOECHST CELANESE ALCOA HOECHST CELANESE CABOT CORPORATION AMERIGAS OCCIDENTAL CKEM FINA TEXAS EASTMAN DALLAS ROCKDALE PAMPA PAMPA DALLAS DALLAS BIG SPRING LONGVIEW B. A. ADAMS GARY GRIESBACH M. F. FRELS DOUG LOCKWOOD BOB DORAZIO JOE WOODS JIM WOOD THOMAS BURNS YEAR HOST CROUP LOQAIIQH COORDINATOR FIRST OUARTER GROUP XX (BAYTOWN - HOUS TON) 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 PENWALT LYONDELL PETROCHEM REICHOLD MERICHEM CHEMICAL EXCHANGE STAUFFER CHEVRON CHEMICAL EXXON CHEMICAL MOBAY HOUSTON CHANNELVIEW HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON BAYTOWN BAYTOWN BAYTOWN BAYTOWN J. STRNAD RAY PATRICX LEE SUNDBERG JACK FLYNN WAYNE WRIGHT ELOY VALDES REESE TILLERY RONALD STARCKER DON BARNES SECOND OUARTER GROUP IV < TEXAS CITY - FREEPORT) 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 MARATHON PETROLEUM DOW USA GAF TEXAS CITY REFINING AMOCO MONSANTO STERLING UNION CARBIDE BASF AMOCO CHEMICAL TEXAS CITY DAN BUCHANAN FREEPORT JOHN BIGGERS TEXAS CITY BARNEY SMITH TEXAS CITY RICK KEMPF CHOCO. BAYOU JAMES BENTLEY CHOCO. BAYOU JOHN WILBECK TEXAS CITY GEORGE ARUM TEXAS CITY CHARLES PHINNEY FREEPORT BILL GIBSON TEXAS CITY DARREN DOYLE THIRD OUARTER GROUP V (HOUSTON) 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 ^009 2011 NALCO TX PETROCHEMICALS CATALYST RESOURCES MOBAY SYNTHETICS PHILLIPS MAGNA CONOCO GOODYEAR TEXAS BRINE STAUFFER GEORGIA-CULF VISTA CHEMICALS HOUSTON HOUSTON PASADENA HOUSTON PASADENA HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON PASADENA HOUSTON CARY SCHILTZ G. KILLER EDWIN GEORGE CHARLIE CRAIG RICK WIEDERSTEIN JIM WHITE G. IRVIN LIPP MELVIN LEWIS ROBERT GARCIA RUSSELL ROBINSON TOM GRUMBLES FOURTH QUARTER GROUP VII (HOUSTON) 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 KANEKA OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL ARCO - BAYPORT HIMONT PETROLITE ROHM AND HAAS HOECHST CELANESE GOODYEAR ICI AMERICAS CELANESE FMC AKZO CHEMCIALS INC DIXIE CHEMICAL ETHYL PASADENA PASADENA BAYPORT BAYPORT BAYPORT BAYPORT BAYPORT BAYPORT BAYPORT HOUSTON PASADENA BAYPORT PASADENA PASADENA MARK REYNOLDS JIM OLIVER BUDDY HOWARD K. HARRINGTON DAVE MAYARD SKERILL COKER JAKE BOURGEOIS MAURICE BARD DORIS McGRAW FRED SIGMON GREG MELOA KATHY PIERPOLINE JOE TOMBRELIA BOB MACK THIRD OUARTER GROUP VI (HOUSTON ) 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 TEXAS ALKYLS SOLTEX QUANTUM CHEMICAL LUBRIZOL FINA POLYMERS DUPONT USI - SYNGAS DOW ROHM AND HAAS OCCIDENTAL SHELL OIL - MFC. W R GRACE DEER PARK DEER PARX DEER PARK DEER PARK LAPORTE LAPORTE DEER PARK LAPORTE DEER PARK DEER PARK DEER PARK DEER PARK DON LARNED TODD KARASEK BOB BURG TED HEISIG THAD COOPER DAVE PERRIN JIM ANDREWS STAN ANDERSON DAVID MANNING T. E . GILLESPIE PAT WAITS FOURTH QUARTSB GROUP VIII (CORPUS CHRISTI) 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 :oob REYNOLDS HOECHST CELANESE HOECHST CELANESE CAIN CHEMICAL INC. B. P. CHEMICAL AMERICAN CHROME DUPONT HOECHST CELANESE DUPONT ALCOA UNION CARBIDE CORPUS STAN MILLSAP BAY CITY DAVE BRENER CORPUS PAUL LIECK CORPUS DONNIE ARRINGTON GREEN LAKE LARRY HENSLEY CORPUS HENRY REYNA CORPUS KARL LADEWIG BISHOP BILL MEYER VICTORIA JAMES BORDEN PT. COMFORT JEFF SHOCKEY PORT LAVACA J. D. MOORE At'TA c H MITT^/T X DPMC-06783 LAM 010381 1595 /efi'i/fj've precise can pr<rt/e*.+ 6*J Current Report Legislation / RISK NOTIFICATION BILL DIES IN SENATE UNDER WEIGHT OF REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTER After a week of exhaustive filibustering, Senate Republi cans succeeded in blocking a vote on a controversial occupa tional disease notification bill March 29, forcing its propo nents to withdraw the measure from consideration during this congress. Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), chief sponsor of the "High Risk Occupational Disease Notification and Pre vention Act" (S 79), reluctantly withdrew his bill, which was reported out of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee eight months ago and passed in similar form in the House by a 225-186 vote late last year (17 OSHR 843). The demise of S 79, which was backed by organized labor and a range of manufacturers, trade associations, and public health organizations, came after the fourth unsuccessful attempt in seven days to invoke cloture and end debate. Metzenbaum failed to align the three-fifths majority neces sary to end the filibuster when 52 senators voted against the cloture motion and 42 voted in favor. "Sometimes we win 'em. Sometimes we lose 'em. I lost this one," Metzenbaum said after the vote. Political Implications Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who led the filibuster against the bill, greeted the victory with enthusiasm. "I had some harsh things to say about this bill and I think they were all justified," he said after Metzenbaum withdrew S 79. "When the unions are right, they'U have my vote.... When they're wrong, they'll have an advocate against them. I would prefer that they be right" Hatch and other Senate Republicans did not relish the political implications of being forced to vote against a bill designed to protect the health of American workers. Thus, they labored energetically to stall the progress of the bill to stave off the prospect of a vote, according to congressional aides. A coalition of businesses opposed to the bill led by the National Association of Manufacturers succeeded in trans mitting its message that S 79 would be expensive for em ployers and the federal government, and would spark an onslaught of tort and compensation claims from employees against their current or former employers. "The small business community generated an incredible amount of mail and phone calls. It was a strong pressure effort." an aide on the proponents' side said after the bill was withdrawn. Southern Democrats, he added, failed to swing their weight behind S 79. "They were not persuaded that this bill would be worth more than they saw it costing," he said. Metzenbaum vowed that "Congress has not seen the last of the risk notification bill" and said the successful drive to thwart the movement of the bill would not end his resolve to see legislation enacted. An aide said it was too early to talk about what might be introduced in the 101st Congress, or what Democrats would do differently next time. Provisions Of S 79 The risk notification bill, considered the most significant occupational safety and health legislation in the last decade, would have established a new federal program within the Department of Health and Human Services represented by an expert panel called the Risk Assessment Board. Scientists and public health authorities on the panel would have been responsible for reviewing the best available scientific and medical information to identify populations of current and former workers at risk of disease as a result of exposure to hazardous substances and processes in the workplace. The federal government, using the board's determina tions, would have notified individual workers of their risks of disease, and directed them to medical monitoring and health counseling services. The bill also contained provi sions--referred to by opponents as "employee benefits"--to transfer current employees identified as "at risk of disease" from hazardous work duty without loss of earnings or benefits. The Reagan administration strongly opposed the legisla tion and issued a series of letters to Senate members outlin ing specific concerns and threatening a veto recommenda tion to the president Despite confidence going into the floor debate that he had the backing to cut off a Republican filibuster and pass the bill, Metzenbaum found himself on the defensive with Hatch and other Republicans during the filibuster and frequently championed his bill alone, unaccompanied by visible and vocal support from his Democratic colleagues. As the experience with the House version of the bill (HR 162) demonstrated, understanding fully the complexities of the Metzenbaum legislation required a working knowledge of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, OSHA's hazard communication standard, risk assessment, medical monitoring, the outcome of past worker notification projects, tort law, and other related topics, aides said. "It's a complicated bill. Clearly, people didn't have a comfort level with it," an aide to Metzenbaum said. Amendments Were Requested Hatch hammered away at provisions in the bill he said duplicated existing federal programs, or were unclear or unspecified. Frequently, the best answer Metzenbaum could offer Hatch about what the Risk Assessment Board would identify as an "occupational health hazard" was: "I don't know. That's up to the board to determine." Although the answer was accurate, his aides said, the gray areas fed uncertainty among Senate members. Metzenbaum accused Hatch of stalling any and all con structive consideration of the bill through parliamentary procedures, amendments unrelated to the bill's intent, and questions and comments "designed to confuse the debate." Hatch, in turn, accused Metzenbaum and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass), chairman of the Senate Labor and Hu man Resources Committee, of using underhanded tactics to adopt a handful of desired amendments by incorporating them into a modified committee substitute for the bill March 23. 3-30-88 Occupational Safety & Health Reporter 0095-3237/88/SO+.50 DPMC-06784 LAM 010382 1596 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER Although Hatch and others, particularly Sen. Dan Quayle i (R-Ind), charged that S 79 was based on poor science, would prove too expensive for the federal government and employ ers. duplicated existing federal programs for employee health protection, and would encourage a flood of tort and compensation claims, opponents ignored Metxenbaum's pleas to introduce amendments to make the bill acceptable. Instead, none of their key concerns about S 79 were addressed in a straightforward amendment by Republican Senators. They complained that amendments incorporated by Kennedy and Metzenbaum in the new committee substi tute, although designed to appeal to small businesses con cerned about the costs of the legislation, did not go far enough to allay objections. Votes to invoke cloture and discontinue debate failed March 23 by a vote of 33 in favor, and 59 opposed; again March 24 by 2 to 93 after Metzenbaum himself voted to continue debate and urged his colleagues to follow suit; and again March 28 when 41 Senators voted in favor, and 44 opposed the motion. Litigation APPEALS COURT RULES OSHA CAN INSPECT ILLNESS, INJURY RECORDS WITHOUT WARRANT A regulation allowing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to examine an employer's illness and injury records without first obtaining a warrant does not violate the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled March 23 (Secretary of Labor v. A.B. Chance Co., CA 4, No. 87-3829, 3/23/88). The ruling reversed a decision by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission holding that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution required OSHA to ob tain a warrant before examining illness and injury records pursuant to 29 CFR 1904.7(a). The court held that because the records contained infor mation required by OSHA regulations, which would later be posted publicly at the employer's place of business, inspec tion of the documents did not amount to the kind of intrusion on privacy prohibited by the Fourth Amendment The full text of the ruling will be published in a future Decisions issue. Federal Courts In Disagreement The Fourth Circuit's ruling on examination of illness and injury records in Chance differs from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's holding in Secretary of Labor v. Emerson Electric Co., Electronic & Space Div., (13 OSHC 1521, No. 87-8363, 12/31/87). In that case, the Eleventh Circuit held that an employer could insist that OSHA obtain a subpoena before turning over illness and injury records (17 OSHR 1291). While the Fourth Circuit court mentioned the Emerson case, it declined to follow the holding, saying that the issue of privacy had not been addressed adequately. Steven Mandel, the Labor Department attorney who ar-. gued the Chance case, told BNA March 29 that he was "very gratified" by the decision, and noted that Emerson was the only appellate-level case so far to require a subpoe na for illness and injury records inspections. Mandel said that another, similar case was still pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and, if that court agreed with the ruling in Chance, the Labor Department might consider appealing the Emerson decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Otherwise, Mandel said. OSHA practices would have to be altered in states where the Emerson ruling governed the conduct of inspections. St. Louis attorney Frank Pellegrini, who represented both Emerson Electric and A.B. Chance, told BNA that the differing decisions were "a fact of life," and that while he had no plans to appeal the Chance case, he felt that the Fourth Circuit had "made a mistake" by allowing the in spection without a warrant No Substitute For Warrant The dispute arose when a plant owned by A.B. Chance was inspected following a worker safety complaint The OSHA inspector asked to examine plant illness and injury records, and asked to see machinery that was mentioned in the complaint. Chance allowed the inspector to look at the machinery, but refused to produce the records without a search warrant The inspector cited Chance for a violation of 29 CFR 1904.7(a), for failure to produce the records upon request The secretary of labor later sought to enforce the citation before an administrative law judge. Chance raised the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and sei zures as a defense. The judge ruled that the inspection of the records was a "reasonable" search because they were not general business records, but instead were required by OSHA regulations. The Occupational Safety and Health Re view Commission reversed the judge's decision, holding that the inspection scheme provided in section 1904.7(a) was not a "constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant" The secretary then appealed the case to the Fourth Circuit Expectation of Privacy The appellate court noted that while there was a legiti mate expectation of privacy on business premises that could require issuance of a warrant before a search was conduct ed, there was a limit to that privacy where an inspection was required by a legitimate government regulation. In order to determine whether such a "regulatory search" would be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the court said, it would have to balance the need to search against the invasion of privacy that the search entailed. The need to search in this case, the court said, was derived from the intent of Congress to ensure healthful and safe working conditions. Keeping records of workplace accidents, illnesses, and injuries was "a reasonable and necessary requirement" to fulfill that intent, the court said. The court said that the invasion in this case was i. imal because the requirement that a summary of the records be publicly posted meant that there could be very little expec tation of privacy. The court also noted that the inspector requested only two documents, which was less intrusive than the inspection of the machinery that Chance had allowed. The court ruled that the need for the search, therefore, outweighed the intrusion involved, clearly indicating that the search was reasonable. Construction COMMITTEE SIDESTEPS CONFLICT OVER REPORT, APPROVES DISCUSSION PAPER FOR LABOR SECRETARY A government advisory panel March 30 sidestepped fur ther conflict over a controversial report by one of its working groups which recommended that changes be made in the law to broaden the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's ability to monitor safety at construction sites and direct strong enforcement action against offenders. 3-30-88 Copyright O 1988 by The Bureau of National Affairs. Inc. 0096-3237/98/90+.50 DPMC-06785 LAM 010383 Current Report Criminal Prosecution 7Hazardous Materials CHARGES OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE LODGEO AGAINST COMPANY IN TRENCH CAVE-IN DEATHS DENVER--{By a BNA Staff Correspondent)--A Colorado construction company was charged May 25 with four counts of criminally negligent homicide in the deaths of four work ers who were killed in July 1985 when the trench in which they were working caved in (Colorado v. Kelran Construc tors Inc., Colo DistCL No. 88-CR-1349). The charges against Kelran Constructors Inc. of Sedalia, Colo., carry fines of $1,000 to $100,000 per count, according to El Paso County District Attorney Barney Iuppa, who filed the charges in the Colorado District Court for the Fourth Judicial District. The accident occurred near Colorado Springs in El Paso County. Kelran's attorney told BNA that "the company intends to defend [itself against] the charges vigorously." Attorney Rodney L. Smith said company officials were surprised that criminal charges were brought "in that it's been almost three years after the accident." "I think we were surprised to the extent that the district attorney waited this long to file charges," Smith remarked, adding that there was "absolutely" no evidence "of criminal activity" by the company. Delay In Obtaining Report Iuppa said it "took a while" for his office to obtain a copy of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's report on the accident, which accounted for the time-lag between the accident and the filing of criminal charges. "Once I read through it, in my opinion I felt criminal conduct was present and that criminal charges would be appropriate," Iuppa said. The district attorney told BNA he had "some concerns" about the adequacy of OSHA's enforcement efforts, "but that hasn't been my overriding motive [in filing criminal charges]. I'm simply putting people on notice" that they may face criminal sanctions for workplace conduct "that is hazardous or potentially hazardous." Iuppa said he considered bringing charge against com pany officers personally, but did not do so because, if he did, he would not be able to call the officials as witnesses in his case against the company. OSHA, which investigated the cave in, cited the company in July 1985 for five alleged willful violations. Kelran was cited for allegedly failing to properly train workers, for allegedly failing to inspect a trench, for allegedly storing excavated material next to a trench, for allegedly failing to shore a trench and for allegedly failing to take additional precautions for shoring a trench, according to Ray Nellor, safety specialist supervisor in OSHA's Denver area office. Two of the charges were reduced to serious violations as a result of settlement negotiations between the company and OSHA, Nellor told BNA. The citations for allegedly storing excavated materials next to a trench and for allegedly failing to train workers were reduced to serious violations and the company paid $800 in fines for both charges, Nellor said. The company paid $9,500 for each of the remaining three alleged willful violations. RECENT CHEMICAL PLANT ACCIDENTS SUPPORT EFFORTS TOWARD NEW SAFETY RULES In the wake of accidents such as the destruction of a Nevada rocket fuel plant May 4 and the explosion of a Shell Oil Co. refinery in Louisiana May 5, attention is again focusing on the adequacy of federal safety requirements at plants where potentially catastrophic chemical accidents can occur. Unions, a handful of chemical companies, and the Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration are taking different paths to the same end: to prevent future catastrophic acci dents at worksites that manufacture, use, or store hazardous chemicals, according to representatives of those interests. The United Steelworkers of America expects to petition OSHA in June for an emergency temporary standard for safety requirements at high-hazard plants where chemical accidents could occur; OSHA plans to publish a proposed rule on the storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials by next year; and an industry task force concerned about accident prevention hopes to complete informal voluntary guidelines for hazard management this summer while work ing with OSHA to hasten a proposed rule, sources told BNA. The Steelworkers' interest in an OSHA rule was rekindled after the Pacific Engineering and Production Co. in Hender son, Nev., was leveled May 4 in a devastating series of blasts that killed two workers and injured 250 people, including hundreds of community residents. The union, which repre sents about 75 Pacific employees, believes OSHA safety regulations for plants making, using, or storing potentially hazardous chemicals are inadequate (17 OSHR 1819). Bhopal As Catalyst After the deadly release of methyl isocyanate at a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, in 1984, and a release in 1985 of aldicarb oxime at a Union Carbide plant in Institute, W.Va., chemical companies began voicing the concern that some worksites could be disasters waiting to happen, Rich ard Boggs, vice president of Organization Resources Coun selors Inc., told BNA. ORC, which represents many major U.S. employers in safety and health matters, is managing a task group of chemical companies to develop guidelines for hazard management at plants where chemical accidents could occur, Boggs said. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, there are at least 11,000 chemical plants in the United States and many thousands of workplaces that use and store hazardous chemicals. In the wake of the Bhopal disaster, OSHA's special empha sis enforcement program for chemical plants underscored a need for specific federal safety regulations for these plants to prevent catastrophic accidents, the agency concluded (17 OSHR 1035). In April, the Department of Labor's semiannual regula tory agenda reaffirmed OSHA's plans to publish a proposed rule on hazardous materials (29 CFR Part 1910, Subpart H) that would revise Subpart H while also adding new require ments for "process hazards management" A final rule is not slated until 1990 (17 OSHR 1749). 6-1-88 Occupational Safety & Health Reporter 0O95-3237/88/SO+ .50 DPMC-06736 lam 010384 4 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER OSHA Subpart H Revision Hazards management "is intended to better protect em ployees from unexpected releases of significant quantities of dangerous substances," OSHA stated. Subpart H covers such substances as compressed gases, acetylene, hydrogen, oxy gen, liquified petroleum gases, and flammable and combus tible liquids. OSHA plans to revise the requirements to also cover the storage and handling of toxic materials to prevent potentially dangerous chemical releases. As explained in more detail in the president's annual regulatory program in June 1987, "this particular proposed action is to issue new performance-oriented standards to address the overall management of chemical production and handling systems, including the safe design, installation, and maintenance of toxic material storage. Such systems would include the tanks, vessels, containers, piping, valves, and vents used for the storage, processing, and transfer of toxic materials" (17 OSHR 65). The new Subpart H would likely be organized to focus on employee training; medical surveillance; engineering con trols, work practices and personal protective equipment; monitoring; materials handling work practices; and emer gency response, according to OSHA. TTie performance lan guage will outline how to store, handle, and use hazardous materials, rather than focusing on specific hazardous mate rials that are regulated by the agency. ORC Task Force Guidelines ORC's Boggs told BNA that after the Bhopal tragedy, chemical companies recognized the mounting pressure on Congress, OSHA, and EPA to regulate chemical safety. Under the aegis of ORC, an industry group voluntarily came together two or three times with OSHA compliance repre sentatives beginning in 1985 to discuss the problems. A handful of companies volunteered to give OSHA officials tours of several plant sites to assist in the agency's efforts to address the issue of accident prevention, Boggs and OSHA officials said. The emphasis from the companies' point of view quickly became the use of hazardous chemicals, not simply the manufacture of chemicals, Boggs added. As a result, ORC's "process hazards management task force" -- meeting about once a week for the last year -- has drafted industry guidelines "for use by companies to evalu ate how they manage chemicals," Boggs said. The task force plans to distribute a final draft to interested federal, union, worker advocacy, and industry representatives for informal comment this summer, he told BNA. The group's objectives, as outlined in a summary state ment of process hazard management, are to: Minimize mechanical, chemical, or human failure that can damage "intended lines of defense"; Ensure that "multiple lines of defense," in the form of equipment, procedures, training, testing, and preventative maintenance, are in place; Ensure that such defenses are tested, inspected, trained, and periodically audited. "This also requires that each unex pected event which could lead to a breach of a line of defense be studied, analyzed and added to the required understanding." ORC says it hopes the efforts it has managed and the resulting guidelines will be used by OSHA in drafting its Subpart H revision. "The faster they could move, the better we would like it," Boggs said. "We're certainly going to push [OSHA Administrator John A.] Pendergrass and [OSHA Safe ty Standards Director] Barry [White] to move on it" Review Commission WHITE HOUSE WITHDRAWS WALL'S RENOMINATION; EHLKE REPORTEDLY TO REQUEST WITHDRAWAL SOON President Reagan May 24 formally withdrew John R. Wall's name for renomination to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, while Washington attorney Douglas B.M. Ehlke reportedly will soon ask the White House to also withdraw his name from consideration. The vacancies that Wall and Ehlke were nominated to fill have existed for more than a year, making it impossible for the commission to rule on cases that come before it for review. Wall's withdrawal and Ehlke's reported decision to follow suit mean that the commission will remain crippled through the remainder of the Reagan administration, ob serves predict. In addition, Commission Chairman E. Ross Buckley's sixyear term expires in April 1989, creating the possibility that the commission could be devoid of leadership in less than a year. A Senate aide told BNA May 26 that the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee received a letter from the White House May 24 informing it of the withdrawal of Wall's name. With Congress recessing in August, and the presidential elections coming up in November, sources say there is little chance the White House will nominate other candidates for the commission during the remainder of the Reagan admin istration. A Senate committee aide told BNA May 26 "there is a good possibility" that the commission may be without a quorum until next year. BNA ISSUES COMPREHENSIVE HAZARD COMMUNICATION COMPLIANCE GUIDE Hazard Communication Compliance Manual The Complete Guide for Worker Right-to-Know, a comprehensive guide to meeting the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's hazard communication standard, is available from The Bureau of National Affairs. The 234-page reference is designed to help guide employers--step-by-step and in simple, clear lan guage-through the complex procedure of complying with the OSHA rule. The manual suggests methods for implementing the OSHA requirements, provides instructions for establishing a hazard communication program, and contains ready-to-photocopy forms for all aspects of the program. In addition, it provides detailed information on how to conduct a chemical inventory and use material safety data sheets (MSDSs). It also lists what chemi cals and employers are regulated, outlines record keeping requirements, and explains how to develop training and written program plans. The manual also includes the full text of the expanded OSHA standard, enforcement and penalty guidelines, a directory of federal and state agencies, and possible hazards asso ciated with specific jobs. Copies of the report (BSP 88) are available for 3250 each with multiple-copy discounts, by phone from the BNA Response Center, toll-free (800) 372-1033, or by mail from BNA's Customer Service Center, 9435 Key West Ave., Rockville, MD 20850. For further informa tion, contact Loretta Kotzin at (202) 728-3371 or 4526186. 6-1-88 Copyright C 1988 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. 009S-3237/88/SO+.50 DPMC-06787 LAM 010385 1382 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER Partial waiver of fees by the information specialist is' authorized by the commission in Section 2201.9. That section comes into play when the conditions for a full waiver of fees are met but the request for records would impose an "excep tional burden" or require an "exceptional expenditure" of commission resources. AIDS INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS URGED TO CONDUCT WORKPLACE AIDS EDUCATION, DEVELOP POLICY SAN FRANCISCO--(By a BNA Special CorrespondentEmployers and industrial hygienists would be well advised to conduct workplace education on acquired immune defi ciency syndrome and implement sound AIDS personnel poli cies in their companies, a May 17 session of the American Industrial Hygiene Conference was told. Such steps are needed if employers are to prevent em ployees from refusing to interact with co-workers infected with the AIDS virus or from withholding vital services out of fear of contracting AIDS through casual contact, according to speakers. Elaine Askari, director of the AIDS Project of the Labor and Occupational Health Program at the University of California. Berkeley, cited a recent Georgia Institute of Technology survey on workplace fears about AIDS, which found that "Sixty-six percent of the respondents said they were concerned about using the same bathroom as a person with AIDS, and 42 percent said they would not work with someone with AIDS." Need For Repeated Training Seen Askari said she has conducted AIDS education programs for a broad range of employees, from oil refinery workers to health-care and clerical workers. She has learned, she said, quoting San Francisco AIDS researcher Constance Wofsy, M.D., an associate clinical professor at the University of California at San Francisco, that "It takes five times for a person to really absorb information about AIDS. The first time they're not listening. The second time they don't be lieve it. The third time they're still skeptical. The fourth time they begin to listen. The fifth time they listen and think. Maybe this is something I should be concerned about.'" She advised hygienists to work not only with management but also with labor unions in developing effective AIDS education programs. "You need their support and their help in reinforcing what you teach," she remarked. "If we don't educate firefighters about AIDS and how it's transmitted and not transmitted." Kim Mueller, health and safety officer of the California Firefighters Union, told the hygienists, "they will discreetly withhold their services, which is not only unethical, it is illegal." In addition to AIDS education and safety training, every fire department should develop its own explicit AIDS personnel policy to avoid such situations, she said. Compliance With The Law J.M. Crutcher, an epidemiologist with the city of Balti more, said that Baltimore's comprehensive AIDS personnel policy was developed by a "task force made up of represen tatives from the health, legal, police, fire, and labor depart ments, as well as from city hall, the mayor's office, the schools, and the occupational health and safety program." Crutcher and other speakers emphasized that AIDS poli cies must be based strictly on the medical facts of the disease and in compliance with federal, state and local statutes. One such stipulation of Baltimore's policy is that an employee or applicant's suitability to work "should be based on the individual's capability to perform the job duties, not on HIV status [whether the individual tests positive for the AIDS or human immunodeficiency virus]." He pointed out that if some of Baltimore's 40,000 city employees refuse to work because of an "unfounded" fear of contracting the AIDS virus, they may be subject to disciplinary action. Because AIDS is a discomforting topic for most people, information alone is not enough in AIDS education, Alan Emery, a representative of the San Francisco AIDS Founda tion, stated. "People must have a way to grapple with the information culturally, emotionally. We must be sensitive to their need to disbelieve and be uncomfortable. We have to be patient and listen to their concerns." Emery gave specific advice, as well, such as getting support for AIDS education "from people at the top"; ensur ing that all those involved in the training have a "common foundation" of knowledge about AIDS; and providing educa tion to all employees, not just managers and supervisors, although managers, he stressed, are very important "When a problem arises, it's the supervisor who must deal with it" he stated. BLS OFFICIAL PREDICTS GUIDELINE REVISIONS WILL ADDRESS RESTRICTED WORK, PRESCRIPTIONS GREENSBORO, N.C.--(By a BNA Staff Correspondent)-- Restricted work days and the single-dose concept for pre scription drugs head the list of issues that likely will be addressed in the upcoming revisions of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' guidelines on injury and illness recordkeeping, a BLS official told a safety conference May 18. Bob Whitmore, acting chief of BLS' Branch of Record keeping Requirements, speaking to the 58th annual North Carolina Statewide Safety Conference, outlined a variety of issues that employers have raised in connection with record keeping, ranging from back injuries to use of antiseptics. Whitmore told BNA on May 23 that "those topics are the ones that seemed to be creating the most concern and hopefully they will be addressed in the revision process." The current guidelines, issued in 1986, are approved by the Office of Management and Budget through the end of 1988 (15 OSHR 1246, 1260). Employer Involvement Sought At the conference, sponsored by the North Carolina Indus trial Commission, Whitmore said employers should get in volved in the revision process. He suggested that employers make suggestions for changing the guidelines in a number of areas, including the question of when an injury restricts work activity and therefore must be recorded on an official injury log. Whitmore said the current concept "needs a lot of work because it is far too broad and all-encompassing for today's world of work." Under the present system, restricted work activity means that a worker is unable "to do all or any part of [his] normal job for the full shift," Whitmore said. He said that was more practical in the past when workers had very specific jobs. Today, he said, many workers do jobs previously done by three or four workers, and an injury might prevent them from doing one task, but not another. "The generic worker and restricted work activity as we define it now just do not mix--it is not fair," Whitmore said. 5-25-88 Copyright 1988 by The Bureau of National Affairs. Inc. 0095-3237/88/SQ+ 50 DPMC-06788 LAM 010386 CURRENT REPORT 1883 The "single-dose concept" under which a second adminis tration of a prescription medicine makes a work-related illness recordable is another issue that needs examination, Whitmore said. Before the last BLS guideline revision, any use of a prescription drug had to be recorded. The change to the single-dose concept was an improvement, but still "is not real practical.' he said. Whitmore said the guidelines need to be changed because "we need to be able to factor in this tender loving care and preventive treatment." Rule On Antiseptics To Change Whitmore said he could guarantee that the guidelines governing application of antiseptics would be changed. He said the rules that make recordable an injury requiring the second use of an antiseptic are "a bunch of bunk." The rule has been in the system since 1972, but was not addressed in the last revision, Whitmore said. "We just blew it --we missed it--but you still must put it on the books now," he added. He said he personally "would like to see us just wipe out mention of antiseptics altogether and judge it by whether it is a prescription drug." Back injuries are another important issue and "a .huge problem," Whitmore said. He said the present system re quires that an employer record as a back injury all back cases that meet at least one of the four BLS criteria for recording. Establishing work relationships to determine whether in juries and illnesses are work-related is another topic of concern. Whitmore said. He said the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's rules for reporting work-relat ed injuries and illnesses are much broader than the previous American National Standards Institute system. "Now there is a presumption on-premises of work relation, and that presumption is very difficult to overcome, he said." Whitmore said hearing loss is another important issue, but he said BLS still is waiting for guidance from OSHA on hearing loss criteria. He said employers with questions about OSHA's position on recording hearing loss should call OSHA officials in Washington, O.C. Other areas of concern are recording temporary workers' work-related illnesses, clarifying which bums must be re corded. and making it clear which treatments on the medi cal treatment list must be recorded, Whitmore said. Under-reporting, Incentives Linked Whitmore said he thinks the under-reporting of workrelated injuries and illnesses has more to do with industry incentive programs, which are tied to safety performance, than with OSHA inspections. He said at one time he thought that "people who under-report injuries are afraid of a wallto-wall OSHA inspection, but now I do not think that is it at all." He stressed that he does not oppose industry awards and incentive programs, but added, "There is a tremendous amount of pressure being placed on people out there in the real world." Whitmore noted that employers have estab lished inter-company competition, intra-company competi tion. awards programs, incentive programs, and bonus plans. "People get all kinds of things, all tied back into safety numbers," he said. Whitmore said "people should be awarded for good safe ty," but he urged employers to remove from their incentive programs cases which they feel they could hot have been prevented. Employers must report such cases, but if they feel they could not have prevented or controlled the prob lem, they should note that on the log "and yank those cases out of your incentive program," Whitmore advised. Brooks Criticizes Policy North Carolina Labor Commissioner John C. Brooks, also speaking at the conference, took issue with OSHA's record keeping inspections policy, describing it as "an expensive lesson of failed public policy." He said North Carolina's "action of not adopting this policy when it was promulgated serves all of us much better." Brooks said North Carolina's Occupational Safety and Health Division "never agreed with relying solely on record checks" in determining whether a company was safe or unsafe, and consequently deciding whether or not the com pany should be inspected. "There is no way that a simple records check is going to succeed in protecting the health and safety of our workers," he said. Brooks expressed concern about a BLS decision to aban don its Supplementary Data System in North Carolina and two other states, effective June 30 (17 OSHR 1857). "We are very concerned about these changes in the recordkeeping system, and we are monitoring [them] very closely," he told the conference. He said the changes "could have a very significant impact upon our current recordkeeping system." Falls and electrocutions are the leading causes of jobrelated deaths in North Carolina and two areas of great concern to the state safety division now, Brooks said. It is "critical" that new workers be thoroughly briefed on safe work practices on jobs where these hazards are present, and important that safety practices be reviewed with current workers as well, he said. Brooks said the division also is concerned about compli ance with hazardous materials laws. The top violation cited by division inspectors in 1986-87 was failure of employers to develop and implement written hazard communication pro grams for their workplaces, he said. Brooks said North Carolina's occupational injury and illness rate for 1986 fell for the first time in three years, going from 7.4 injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time work ers to 7.2 per 100 workers. Brooks said 1986 was the 15th consecutive year in which North Carolina's rate was below that of the national average. He warned against complacen cy, however, pointing out that 79 workers died in accidents in North Carolina in 1987, 14 more than in 1986. New York BILL WOULD PAY FOR PERIODIC EXAMS TO MONITOR WORKERS IN HIGH-RISK JOBS ALBANY, N.Y.--(By a BNA Staff Correspondent)--New York state would pay for periodic medical exams to monitor the health of workers in high-risk occupations, under legisla tion proposed May 16 by state Attorney General Robert Abrams. The bill, which has not been formally introduced yet, would cover an estimated 50,000 workers in 31 hazardous occupations, according to Abrams. The program, according to a draft of the bill, would be supported by a tax on worker's compensation insurance carriers and those who self-insure for worker's compensation. "The goal of this legislation is to reduce the alarmingly high number of workers who die or become ill, by discover ing the diseases in their earliest stages when treatment is most effective," Abrams said. "In addition, the research findings of the program would be used to improve the overall safety of workers in high-risk occupations." 5-25-68 Occupational Safety & Health Reporter 0095-3337/88/W+.50 DPMC-Q6789 LAM 010387 1824 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER OSHA argued that 29 CFR 1911.18(d), which provides that ' board from becoming committee members. Committee a rule promulgating, modifying, or revoking a standard shall members are paid by GE for one day's work a week to be considered issued when filed with the Federal Register, conduct health and safety matters. mandates the conclusion that the date of issuance is synony Under the IUE's contract with General Electric, the safe mous with the date of promulgation. ty and health committee can investigate a work site imme The D.C. Circuit rejected that argument, finding that diately and may call for a meeting with management within Section 1911.18(d) was adopted in response to Industrial 24 hours. Although there is no language empowering the Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. Bingham, 570 F. 2d 965, 6 OSHC union committee to shut down an unsafe operation, the 1107 (1977), where the court invited OSHA to issue regula company will shut it down on the committee's word in most tions defining when a standard is issued for purposes of cases, according to Rafferty. marking the inception of the filing period under Section 6(f). Rafferty said it was important to take safety and health The resulting regulation clarified when a standard is "is matters out of the grievance process because the process is sued." not when it is "promulgated," the D.C. Circuit found. too slow to deal with critical issues. The court instead adopted the interpretation of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United Technol ogies Corp. v. OSHA, 13 OSHC 1582 (1987), which held that ^ an OSHA standard is issued when it is filed in the Office of fT\ General Policy the Federal Register, and promulgated when published in(_*J/ the Federal Register. ft OSHA INSPECTION, LAWSUITS FOLLOW BLAST AT SHELL REFINERY; SIX WORKER DEATHS REPORTED Right-To-Know NORCO, La.--(By a BNA Special Correspondent)--An explosion at a Shell Oil Co. refinery has triggered an inspec WORKERS, UNIONS PLAYING MORE ACTIVE ROLE IN WORKPLACE SAFETY, HEALTH, TUMINARO SAYS ALBANY, N.Y.--(By a BNA Staff Correspondent)--The focus of the health and safety movement is shifting from the so-called right to know to the "right to act," with workers and unions playing a more active role in safety and health matters in the workplace, Dominick Tuminaro, counsel to the New York State Assembly Labor Committee, told a conference May 4. Tuminaro said workers should use their "right to act" by organizing health and safety committees within their unions and by joining other unions in forming coalitions and COSH (committee on safety and health) groups. He said labormanagement committees on safety and health have been less effective than union committees in many cases. "We have learned over the years since [the Occupational Safety and Health Act] was enacted that we cannot have an effective health and safety law without involvement and direct participation of workers," Tuminaro said. "With 5 million workplaces, there's no way we can rely on [Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration] inspertions alone." Tuminaro spoke at the last in a series of health and safety tion by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and at least six multi-million-dollar lawsuits. jaUiCfVXs The blast, which authorities say occurred at the plant's 16- story catalytic cracking unit, where gasoline is refined from petroleum, is being blamed for the deaths of at least six refinery workers and injuries to more than 50 nearby residents. The explosion occurred early on the morning of May 5, causing a tremor felt over a 30-mile radius. Two OSHA inspectors have been on the scene since May 8, but the agency will not have a final report on what may have caused the explosion until at least early July, accord ing to Carl Grose, a district supervisor with OSHA's area office in Baton Rouge. "There was still one person missing as of May 9 and I think that is Shell's top priority for right now, trying to find that person," Grose said. He said it may be "several days" before OSHA can "begin [its] inspection full-scale." Grose said that OSHA currently is conducting personal interviews with workers and workers' families and review ing layout drawings and the maintenance records of the refinery--one of the largest of its kind in Louisiana. workshops sponsored by the New York State AFL-CIO and Cornell University's New York State School of Industrial Suits Against Company and Labor Relations. Between May 5 and May 9, at least six suits were filed in Phone Call To Management Louisiana Civil District Court for the 29th Judicial District, in Hahnville, seeking between $16 million and $30 billion in Larry Rafferty, chairman of the safety and health com damages on the part of residents and workers who suffered mittee at Local 301 of the Electronic and Electrical Work losses from the explosion. ers, IUE, told the conference that his committee has such a Attorney Wendell Gauthier said May 7 that he was filing high degree of credibility with management that he can suits against Shell on behalf of "both the workers and the virtually shut down a hazardous operation by simply making residents." In particular, Gauthier said he was representing a phone call to management "one of the deceased [workers], John Moissant," and Mois- Rafferty, whose local represents 3,700 workers at General sant's widow. Electric Co. in Schenectady, said the eight-member commit The suit alleges negligence on the part of the company, tee is appointed by union management and approved by Gauthier said, "and it may be that there was negligence on rank-and-file members. The appointments are permanent, the part of the manufacturers of certain machinery in the which Rafferty said has helped maintain continuity and refinery." He said he is reviewing evidence on possible improved the expertise of committee members. causes of the explosion, including computer records. "GE has grown to respect us probably because of our In addition to six reported worker fatalities, 19 workers continuity and because our safety and health committee sustained injuries, according to authorities. These employ only handles safety and health," Rafferty said. ees were taken to nearby hospitals in LaPlace and Marrero, Rafferty said politics is kept out of the committee by and one worker was listed in critical condition with third- prohibiting stewards and members of the union's executive degree bums over 80 percent of his body. 5-11-88 Copyright O 1988 by The Bureau of National Affairs. Inc. 0095-3237/86/$0+.50 DPMC-06790 LAM 010388 CURRENT REPORT 1825 Order To Secure Evidence i Gauthier added that he has filed for a temporary restrain ing order against Shell for his clients, the Moissants, warn ing the company not to move or alter in any way "the physical evidence. ... We've filed for an inspection order which will give us the right to go in and see first-hand what happened." According to Gauthier, the greatest controversy in the lawsuits--and the highest claims--will center around the employees who died as a result of the explosion. As of May 9 those listed as dead included Lloyd Gregoire, an oil products operator and 20-year veteran of Shell; Ernie Carillo, an eight-year veteran of Shell; Jimmy Poche, an 11-year veter an of Shell; and Joey Poirrier, an eight-year veteran of Shell who worked in the catalytic cracking unit All of the bodies were found in or near the unit Shell spokesman Fred Foster said the refinery will contin ue to operate and that the plant's 1,690 employees would not be put out of work while repairs and renovations are under way. We fully intend to repair and rebuild the cat cracker and all associated equipment in the complex," Foster said. Drug Testing OSHA SUPERVISORY, POLITICAL OFFICIALS TARGETED BY DOL RANOOM TESTING PROGRAM All political appointees, supervisors, and compliance in spectors in the Occupational Safety and Health Administra tion are subject to random testing for the use of illegal drugs under the Department of Labor's drug testing program approved by the Department of Health and Human Services May 3. According to Bob Zachariasewicz, deputy director of the Labor Department's Office of Information and Public Af fairs, the department plans "in the near future" to notify employees that the drug testing program will begin within 60 days. Those employees that fall into the job categories subject to the random testing then will be notified within 30 days of when the actual testing^ will begin. Zachariasewicz told BNA that of the 18,000 workers em ployed by the Department of Labor, 3,000 are subject to random drug testing under the "Drug Free Workplace" program. Of those 3.000 employees, IS percent will be randomly selected each year to undergo a urinalysis, he said. DOL's program requires that any employee chosen for a drug test be notified at least two hours before the test, he added. The federal Drug Free Workplace Program was ordered by President Reagan Sept IS, 1986, in Executive Order 12564. In July 1987, Congress passed legislation affecting the implementation of the order, and required that all federal programs meet HHS guidelines for testing. The goal of the order is to "maintain a safe and drug-free workplace for all federal workers," Zachariasewicz said. Affected Employees Those OSHA employees who could be tested include OSHA Administrator John Pendergrass, his special assistants, and the heads of OSHA's directorates, such as the director of technical support, Zachariasewicz said. Also subject to testing would be safety and health supervi sory managers, including area directors and regional admin istrators who "give guidance and direction to inspectors and compliance officers conducting compliance inspections." All compliance safety and health officers, occupational safety and health specialists, and safety engineers involved in inspections, would also fall into the testing category, Za chariasewicz said. Also included on the list of employees that could be tested are industrial hygienists in supervisory positions, safety and health engineers in supervisory positions, and non-supervisory safety and health officials who have access to "top secret documents," Zachariasewicz said. He gave as an example safety and health officials working on an inspection of a Department of Defense contractor worksite. DOL's drug testing program had to comply with HHS technical guidelines, before it was approved, the informa tion officer said. For example, the guidelines call for the involvement of "four testers" for each urine analyses. He explained that one contractor will collect the urine sample, one will do the analysis, one will check the profi ciency of the analysis, and a fourth will be a medical review officer to review the results with the employee. Enforcement COMPLAINTS ABOUT CARPEL TUNNEL DISORDER PROMPTS OSHA INSPECTION AT MEATPACKING PLANT ST. PAUL--(By a BNA Staff Correspondent)--Responding to two complaints, the North Dakota regional office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration May 3 be gan an investigation into the alleged incidence of carpal tunnel syndrome at the John Morrell & Co. meatpacking plant in Sioux Falls, S.D. The Investigation will examine 23 departments at the plant, as well as employee medical records. If OSHA deter mines there are hazards at the plant, or that Morrell has violated its standards, Bruce Beelman, OSHA's area direc tor, said it could issue citations to the company and require it to correct any problems. Beelman said he had no idea how long the investigation would take. His office had wanted to start the investigation sooner, he said, but Morrell had initially denied OSHA entry because it was preparing for an appeals hearing on a previous OSHA citation for alleged recordkeeping violations (16 OSHR 1316). He said OSHA served the company with a search warrant April 29. Union Charges `Epidemic1 While Beelman said he could not identify who filed the complaints on carpal tunnel syndrome with his office, other than saying it was either an employee or an employee representative, Jim Lyons, president of Local 304A of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, said the UFCW has been trying to get Morrell to address the issue for several years. Now, he said, the incidence of carpal tunnel syndrome at the plant is high enough to be considered an "epidemic." "Since 1984 we've concentrated on the problem and tried to get the company to address it," he said, "but we've run into a brick wall every time we've tried to get them to address it." According to Lyons, the local, which represents three units at the plant, negotiated a contract in 1985 that called for an outside consultant to be brought into the plant to study carpal tunnel. The consultant completed his study, he said, but Morrell never implemented .any of the study's recommendations. Those recommendations included early diagnostic programs, as well as redesigning jobs, he said. He said the union itself had requested ample introductory and training periods for new workers, shan> knives, meat that comes to workers in proper condition to cut, proper 5-11 -86 Occupational Safety & Health Reporter 0095-3237/86/30+.50 DPMC-06791 LAM 010389 1738 -/o--rr OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER Se ntence Number 1464 1465 1466 1467 Occupational Safety and health Administration--Premie Stage Regulation Title Identifier Number Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthopbyllite and Actinoiite__ __ _____________________________ ...hf/JL_______________ Manual Lifting (Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1928 and 1928).......... ................... Medical Surveillance Programs lor Employees_____ ________________ ________ ______ Exposure Monitoring Programs......... -................ .. ....... 1218-AA26 1218-AA95 121S-ABOO 1218-A801 Occupational Safety and Health Administration--Proposed Rule Stage Se quence Number ___________ i Title Regulation Identifier Number 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 ' .1475 nA, >1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 - 1499 1500 1501 1502 Carcinogen Policy.......................................... bJ Pfe Ad 'i/rjF .......................................................... Respiratory Protection ... f'lpfc As\ 7 /& r~.................... .......................... Methods ol Compliance N Pf- A-d t Oil and Gas Well Drilling end Servicing (Part 1910)...............IsX..P.fCrh4.....!.^ /.SSL...................... .............................. Fall Protection Systems (Personal Protective Equipment) (Part 1910).... ........................................................ Confined Soaca IPart 1910) ..............N P fL VT................................................................... ......... Logging (Part 1910)..... ..... j , Safety and Health Regulations fgr l ongshpring (Part 1918)...................................... .................................................. 4.4'-Methv<enedianiline ................................... ............. ........ Electnc Power Generation, TrafwuriiMinn and Dtatrihiifinn (Pa/t Pulp. Paper and Paperboard Mills (Part 1910)................................................................................ . ............ Steel Erection (Part 1926)....... ' .....' V t P..............'................. ...................................................... Fall Protection (Part 19151.........fi/. P/kbrl.......*4/ Sf..... ....................................................................................... Scaffolds (Part 'ms&JP&tA.Ht/XX:....... iPJr\*A. , 3/*f................................................................... Access and Egress (Part 1915) ................... .................................................. Pace. Head, Eye and Foot Protection (Personal Protective FquipmentljPart WU)).A/P}%P7 3/f? . Welding, Cutting and Rrartng (Part 1910)...... ts/.P/P M 1 O/ f............................................................ Welding, Cutting anrt Healing (Part 1916) . ....... ............. ....... Personal Protective Equipment (Part 1915)............................................................................... Compressed Air (Part 1926) ,,,,............. .................................................... .............. 1.3-Butadiene ' ASfr'.PZM..... 1/fT.......................................................................... .................... Glycol Ethers: 2-Methoxyethannl, 2.Ethoxyethanol and their Acetates. l&S............................. Explosive and Other Dangemue Atmospheres (Part 1915)........................ ................... .............. Gear Certifiiatinn (Part 1919)..... ................. ......................................... .................... Methylene Chloride......... ............................. !.'./&.( ................................ ............................................... Hazard Communication....... / & X ................................................................................................... Walking and Wndcing Surfaces (Part 1910) ... .... " /? ..................... Bloodboms Infectious Diseases,......... ........................................................ Cadmium............ NPfJM (t/XY / ........... .................... . ..................... Permissible Eipnsm 1 imit Update...... ............................................................................................ Hazardous Matena/a (Part min)........ a/.?,.M... i/.S'.^................. ................. . Shipyard Employment Phase H (Part 1015) ................. .................................... ...................... 1218-AA01 1218-AA05 1218-AA28 1218-AA34 1218-AA47 1218-AA48 1218-AA51 191A.AA49 191 A-AAM 1218-AA56 1218-AA58 1218-AA50 1218-AA81 1218-AA63 1218-AA65 1218-AA88 1218-AA68 121A-AA70 1218-AA71 1218-AA72 1218-AA73 1218-AA74 1218-AA76 191 A.A AM 1218-AA84 1218-AA91 1218-AA97 1218-AA98 1218-ABG2 1218-A804 1218-AS15 1218-AB18 1216-A817 1218-AB20 1218-A822 4-27-88 Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC.. Washington, O.C. 20037 DPMC-06792 LAM 010390 CURRENT REPORT DOL 1739 Sequeoce Number 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 Occupational Safety and Health Administration--Final Rule Stage Regulation Title Identifier Number Occupational Exposures to Toxic Substances in Laboratories ....!.!Si&..^!3:__.......................................... --..... ....... Ethylene Dibromide (EDB)......... ........................... ................................................ ....................... ....................................................... .......... Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records...... ............................................................................... -........... ...... Concrete and Masonry Construction (Part 1926).................... ............................... .... ................................. ..............--........ Electrical Safety-Related Work Practices (Part 1910)...... ...................................................................... ............. ....... ....................... ....... Powered Platforms for Exterior Building Maintenance (Part 1810)................................... ............................................................ ......... Excavations (Part 1926).....------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------- Fall Protection (Part 1926).......?T0> <*4!. rCcXiXr* 11/%............................................................................................. Underground Construction (Tunnels and Shafts)(Part 1926),............................. -............. -................... ................................................ Scaffolds (Part 1926).................................................................. .............................................r.............................................. --.......................... Crane or Derrick Suspended Platforms (Part 1926)__________ .......................................... -............................................. Stairways and Ladders (Part 1926).......... t--..'..Y.iAA.... ---------------------------------------------------------........... ................................. Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (Part 1910).........tr...'..r3-.4A--`............................ Lead (Reconsideration of the Feasibility of Compliance in Nine Industry Sectors) --.............. -........................................ Asbestos Short Term Exposure Limit........ .................................................................. -............................-------- ---------------- 1216-AA00 1218-AA06 1218-AA1S 1218-AA20 1218-AA32 121B-AA33 1216-AA36 1218-AA37 1218-AA38 1218-AMO 121B-AA45 1218-AA57 1218-AB13 1218-AB18 1218-AB21 Se quence Number 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 Occupational Safety and Health Administration--Completed Actions Regulation Title Identifier Number Ethylene Oxide........... __________________________________________________________ _______________________ Gram Handling Facilities (Parts 1910 and 1917)............................. --................................ .............................................. Safety Tasini]/Certff<catior> (Part 1910)...... .77./.,7r..T.*4 3............................................... , j .. ......... Presence Sensing Device Initiation of Mechanical Power Presses (Part 1910)..Jc.LcrLr^...fe9feir:..!ar..'3.r.5.X.------ Formaldehyde F.....& & ......... Surface Preparation end Preservation (Part 1915)............................ .............................................................................. 1216-AA03 1218-AA22 1218-AM2 1218-AA54 1218-AA82 1218-AA96 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Premie Stage 1464. ASBESTOS, TREMOUTE, ANTHOPHYLUTE AND ACT1NOUTE Significance: Regulatory Program Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1001; 29 CFR 1926.56 Legal Deadline: None. Abstract On June 17,1986. OSHA issued revised standards governing occupational exposure to asbestos, tremoiite. anthophyllite, and actinohte in general industry and in the construction industry. These standards replaced OSHA's previous asbestos standard promulgated in 1972. Since the issuance of the revised standards OSHA has received letters and petitions, from both rulemaking participants and nonparticipants, that contain additional comments, assertions and information that the rulemaking record may not fully reflect These letters and petitions concern the appropriateness of regulating nonasbestiform tremoiite, anthophyllite and actinolite as presenting the same health risk as asbestos. OSHA has granted a temporary stay of the effective dates of the current standards as they apply to nonasbestiform varieties of tremoiite. anthophyllite and actinolite. This action was taken, in part to enable the Agency to review letters and memoranda from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as well as submissions by the R.T. Vanderbilt Company and various other (Cont'd) Timetable: Action Date FR Cite Notice of partial administrative stay To be coordinated witti MSHA 10/17/86 51 FR 37002 06/00/68 Small Entity: Yes 4-27-88 Occupational Safety & Health Reporter Additional Information: ABSTRACT (CONTD): trade associations concerning the appropriateness of regulating nonasbestiform tremoiite. anthophyllite and actinolite in the revised standards. In addition, the temporary stay was imposed to allow sufficient time for OSHA to reopen the rulemaking record and conduct supplemental proceedings on the issue of whether, and how, to regulate occupational exposure to the nonasbestiform varieties of tremoiite. anthophyllite and actinolite. Agency Contact Charles E. Adkins. Director. Health Standards Programs, Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 200 Constitution Avenue. NW, Rm N3718, FPBldg., Washington. DC 20210, 202 5237075 RIM: 1218-AA26 DPMC-06793 lam 010391 Friday April 29, 1988 cc: 'd/a?&'s- /8u*bt rU_ JfW Part II Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1910 The Control of Hazardous Energy Sources (Lockout/Tagout); Proposed Rule yj mu w * &Pi f fit jue de****^}* W) fet y**- * Jet* DPMC-06794 LAM 010392