Document 85w6MjaVdg2oKj7mYMZaD6dny

A weekly review of occupational safety and health developments Volume 10. Number 9 THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC July 31, 1980 HIGHLIGHTS OF CURRENT REPORT COTTON DUST STANDARD enforcement is suspended by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for the cotton warehousing and cotton classing industries, following agency review of the Supreme Court decision in the benzene case. The agency says it has determined that the preamble to the standard "may not ade quately describe" the rationale for including the * two industries under the regulation, but it adds that further administrative action on the applicability of the regulation to the industries is likely (p. 237) . . - Text of OSHA notice of suspension of enforcement (p. 255). MORE BRAIN CANCER CASES are uncovered by OSHA and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health investigators among workers in the Houston, Tex., area. Some 25 cases are found among workers at a Dow Chemical Com pany plant in Freeport, Tex., in addition to earlier cases found among Union Carbide employees, but a Dow spokesman asserts there is no apparent relation between the cancer in cidence and the work experience of the employees involved (p. 237). REPRODUCTIVE HAZARDS from oc cupational exposures are the subject of a research and demonstration grant program an nounced by NIOSH. The institute says it is looking for applications addressing such areas as epidemiology, toxicology, control technology, and health education (p. 237) ... Text of NIOSH notice on the grant program (p. 256). TESTING AND CERTIFICATION procedures carried out by NIOSH should be revised to permit manufacturers to establish their own "third par ty" testing program pursuant to equipment per formance criteria developed by the institute, an industry spokesman tells a hearing held by NIOSH. Witnesses also maintain it is "essential" that manufacturers currently be allowed to witness NIOSH tests involving their own equip ment (p. 238). COMPLAINT-BASED INSPECTIONS must be limited to those areas of a workplace in which violations reported by an employee allegedly oc curred, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rules. A wall-to-wall inspection made in response to a specific employee complaint "sur passes the boundaries set by Congress," the court reasons (p. 239). THE IMPACT OF STANDARDS on industrial productivity would be studied under a grant for which the Labor Department policy office is seek ing applicants. The DOL request for proposal says the study should focus on the impact of specific OSHA and Mine Safety and Health Ad ministration standards, as determined by a "micro-economic" evaluation rather than a "broad economy-wide" survey (p. 240). DIRECTIONS FOR REVIEW will be vacated in cases reviewed by only two commissioners who cannot agree on the outcome, the Oc cupational Safety and Health Review Commis sion announces. The commission finds the former procedure -- affirmance of a judge's decision with the precedential value of an unreviewed decision -- insufficient for an official action of the commission (p.240). EX PARTE WARRANTS are supported by the United Association of Journeymen and Appren tices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry in comments submitted to OSHA. According to the union, such warrants are necessary because some contractors intend routinely to refuse entry to OSHA inspectors without search warrants. However, an attorney for Cerro Metals Products asserts that the agency has failed to show "a need for a police agency approach" to compliance (p.241) A UNIFORM CONSULTATION program en visioned by OSHA is "a thrust to get all of the states out of the business of enforcement," and "a major interference" with state consultation prerogatives, the chairman of an association of state officials charges (p. 241). Section 1 Cooyoght c 1980 by The Bureau of National Affair*. Inc r-096 3:17.80 S00 .0 Jo0 Q.O.'0O,vv O 236 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH R EPQ RT E P In this issue . . . TOPICAL SUMMARY CALIFORNIA Board to revise rules for trash equipment ............ 245 Judge says DOSH has authority over mines ....... 245 CERTIFICATION NIOSH should restructure program, meeting told . 236 COTTON DUST Standard lifted for some industries ........................ 237 ENFORCEMENT Union backs OSHA on ex pane warrants ............ 241 FULL TEXT NIOSH notice on grants for reproductive effects studies ....................................................................... 256 Notice of partial suspension of cotton dust enforce ment .......................................................................... 255 HEALTH HAZARDS More brain cancer cases discovered ....................... 237 Tests on volcanic ash planned ................................. 245 JOURNAL Brief coverage of coming events ............................. 258 LEGISLATION Truck safety measure slated for action ................. 244 LITIGATION Inspection based on complaint must be limited ... 239 NOISE Engineering priority will not meet burden of proof. company says ........................................................... 242 "NORTH CAROLINA - Legislature appropriates funds for industrial hy gienists ..................................................................... 247 OVERSIGHT Statistical increases fail to reflect improvements, DOD says ................................................................ 243 PROCUREMENT Contracts on asbestos study, state data awarded .. 246 Firm sought to study furniture-worker mortality . 244 PUBLICATIONS Potential liquefaction hazards reported .................. 247 REPRODUCTIVE HAZARDS Grant program for research announced ................ 237 RESEARCH Impact of standards on productivity subject of re quest ......................................................................... 240 REVIEW COMMISSION OSAHRC will vacate direction for review in `one-toone' cases ................................................................. 240 Weekly report of commission activity ................... 248 SOUTH CAROLINA Standards gi\en approval. OSHA reports ............... 246 STATE PLANS Uniform consultation program seen threat ............ 241 WYOMING OSHA approves regulations on multi-piece rims .. 246 This issue of Occupational Safety it Health Reporter consists of two sections: Section 1. Current Report, and Section 3. Decisions, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER Published at Washington. D C . every Thursday except the vear-end issue by Toe Bureau of National Affairs. Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037. Telephone: 452*4200 (Area Code 202) William A. Belts, Editor in Chief Stanley E. Degler. Executive Editor Patricia R. Westlein. Associate Editor BOARD OF EDITORS Managing Editor: Michael H. Blake. Jr. Assistant Managing Editor: Stanley Pond Melame M Aclander Fred Blosser Larry E. Evans John Herzfeld Anne Kohut Rose Lally-Knowles Michael M. McCann Mary M Miller Kathryn J Scott Robert Strain Glenn Totten Debra M. Waugh Mary Wheeler Senior Legal Editor: Stanley J. Gilbert Senior Scientific Editor: Girard L. Ordway .triMifi t'lucf htrlcr Editor Judith Springberg Emil Toth: Editor First year subscription rate (payable in advance) $327. renewal $31$ per year. Correspondence concerning editorial content should be directed to the managing editor. Second Gass postage paid at Washington. D.C.. and at ad ditional mailing offices. The code at the bottom of some pages of this report in dicates that copies of the pages for use beyond that permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the new U.S. Copyright Act may be made upon payment of a SO-cent per page copy fee to the Copyrignt Clearance Center, Inc., P.O. Box 785, Schenectady, N Y. 12301, or directly to The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Code: ISSN 0095-3237 Copyright* 1990 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All rights reserved by the copyright owner. Printed in U S.A. 7-31-80 Occwnt,on'il So*e'y & Health Report*' OOOS 3237 SO SOO SO f',00 Vou ZJ7 Current Report Cotton Oust STANDARD LIFTED FOR SOME INDUSTRIES AFTER OSHA REVIEWS BENZENE DECISION Based on a review of the Supreme Court's July 2 decision on benzene, the Occupational Safely and Health Administra tion July 25 suspended enforcement of its cotton dust stan dard in certain industries The temporary suspension of the standard for the cotton warehousing and cotton classing industries is the result of OSHA s conclusion that the preamble to the cotton dust stan dard "may not adequately describe the rationale for in cluding cotton warehousing and cotton classing offices." The Court's ruling on benzene (8 OSHC 1586) said that in regulating toxic substances, the Secretary of Labor must find that the substance poses a significant risk of material impairment that a new. lower standard will eliminate or reduce. According to Labor Department attorneys that "central question" posed by the Court is the basis for OSHA's action in reviewing the cotton dust standard, which industry groups have asked the Supreme Court to review (Current Report. March 27, p 996). But OSHA said in its July 29 notice (45 FR 50328) that the standard's enforcement in other areas of the textile industry is not affected, because "a determination has been made that the standard meets the Supreme Court s requirements." 500 Microgram Limit According to the 1978 cotton dust standard (Reference File 31:8601). exposures to cotton dust in warehousing and class ing operations would have to be reduced to 500 micrograms of respirable dust per cubic meter of air. Cotton classing is a service performed by brokers who determine the quality grade of the cotton. The Cotton Warehouse Association and American Cotton Shippers Association, representing the classing and warehousing industries, were among the groups which asked the Supreme Court to review the upholding of the cotton dust standard by the U S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The petition for review has not yet been ruled upon by the Supreme Court. But OSHA attorneys indicated that suspending the stan dard for cotton classing and warehousing may make that portion of a Supreme Court review unnecessary. While enforcement of the standard is suspended. OSHA said it would review the rulemaking record and preamble to determine the possible regulatory options" and said that further administrative action on the applicability of the stan dard to the two industries is likely. OSHA attorneys said no decision yet has been made as to whether the record will be reopened. During the suspension, OSHA will enforce the preexisting national consensus standard for exposure to cotton dust of 1000 micrograms per cubic meter of air. OSHA s notice of suspension of enforcement appears in the Full Text section of this Current Report, The action also will be reflected in a future Reference File supplement. Health Hazards MORE BRAIN CANCER CASES FOUND AS TEXAS INVESTIGATION CONTINUES A 16-month long investigation of brain cancer cases in a Texas petrochemical plant has uncovered additional cases in another plant not far from the site of the original investiga tion. Medical investigators from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Oc cupational Safety and Health found 25 cases of brain cancer among workers at a Dow Chemical plant in Freeport. Tex., in addition to an earlier finding of 16 cancer cases among current and former workers at a L'nion Carbide plant in Tex as City, according to federal officials. Suspicion of a high rate of brain cancer led to the OSHA NIOSH investigation of the Texas City plant in March 1979 (Current Report, March 8, 1979, p. 1526). After iden tifying the cases through a review of Union Carbide, state, and county records, a case'control study was begun to deter mine if any of the workers had common exposures to any of the chemicals used or produced at the plant. The brain cancer cases at the Dow plant were uncovered as the investigation of the Union Carbide plant proceeded, according to NIOSH and OSHA investigators. Records from the tri-county area including Brazoria, Galveston, and Harris counties were inspected, confirming not only the Union Carbide cases but uncovering the Dow cases. Higher Than Expected The data from the three counties are incomplete, although there is a "higher number of cases than expected." accor ding to James Hansen. Dow spokesman. He added that the company is looking at a large number of current and former worker histories as part of a "broader effort" to identify the health hazards at the plant. Hansen added that there is no apparent relation between the deaths and the work experience of Dow Chemical employees. Studies of the brain cancers are continuing, federal of ficials said. The first report of the study is to be published this fall in the new American Journal of Industrial Medicine, according to OSHA physician Victor Alexander. Reproductive Hazards GRANT PROGRAM FOR TOXICOLOGY STUDIES. CONTROL RESEARCH ANNOUNCED BY INSTITUTE The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health announced that it plans to award grants for research and demonstration projects concerning reproductive effects from occupational hazards. According to the announcement, the program is intended to expand the institute's involvement in identifying and preventing such effects. Applications are sought for basic and applied projects in such areas as epidemiology, tox icology, control technology, and health education, NIOSH said. In recent years, increasing numbers of pregnant women have remained on the job until near the end of pregnancy. 7-31-80 Copyright * 1980 by Th# Bureau of National Affair*. Inc. 009S 3237 80 SOOSO MCD 000013471 238 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH C^'J^r: = the \IOSH announcement stated As a result, it asserted, 'many more women and their unborn children are being ex posed to chemical, physical, and psychological hazards of the workplace." However, "very little is known about the impact of such exposures on fetal wastage and growth and development," NIOSH commented. The institute also noted that concern about reproductive hazards generally has focused on the offspring of females ex posed to chemical and physical hazards, even though ex posure of male workers to mutagenic agents also puts offspn rg at risk. Other problems include occupational hazards that affect the fertility of both men and women, the exposure of non working women to materials brought home on the clothing of male workers, and the possibility that childhood cancers may be related to pre-natal environmental exposures, accor ding to the notice. NIOSH said it is interested in projects to: Consider the epidemiology of reproductive effects, par ticularly where dose-response relationships can be deter mined. Identify reproductive hazards of chemicals and provide an "early warning" of possible harmful effects. ft Clarify the biological mechanisms through which hazar dous substances work. Develop new and improved methods or equipment to prevent reproductive effects from hazardous substances. ft Increase awareness of the importance of reproductive hazards in the workplace. Applications should be submitted on form PHS 398 (form PHS 5161-1 for state and local governments) to Office of Grants Inquiries, Division of Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, Westwood Building. Room 448, Bethesda, Md 20205, telephone (301) 496-7441. Earlier this year, NIOSH reported that reproductive effects from occupational exposure were one of a variety of subjects at which the agency would be looking in an attempt to identify possible future hazards (Current Report, January 17. p. 765). The text of the NIOSH announcement of the grant program appears in the full Text section of this Current Report. Certification NIOSH SHOULD RESTRUCTURE PROGRAM TO ALLOW INDUSTRY TESTS. MEETING TOLD The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health should permit manufacturers of personal protective equip ment and hazard measuring instruments to establish a "third party" testing and certification program pursuant to performance criteria developed by NIOSH, an industry spokesman recommended July 28. Frank E. Wilcher. Jr., executive director of the Industrial Safety Equipment Association, spoke at a hearing convened by NIOSH on possible ways to restructure the institute's current program for testing and certifying equipment. Last February NIOSH asserted that a "major reconstruc tion" of the current certification program under 30 CFR Part 11 appeared necessary, based on the findings of a study by five outside consultants (Current Report. February 21. p. 878). The consultants were asked to evaluate the program after failures were reported in some NIOSH-certified respirators. Testing and certification procedures in 30 CFR Part II. which are conducted jointly by NIOSH and the Mine Safety and Health Administration, "have not worked effectively" for either NIOSH or equipment manufacturers. Wilcher told the hearing. Because the procedures were developed lor un derground mining applications, they "do not adequately cover other common applications" for respiratory equip ment. he charged Further, the NIOSH certification branch "has been hampered by constant turnover of staff, as well as lacking personnel with sufficient expertise in the field to handle the program effectively, fairly, and in a timely manner." the ISEA official stated. L'nder the system proposed by ISEA, independent private laboratories would use manufacturer facilities to test and certify equipment to meet "realistic" and technologically advanced standards recommended by NIOSH To ensure the validity of the certifications. NIOSH would purchase new. offthe-shelf units on a random basis and test them in its own laboratory or subcontract the testing to a qualified outside laboratory, the association suggested. Where manufacturers would need assistance in developing suitable facilities for testing. NIOSH should offer such help. Wilcher said. However, the institute should not continue tests for manufacturers in lieu of manufacturers es tablishing test facilities in their plants, and it should not evaluate the manufacturers' "test set-ups," he added. The results of NIOSH field audits could be publicized, as long as the manufacturers received prior notification, tests were conducted on similar products from several manufac turers at one time, and results were published on a pass/fail and not a comparative basis. Wilcher suggested. Witnessing Approval Tasta It is "essential" that manufacturers be given the right to witness NIOSH tests involving their own equipment, the ISEA director maintained. "The experience of many manufacturers indicates tests conducted by NIOSH per sonnel . have frequently been improperly conducted, and improperly interpreted." he charged. John B. Moran, a member of the NIOSH Mine Health Research Advisory Committee, also expressed support for manufacturers being permitted to witness tests. NIOSH procedures must be able to withstand peer review, and not have the appearance of taking place behind closed doors,' Moran declared. James A. Oppold. director of the NIOSH safety research division, said he agreed that the institute's tests should "withstand the attention of our peers." However, he main tained. past experience has indicated that it is "hard" for a manufacturer's representative "not to interfere" in testing if the representative is present. NIOSH is considering a "workshop" approach in which representatives from several manufacturers would be invited at one time to the NIOSH facilities to "see how we conduct business." Oppold noted. The NIOSH official also stated that the charge of improper testing had never been brought to his attention. "There were limes when our tests were not as comprehensive as some manufacturers would have liked, but we have always carried out our mandate properly." he asserted. Wilcher said he was not prepared to cite examples of his charge in detail. In one instance, however, NIOSH ran tests on a number of safety helmets and reported that a "high percentage" had failed American National Standards Institute criteria, he commented. "Subsequently, we were told by some NIOSH personnel that some flammability tests had been used improperly," Wilcher stated. 7-31-80 Occupational Sa(ty & Haal'l' Repott#* MCD 00001347 CURRENT REPORT State of the Art Technology NIOSH should revise the procedures in 30 CFR U to es tablish state of the art performance testing criteria, accord ing to a statement by Jerry Purswell, director of safety standards for the Occupational Safety and Health Ad ministration. Purswell noted that such a revision might entail a procedural delay " because of the necessity of going through rulemaking procedures. However, NIOSH can begin certain improvements immediately in the current program that do not require rulemaking, he maintained. For example, the frequency with which respirators are tested should be increased. Purswell recommended. This could be accomplished, he suggested, by requiring manufac turers to provide a specified number of units to NIOSH as part of their application for approval. To ensure that units are submitted on a random basis. NIOSH might specify that manufacturers issue reimburse ment purchase coupons to the institute, the official com mented. Using the coupons as payment. NIOSH itself would collect units for testing by purchasing them from dis tributors across the U.S.. he said. in-house contractors could be retained, or testing expand ed to a two-shift operation, to increase the number of units tested. Purswell proposed. Specific duration periods for NIOSH approval of respirators should be set, Purswell urged. The durations should vary with different types of respirators, with longer durations granted for more complicated equipment, he suggested, observing that users are "not likely" to replace complicated or expensive units as often as less costly items. The OSHA official also called on the institute to establish a formal stop-sale and recall program for defective equip ment. Under the program, a statistically significant number of respirators should be tested to determine the extent of the defect, and recall should be limited to those cases in which an "immediate hazard"' is posed to a user, he stated. Where testing shows defects that lead NIOSH to believe that a respirator should not be used, the approval should be suspended until the defect is corrected or a more suitable unit is developed. Purswell commented. A panel consisting of government officials and independent respirator experts should review every case to determine whether a stop sale notice, recall, or decertification is necessary, according to the OSHA official. Fir* Fighter Needs The firefighting service should be involved more actively in the certification of respirators, according to Randy Watts, fire training coordinator for the Cumberland County (Pa l Volunteer Firemen's Association. There should be some requirement in the certification process to ensure that a user selects the type of respirator appropriate for his needs and receives training in the proper use of the equipment, Watts testified. He noted that firefighting subjects respirators to many conditions -- such as sudden extremes in temperatures -- not found in other oc cupations. At present, a firefighter "typically'' learns how to use a respirator by reading instructions on the box lid before going into the burning building, Watts asserted. According to Watts, a federal agency "with some teeth" is needed to establish standards for firefighting and ensure that they are followed. He noted that fire departments, as units of local governments, are not covered by OSHA. Mora Comment Tima Needed William H. Revoir. chairman of the ANSI ad hoc respirator test and approval subcommittee, said his group 239 "deplored" the "very short time'' provided by NIOSH for the preparation of testimony to be delivered at the hearing. He urged that an additional 90 days be provided for submis sion of further comment on the certification issue. Revoir added that if NIOSH fails to devote "sufficient resources" to developing an effective certification program, it should "relinquish its authority" in that area. Jon R. May. NIOSH special assistant for testing and cer tification. told the meeting that the institute intends to make a commitment toward getting adequate resources for the program If NIOSH cannot get Office of Management and Budget approval for increased funds, it will attempt an internal reorganization to get additional personnel into the certification branch, he stated. Litigation INSPECTION BASED ON WORKER COMPLAINT MUST BE LIMITED TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS An inspection conducted under Section 8(f) of the Oc cupational Safety and Health Act. pursuant to an employee complaint, must be limited to those areas of the employer's premises where the violations allegedly occurred, the U S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled July 24. This decision in .Marshall r .Vorth American Car ( niniHtnu (No. 79-2374) affirmed a decision of a federal dis trict court which quashed an inspection warrant that authorized a general ("wall to wall") Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspection of the employer's premises (7 OSHC 15511. The case arose out of an attempted OSHA inspection following receipt of an employee complaint alleging safety violations in three areas of the employer's Sayre. Pa . railroad car repair facility. After the employer refused en try to OSHA inspectors. OSHA obtained an inspection warrant from a U.S. Magistrate. That warrant authorized the inspectors to conduct a "wall to wall" inspection of the employer's plant. After three days of inspection, the employer refused to permit the inspection s continuance. The Secretary of Labor then moved, in district court, for an order holding the employer in contempt for halting the inspection. After a hearing, the district court held that the warrant was over broad in that it did not limit inspection only to the physical areas specified in the employee complaint. The court then quashed the warrant and dismissed the petition for con tempt. The Secretary appealed. On appeal, the Secretary's sole argument, that a "wall to wall'" search is authorized in any case where OSHA has received an employee complaint, was rejected. According to the appellate court, the OSH Act authorizes two types of inspections. Section 8(a) inspections, which are conducted pursuant to a general administrative plan, and Section 8(f) inspections, which result from employee com plaints. This case involved only a Section 8(f) inspection the appellate court decided. Scope of Inspection After a thorough analysis of Section 8(f), the appellate court concluded that that section "requirfed] that the scope of an inspection must bear some relationship to the alleged violations in the employee complaint." The appellate court supported this conclusion by pointing out that Congress referred to Section 8(f) inspections as "special" in the third sentence of 8(0. (n addition, the court reasoned that when the first and third sentences of Section 8(f) were read together, it in- 7-31-80 Copyright * 1980 by The Bureau of National Affaire. Inc. OOM-3237/aO soo so MOD 000013473 240 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER dicated that Congress contemplated that these inspections would bear some relationship to the employee complaint." The Secretary argued unsuccessfully that 29 CFR 193.11 states that a warrant issued on the basis of an employee complaint may authorise a search that is not limited to the area in the complaint. The Secretary attempted to bolster this argument by contending that "this regulation is sup ported by sound policy in that limited enforcement resources are better utilized if there is a wall-to-wall inspection once the inspectors have to go to the plant anyway." The appellate court rejected the Secretary's argument on the ground that although the Secretary's interpretations of the OSH Act are entitled to deference, those interpretations cannot exceed the statutory limits imposed by Congress. Ac cording to the appellate court. "|b)ecause Congress has ex pressed a requirement that the scope of the inspection be related to the complaint, to the extent that the regulation permits wall-to-wall inspections in every case, it surpasses the boundaries set by Congress." This opinion which was written by Chief Judge Collins J. Seitz, who was joined by Circuit Judges John J. Gibbons and Max Rosenn, will appear in a future Decisions issue. Research IMPACT OP STANDARDS ON PRODUCTIVITY SUBJECT OF ASPER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Proposals were invited July 22 by the Labor Department's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy. Evaluation, and Research for a study to investigate the possible impact of workplace safety and health regulations on industrial productivity. According to the DOL request for proposal, the study should focus on the "productivity impact" of specific Oc cupational Safety and Health Administration and Mine Safe ty and Health Administration programs. The "micro-economic" rather than the "broad economy-wide" effects of the agencies should be examined, the request add ed. The department called for an evaluation of "specific production process impacts." such as those resulting from retrofitting of equipment, new equipment and process techniques, technological and process innovation, and ad justments in staffing patterns. Some topics "illustrative of the type of study to be per formed" include the individual impacts of the OSHA asbestos, lead, vinyl chloride, rollover protective structures, and punch press standards, the request noted. Other examples cited included the impact of "a specific MSHA regulation, group of regulations, or program (such as enforcement)," and the individual impacts of the MSHA roof control and coal dust standards. The rate of annual productivity increase as measured by output per hour was lower in the 1970s than during the previous two decades, ASPER commented. According to some theories, a decline in measured productivity is "one of the costs of improving workplace safety and health through MSHA and OSHA programs and regulations," the division observed. These theories hold that regulation decreases productivity by requiring more labor, slowing down production through the imposition of machine guards or more "housekeeping," and diverting the limited capital available for investment into "nonproductive" uses such as pollution controls, the request stated. ASPER quoted a 1978 macro-economic study by Edward P. Dennison, published in Survey of Current Business, that indicated a reduction in business growth by 0 3 percentage points from 1973 to 1976 due to health and en vironmental regulation. However, such macro-economic studies "inevitably have major methodological and data problems." ASPER asserted. Benefits Seen On the other hand, some micro-economic analyses in dicate that OSHA and MSHA regulations may increase productivity, the request for proposal noted Regulation appears to accomplish this, it added, by reducing the amount of "down time" resulting from accidents, by forcing im provements in technology, and by preserving a healthy workforce, ASPER noted an OSHA study indicating that the vinyl chloride standard spurred technological change to the point that productivity in the industry increased. Also, union of ficial Francis Burkhardt reported at a Senate hearing that there had been a 40 to 60 percent improvement in the productivity of painters as a result of improved respirators, traceable to OSHA requirements, the request for proposal said. Additional analyses are needed to "improve our un derstanding of the productivity impact" of safety and health regulations, the request stated. More information is needed as well on the underlying factors that "influence the adjust ment process," including "possible technology and process innovation responses," the document said. ASPER acknowledged that micro-economic studies also may have methodological problems, but it maintained that these problems "appear to be more susceptible to control and solution by research." The request for proposal called for submission of a draft report no later than nine months after the awarding of the contract. Proposals must be received no later than August 25 b\ the DOL Office of Procurement. Room S-1519. Department <u Labor Building. 200 Constitution Ave.. N.W.. Wash.rf >r D.C: 20210. For further information on the RFP. contact Leonard nar, the contract negotiator, at (202) 523-6269 VVni'er. queries should be submitted to the procurement office at me above address. The number of the solicitation is RFP L * 80-29. Review Commission OSAHRC WILL VACATE DIRECTION FOR REVIEW IN 'ONE-TO-ONE' CASES The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commm. * announced in a July 22 decision that it will vacate the direr tion for review in cases reviewed by only two commiwwnef * who cannot agree on the outcome. This decision was made in Texaco Inc. (No. 77-1040 77-3542) because the former procedure -- affirmance w .- judge's decision with the precedential value of an urrev . ed decision -- was declared insufficient for an official * of the commission. The judge's decision on review involved a finding Secretary had failed to establish the economic feas.6* proposed controls to reduce employee exposure to m ' amounts of benzine vapors. The commission ob$*r>"* ` * two reviewing commissioners divided on the oulcorrw * r+ case presents) an obstacle to its resolution, since *r action of the commission requires the affirmative * " * * least two members. Furthermore, the former pro< * ?- * disposing of such cases was ruled inadequate for *< act of the commission by the Ninth Circuit Court . 7-31-80 Orcwpot'orvjl Safety & Health Repone' 0094 3237 KJJ00 M OOOO y 4 in Vl'W/i/rnpttP Iron & Steel Conipany l* Secretary of l.,,hnr. 7 OSHC 1641 1 1979). In the court refused to take jurisdiction of the Review Commission's affirmance of the hearing of ficer's decision because it was supported by the affirmative vote of only one of two reviewing commissioners. Because the affirmance was accorded only the precedential value of an unreviewed decision, the dissenting commissioner did not truly vote to affirm, according to the court, and the label placed upon the determination made by the two com missioners is not atone determinative. In Texaco. the Review Commission expressly disagreed with the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that an affirmance whose precedential value is limited to that of an unreviewed deci sion is inadequate for an official act of the commission. The new procedure of vacating the direction for review is believ ed by the commission to satisfy all courts of appeals as an of ficial action of the commission. It was adopted in response to Wtllut'u'iie as a different means to attain the same result. This ruling will appear in a future Decisions issue. Enforcement UNION BACKS OSHA ON EX PARTE WARRANTS; TRADE GROUPS SEEK HEARINGS ON PROPOSAL Charging that some contractors intend to routinely refuse entry to Occupational Safety and Health Administration in spectors without search warrants, the plumbers and pipefitters union, in comments submitted to OSHA, sup ported a proposed regulatory amendment confirming the Secretary of Labor's authority to seek warrants on an ex parte basis. In other comments submitted, two trade associations and a legal foundation called for public hearings on the proposal. Several companies, trade associations, and legal groups also submitted statements opposing the proposed confirmation of authority (Current Report, July 24. p. 22S). The statements were made in response to OSHA's May 20 notice seeking public comment on its proposal to amend compulsory process provisions of regulations governing in spections over the objections of employers (Current Report. May 29. p. 1204). The proposed amendment would confirm authority called into question by an April decision of the U S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (8 OSHC 1196). The union, the United Association of Journeymen and Ap prentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, includ ed with its comments a copy of an employer's safety memorandum instructing all its supervisors to require a search warrant "before allowing any type of OSHA inspec tion of your jobsite." The existence of such policies was given by OSHA as one of its reasons for seeking the authority granted by the proposed amendment. The union, citing a further instruction in the safety memorandum advising supervisors to refuse to allow inspec tors to privately interview employees on company premises, suggested that OSHA supplement the proposed amendment with a field directive providing for such situations. In the union suggestion, warrant requests would include language saying, "During the course of the inspection, (the] inspector shall be able to interview employees in private, ex cluding any and all representatives of the employer. The employer shall permit such interviews to be conducted on its property at any location deemed necessary or appropriate by the inspector to facilitate the inspection." The Communications Workers of America also submitted a statement of support for the proposed amendment. Hoarmgs Requested The American Subcontractors Association, the Cast Metals Federation, and the Mid-Atlantic Legal Foundation included in their comments requests for public hearings on the proposed amendment. The legal foundation, noting "the seriousness of the questions raised by the concept of pre-en try and postrefusai ex parte warrants," urged that affected parties be given the opportunity to debate the proposal's "necessity and advisability." while the metals federation said that to deny public debate on the "arbitrary proposal" would be "unreasonable." In a letter written on behalf of Cerro Metal Products, plaintiff in the Third Circuit decision that triggered the proposed amendment, a Dallas. Tex., attorney expressed concern that the public comment solicitation "is little more than a charade." The attorney, Ronald M Gaswirth of Gardere. Wynne St Jaffe. observed that OSHA "has not changed one word" from its original proposal and charged that the agency is now only "begrudgingly" submitting it for public comment. The courts, he noted, had invalidated the regulation as a result of OSHA's failure to do so when it was first promulgated. Gaswirth further stated that ex parte warrant proceedings are unnecessary to "proper enforcement." and that OSHA has failed to compile evidence that would demonstrate "a need for a police-agency approach to achiev ing OSHA compliance." He questioned the value of "sur prise" inspections, criticized the "extreme disruption of an employer's business" resulting from such inspections, and challenged OSHA on whether the neutrality of a judge acting solely on information supplied by OSHA was an adequate safeguard against unjustified warrants. He also doubted the efficacy of post-warrant litigation as redress against illfounded warrant grants and inspections. Substitute Proposal Gaswirth suggested as an alternative to the OSHA proposal that the agency not be allowed to seek a warrant without first attempting voluntary entry to a workplace. In the "small percentage of cases where voluntary entry is refused." Gaswirth proposed, notice of judicial proceedings should be given to die employer in order "to bring out the relevant facts for a probable cause determination." Ft parte warrants should be sought only in "truly excep tional cases involving imminent danger," based on a show ing of "demonstrable facts." Such showing. Gaswirth con tended, should be made a part of the administrative probable cause standard. In another comment, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce characterized the proposed regulatory amendment as an attempt to "circumvent" the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court deci sion affirming an employer's right to require a warrant before admitting an OSHA inspector on the premises (6 OSHC 1571). The proposal, the Chamber stated, would rein force OSHA's "image among many employers as over-legalistic' and punitive-minded." The Chamber further stated that ex parte warrants would enable inspectors to utilize a legal strategy at a stage where employers may be without legal assistance, thus placing employers at an "unfair disadvantage." State Plana OSHA UNIFORM CONSULTATION PROGRAM SEEN AS THREAT TO STATE ENFORCEMENT RALEIGH, N. C. -- (By an OSHR staff correspondent) -- The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's plan to 7-3180 Copyright 1980 by The Bureau of Nationel Affairs. Inc. 0099-3237 0'00.S0 ,oOv O' 242 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH dE^Cc'a develop a uniform, nationwide onsite consultation program "is a thrust to get all of the states out of the business of en forcement." according to the chairman of the Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association. North Carolina Labor Commissioner John C. Brooks said stale designees "reject that direction." which he labeled an "ominous development." In a July 23 interview with OSHR. Brooks said states which have their own OSHA programs offered consultative services at least five years before federal OSHA began developing such programs in states with federally ad ministered programs Last February. Assistant Labor Secretary Eula Bingham told an appropriations hearing that OSHA is requesting an in crease in its fiscal 1991 budget to convert onsite con sultation programs in 15 states with state plans to fed erally directed programs under Section 7(c)(1) of the Oc cupational Safety and Health Act. This action will ensure uniform standards of advisory service" across the U.S.. she stated (Current Report. February 28, p. 903). Id a May 29 memorandum to OSHA regional ad ministrators. Bingham said the agency intends to offer the slates the opportunity to convert their programs to 7(c) (1) operations "in a straightforward manner." Those declining that request would be required to operate their programs un der the provisions of 29 CFR Part 1908. which Brooks asserted "amount to exactly the same thing" as the 7(0 (1) provisions. In a memo to Congress. Brooks charged that OSHA's in tentions are "a major interference with the stati s congressionally delegated prerogative to provide the best and most effective services to their citizens." The major difference between the two types of programs is that advice given to an employer by a consultant under a 7(0(1) program must be implemented within a specific period and compliance must be certified in writing by the employer. Brooks said. Under an 18(b) program, advice trom a consultant is not mandatory, and employers under stand that voluntarily requested inspections "will in no way jeopardize the employer in terms of OSHA enforcement ac tivities." he added. Tf a serious violation or a situation presenting imminent danger is observed, however, the consultant will issue a notification of violation identifying the hazard and setting an abatement date. Another drawback in a 7(c)(1) program is that funds would be provided only for personal visits, not for advice given by telephone or in writing, Brooks said. Too Much Liko Enforcement "In the eyes of many of the states, this kind of consulta tion service looks loo much like their enforcement activity." he said- In North Carolina, he predicted, converting to a 7(c)(1)type program would cause the present backlog of requests for consultative services to "evaporate overnight." North Carolina has a higher rate of voluntary compliance with health and safety standards than federally administered programs in other states, he asserted. The dispute over consultative services is an example of the problems which exist between federal OSHA and state OSHA designees. Brooks said. "The federal administration of OSHA with regard to dayto-day administration is of continuing concern because it vacillates greatly." he charged. He cited OSHA's promises to involve state designees in drawing up recommendations to be submitted in the benchmarks case (Current Report, May 1, p. 1107) and also promises made in 1977 by Bingham that she would meet with state designees two or three times each year. Bingham has not met with state designees this year, and the state did not see the benchmarks recommendations before they were submitted. Brooks said. In addition, although state designees were told they would be briefed before major policy developments were an nounced. Brooks said slate designees still learn of such decisions from the newspapers. He said rules issued in May giving employees access to medical records were never dis cussed with the state, and that he received information on the rules four weeks after they were announced. Federal Monitoring Federal OSHA "is tying up lots of money" in special studies by teams of federal monitors. Brooks charged. Although he said he welcomed monitoring reviews. Brooks questioned the effectiveness of the ty;^ of research un derway "This activity has drained away regional travel money and expense money for regional federal field ac tivity." he added. He suggested shifting some of the monitors to positions as safety officers or industrial hygienists. "They complain about insufficient enforcement level nationally, and it is inconsistent to be so overloaded with regard to these state monitors at the same time they are so starved for enforcement officers," Brooks said. States favor monitoring, "but see a lot of massive make-work." he said. Federal monitors recently examined 4.000 randomly selected North Carolina case files and concluded that 3.6 percent of the cases were closed without sufficient documen tation. A 400-sample study would have been sufficient with random selection. Brooks maintained. Noise ENGINEERING PRIORITY WILL NOT MEET LEGAL BURDEN OF PROOF. COMPANY SAYS The Occupational Safety and Health Administration s priority on engineering controls to reduce workplace noise cannot meet the burden of proof placed on the Secretary of Labor by the Supreme Court's ruling on benzene to show that significant risks can be reduced or eliminated by a change in practices, according to E.l. duPont de Nemours & Com pany. Wilmington. Del. In comments to the agency's workplace noise standard docket. duPont contended the* ash* cannot show that lowering workplace noise levels to /UdBA or 65 dBA solely through engineering controls is reasonably necessary" to assure worker protection. The U S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision issued July 2. ruled invalid OSHA's standard governing worker ex posure to benzene, and declared that the Secretary of Labor must show that a "significant risk" exists before issuing a health and safety standard. "Rather than continue this argument over engineering controls by requiring industry to phase them in in con junction with a standard incorporating hearing conservation programs." duPont urged OSHA to adopt a workplace noise standard that "recognizes the validity of hearing conserva tion programs as an equally effective alternative to engineering controls." In comments submitted to the noise docket earlier, du Pont and others argued that hearing protectors are as effeclive a method of noise control as engineering and ad ministrative measures (Current Report. July 3. p. 122 7-31-80 Oe cup 'io*ol Sofe'y & Health Reporter 0099 3237 90 $00 90 MOD 000013476 Cost Considerations Daniel Johnson. Aerospace Medical Research Lab. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Ohio, recommended limiting or postponing the use of engineering controls of noise when the costs per worker are "excessively high." Based on 1975 cost estimates of reducing the standard from 90 dBA to 85 dBA, prepared by Bolt. Beranek and New man. Inc.. Johnson calculated the percent of dollars that would be saved plotted along with the percent of workers that would still require hearing protection against a max imum cost expenditure per worker for noise control. From this he calculated that little benefit would occur in terms of decreasing the number of workers requiring hear ing protection if more than $900 per worker were spent. "This would seem to indicate that perhaps limiting max imum noise control costs to a value somewhere between $900 and $1000 per worker might be a reasonable and cost effective strategy." Johnson stated. Johnson said that most likely an 85 dBA noise standard could be reached using a combination of engineering controls and hearing protectors for the same cost required to make all of industry meet a 90 dBA noise standard through engineering controls alone. Johnson proposed imposing an 85 dBA standard "for noise that reaches a worker's ear." "It has always upset me to hear that the 85 dBA standard is too costly," he said. "What in fact is too costly is engineering controls used as a blanket procedure." he added. Purchase of Protactora It is "almost universally accepted" that the purchase of ear protectors is the responsibility of the employer, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters told OSHA. If employers attempt to require employees to purchase their own protectors, it will cause resentment among workers, demonstrate a lack of commitment to preventing hearing loss, discourage the use of ear protectors, and engulf the hearing protection program in an adversarial at mosphere. the Teamsters predicted. It said for these reasons "it is absolutely vital" that specific language be included in the standard requiring employers to purchase, provide, and maintain any necessary ear protectors. The Teamsters also recommended that any future noise standard include provisions requiring that workers be "adequately informed." in writing, of any indications of overexposure to noise or hearing loss. Also, the future noise standard must include provisions prohibiting discrimination toward workers exposed or poten tially exposed to harmful noise levels, the union urged. It said that the exercise of administrative controls to reduce noise exposure, such as job rotation or removal, must not be permitted to include any form of discrimination, such as fir ing. layoff, rotation to a lower paying job, loss of hours, or "other infringements on employment conditions or benefits." "The possible financial impact on an employer due to noise induced hearing loss, such as workers* compensation claims, must serve as an incentive to take further actions to prevent such loss, not as an incentive to remove the affected workers." according to the Teamsters. "Without comprehensive protection from such discrimina tion. workers could be faced with a choice between feeding their families or preserving their hearing." the union predicted. OSHA closed the docket on the proposed revision to the workplace noise standard July 3 after temporarily reopening it to accept comment on certain new entries dealing primari ly with hearing conservation Current Report. April 24 p 10911 Other commentors expressed concern about the measure ment capabilities of the instrumentation used to measure the permissible noise dose (Current Report. July 17. p 200 Oversight STATISTICAL INCREASES FAIL TO REFLECT IMPROVED SAFETY. HEALTH. DOO TESTIFIES Statistical increases in occupational injuries and illnesses and in total lost workday cases do not accurately reflect im provements made by the Defense Department in its oc cupational safety and health programs. Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary George Marienthal told the House Educa tion and Labor Subcommittee on Health and Safety July 29. Stressing that the department is "satisfied" but not "complacent" in its evaluation. Marienthal laid the in creases to an improved reporting system and changes in laws governing workers' compensation for federal employees. He cited significant progress since the department's last subcommittee appearance in 1976 and dis counted any merits of bringing the department under Oc cupational Safety and Health Administration jurisdiction. Statistics submitted with Marienthal's testimony showed a rise in occupational injuries and illnesses between 1974 and 1979, from 46.279 to 74.805 during a period in which the total number of employees rose from 956.317 to 1,049.564. Total number of lost workday cases rose in the same period from 9,334 to 31.786. according to the DOD figures The ratio of lost workday cases to the total number of cases rose from one out of five to one out of two. Marienthal defended the statistics by noting that one of the first components of the DOD effort to improve its safety and health programs in 1976 was to bring "varied reporting systems" together into one uniform procedure. The early statistics were apples," he contended, "and we re looking at oranges now." 'Significant Progress' The defense official stressed that ``tremendously cant progress" had been made since 1976. when his t<-nure m office began but that the statistics do not verify the improve ment. "The apparent rise in incidence rates is decrpi,** he cautioned. Asked by Subcommittee Chairman Joseph M Gash's D- Pai whether future statistics will demonstrate turn ,m- provements. Marienthal said, ``I'm not saying they xt they'd better, or I'll be doing something else Marienthal laid the increases in lost workday nwi to several factors, primarily the liberalization erf snyi.ii provided for in 1974 amendments to the Federal l>p,, Compensation Act. The prospect of obtaining the .mpr benefits, along with reluctance on the part of dortorx v ap prove an injured worker's return to work in light * **! malpractice controversies, has caused more wor k*' * workdays, Marienthal stated. Similar increases in total dollar amounts of come---'*' claims can be laid to carryovers of permanent diwK - *od other continuing claims, payment of scheduled n< -* *-* e as those related to hearing loss, and inflation of >*> * .<* rates and medical expenses, Marienthal contend* Pressed by Gaydos to indicate what means the might undertake to "level off" the increase. d that possible changes include provision of alter***-* g* work, the placement of workers' compensate* * budgets of individual commanders, and the imt.'.- * * * three-day waiting period. 7-31-80 Copyright * 1980 by Tha Buraau of National Affair*. Inc. ooas-3237 ao/soo m 000- VlCO 244 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY g, HEALTH REPORTER Mandatory Inspections In response lo questions by Gaydos whether the depart ment was able to "ride herd" on responsible officials in cases of inadequate compliance through demotions, reprimands, or inquiries. Marienlhal conceded that per sonnel actions were limited, due in part to civil service protections. He reiterated, however, that he believed the DOD program lo be excellent in general, and invited sub committee members to visit installations to view its opera tion Marienthal disclosed that most installations undergo man datory annual inspections, while hazardous installations are inspected more often, at a frequency determined by the base commander. He contended that there was no need for valida tion of inspections at the secretarial level, "because there are people looking over (base commanders'] shoulders at every stage." On whether federal agencies should be brought under OSHA jurisdiction. Marienlhal noted that such a proposal raises serious questions of procedure and stated. "On balance, we believe that such an amendment would be un desirable. We believe that the consequent diversion of OSHA's resources would weaken the program in the private sector, without corresponding benefits '' Expanding on his prepared testimony. Marienthal asserted. "We feel we have a great program now. so why change? We are very satisfied with where we are now and would like to continue that way." Asked by Rep. Mickey Edwards (R-Oklal whether the situation is analogous to proposed exemption of private-sector companies with good safety records from OSHA inspections. Marienthal endorsed both the analogy and the proposed exemption. Abatement Funding Gaydos. in concluding the hearing, referred to DOD's progressive intentions" and said that there seemed to be no "widespread neglect." He proposed a partnership between Congress and federal agencies to solve program and policy problems, and stated the possibility that the subcommittee might offer to use its influence in the future on DOD budget requests for safety and health and workers' compensation programs Marienthal had alluded in his testimony lo insufficient funding assistance for institution of engineering controls at local commands. The DOD budget request to abate hazards through engineering controls was $142 million in fiscal 1981. w ith $796 million funded for 1981-65. The target date of the program is the end of fiscal 1984. Procurement NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE SEEKS FIRM TO STUOY FURNITURE-WORKER MORTALITY The National Cancer Institute is seeking nonprofessional technical, managerial, and clerical support to conduct a follow-up mortality study of workers employed in the fur niture manufacturing industry. The study is designed to relate the mortality experience of furniture workers to workplace exposures as determined by job titles and type of furniture manufactured, an NCI an nouncement said. All requests must be in writing, referring to RFP No. NCI-CP-FS-01040-65. to Sydney M. Jones. Contracting Of ficer. Biological Carcinogenesis & Field Studies Contracts Section. Research Contracts Branch. National Cancer Institute. Landow Building, Room 4C-19, 7910 Woodmont Ave . NIH. Bethesda, Md. 20205. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is seeking a contractor to conduct a study of noise/chemical agents effects on hearing Proposals are due 30 days after issuance of RFP No 210-080-0001. which is available from R E. Heil. DHHS PHS CDC/NIOSH. Procurement and Grants Management Branch. Parklawn Building. Room 8-29. Rockville. Md. 20857. NIOSH also is seeking a contractor to conduct an in dustrial hygiene characterization of fluidized bed combus tion processes Interested persons may contact Bill Klemmer. NIOSH, at the above address, and refer to RFP No 210-80-0024-0000. NIOSH also is seeking a contractor to provide data entry services for its Morgantown. W. Va facility Interested per sons may contact Bill Klemmer. NIOSH. at the above ad dress. and refer to RFP No. 210-80-0095-0000. Contract Negotiations NIOSH is negotiating with the Franklin Institute. 20th and Parkway. Philadelphia. Pa. 19103. for additional work on the development of seven criteria documents under Contract No 210-79-0091. NIOSH also is negotiating with the Midwest Research Institute, to expand its industrial hygiene characterization of resource energy recovery systems to include aeroviral sampling and add an additional resource recovery plant to the study NIOSH also is negotiating with Thermo Electron Corpora tion. Waltham. Mass . for additional effort under existing contract No. 210-77-100 to study n-nitroso compounds in the factory environment. Legislation TRUCK SAFETY MEASURE SLATED FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION THIS SESSION Legislation that would tighten up safety standards for commercial trucks, both interstate and intrastate in excess of i 0.000 pounds, is expected to pass both the House and the Senate by the end of this session of Congress. Salvatore J. D'Amico, chief counsel for the House Public Works Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, told OSHR July 24 that he "anticipated" that the proposed Truck Safety Act of 1979 <S 1390) "would get through Congress" before it concludes in early October. Congress was expected to recess by August 2 for the Democratic National Convention and to reconvene again August 18 for the final session of the 96th Congress, now ex pected to end around October 3. According to D'Amico, the subcommittee staff is prepar ing for markup of the truck safety bill in early September prior to full committee approval. S 1390. introduced by Senator Charles Percy (R-IUi last July, would require employers to provide "vehicles and working conditions that are safe and healthy" and employers and employees to "comply with the safety and health stand ards and rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and con duct." The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 69 to 19 on February 20 and then was referred to the House Transportation Sub committee where hearings were held February 25 to March 6. The House version is HR 4971. Among the key provisions in S 1390 are: Protection for drivers who refuse to drive unsafe vehicles and for those who bring safety violations to the attention of federal or state enforcement officers A system of civil fines and criminal penalties for safety violations with the former carrying a maximum fine a $10,000 for failure to comply. For criminal violations the 7-3180 Cc (vput'o<>a! SoI**t & HcgWh P?sric' 00*6-3237/80 SOO SO 0oooi347b maximum penalty would be $25,000, one year in prison, or both. a mandatory complaint investigation requirement, ordering the Secretary of Transportation to look into any nonfrivolous written complaint within 60 days. Teamsters. ATA Support Measure The truck safety bill carries the general support of both the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the American Trucking Association. OSHR was told. In hearings last summer before the Senate Commerce Committee, R. V. Durham, director of safety and health for the Teamsters, said the bill could be improved, but nevertheless represents "a major advancement toward achieving meaningful safety standards for those who work in the trucking industry." However, Durham termed the bill's exemption for trucks weighing less than 10.000 pounds "a serious flaw" and one which should be deleted from the measure. California CAl/OSHA STANDARDS BOARD TO REVISE RULES FOR TRASH COLLECTION EQUIPMENT SAN FRANCISCO -- (By an OSHR staff correspondent) -- A complete revision of California 's job safety standards for mobile refuse and trash collection equipment will be con sidered bv the state Occupational Safety and Health Stan dards Board in Sacramento at a meeting set for August 28. The board also will hear comments on prooosals to change tire-inflation work practices and to amend the list of air borne contaminants in the General Industry Safety Orders to drop the allowable exposure level for trichloroethylene from 100 parts per million parts of air to 25 ppm. The proposed rules for trash and refuse collection equip ment cover both stationary and mobile equipment. They re quire such equipment to meet minimum standards of the American National Standards Institute Z245.1-1975. The proposal also includes new operating rules for compaction equipment to protect workers. The Standards Board will meet in the auditorium. 1416 Ninth St.. Sacramento, beginning at 10 a.m. Health Hazards TESTS ON VOLCANIC ASH PLANNED; AGENCIES CONTINUE HEALTH MONITORING SEATTLE - `By a BNA staff correspondent) -- In an attempt to en 1 disagreements over how much of Mount St. Helens' ash is potentially dangerous to human health because of its crystalline free silica content, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health will send stan dardized samples of ash to a number of laboratories and then analyze their results. Dr. Donald D. Dollbers. research chemist at the NIOSH division of physical science and engineering, told BNA July 14 that some 15 laboratories have agreed to participate in the "round robin," or reference sample program. Laboratories in the Northwest and elsewhere are repor ting widely varying percentages of crystalline free silica that is respirable, Doliberg said. The figures range from zero to as high as 20 percent, he said. Respirable particles are those under 10 microns. Long term exposure to high concentrations of crystalline free silica may result in silicosis (Current Report, June 19, p. 72). Doliberg said results of the analyses should be available in mid-August. Hosp'tals Monitored. Loggers Tasted Dr George Rogers, epidemiologist from the division of tuberculosis control at the Center for Disease Control, now assigned to federal emergency assistance offices in Van couver. Wash., said the short-term effects of breathing ash from Mount St. Helens appear to be minimal. CDC s monitoring of hospital visits for pulmonary problems in dicates irritation of the eyes and lungs seemi to be tem porary. But CDC is testing logging crews in the Chehalis area who are working on ashfall areas and will continue to monitor their health, he said. CDC is concerned also that ash cleanup crews wear face masks. For the general public, protection is not necessary unless further eruptions occur, according to CDC. In that case CDC would advise the general public to "just use common sense" and wear NIOSH-approved devices, he said. Analysis of the chemical makeup of the ash reveals no radiation and indicates the composition is "that of weak fer tilizer minus the nitrogen," Rogers said. California CAL/OSHA APPEALS JUOGE SAYS DOSH HAS CONCURRENT AUTHORITY OVER MINES SAN FRANCISCO -- (By an OSHR staff correspondent) -- The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) has jurisdiction to enforce job safety standards on mining operations in the state so long as the standards do not conflict with those of the Secretary of Labor, an ad ministrative law judge of the California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board ruled July 3. "The state [Occupational Safety and Health) Act and state safety orders apply to mines." said law judge Aldolf Loeb. The case involved a joint venture sand and gravel mining comoanv. Yuba Gold Fields, Inc. and the Lamon r/ It u Yuhti Rirer Ores. Marysville (Docket Nos. 424-80 -- 426-80). The firm was cited by DOSH for allegeo serious violation of 8 CAC 7030(b) because tail pulleys and conveyor belts lacked guarding at their nip points. DOSH also charged that a front-end loader lacked rollover protection and adequate brakes to hold it on a graae. At the hearing, the company said that federal inspectors from the Mine Safety and Health Administration visited the site only a few weeks before the DOSH inspection. The com pany's general manager testified that all MSHA recommen dations were complied with. That testimony raises a threshold issue of the jurisdiction of DOSH to inspect the site and issue its citations, Loeb observed. He concluded that DOSH does have such jurisdic tion to the extent that the standard cited by DOSH does not conflict with another under the Mine Safety and Health Act. "In the administration of the health and safety in mines the Division has jurisdiction under the California Oc cupational Safety and Health Act, concurrent with the Secretary of Labor under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 to the extent that the two taws or stan dards or safety orders promulgated thereunder are not in conflict," he said. Loeb went on to compare the standard cited by the division with 30 CFR 56.14-3, a federal standard on nip points, and found them substantially similar. "Without a conflict between the two orders the cited safety order is not superseded by its federal counterpart and die division may bottom a citation upon it," he decided, affirming the cita tion. Loeb affirmed three serious citations against the com pany, but reduced the penalties assessed for them from $435 to $250 because of good faith. 7-31-80 Copyright * 1980 by The Bureau of National Affairs. Inc 0O9S3237 i0/SO0 SO l3AT3 0000 tfCD 246 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER M*tro-Young Construction Barricades or traffic delineators installed in a public thoroughfare do not create a barrier for an employer that in sulates it against inspection without a warrant, ad ministrative law judge Jonah Lebell said in the case of Metro- Young Construction Company. San Diego (Nos. 314-80 and 315-BO). A DOSH inspector did not violate the firm's constitutional rights when he crossed the barriers to investigate possible job safety violations, Lebell decided. The case arose when a DOSH inspector passed an excava tion site in a roadway. Before presenting credentials to anyone at the site, the inspector crossed a barricade and observed an unshored trench in which a person was working on a water line. He photographed the trench and later cited Metro-Young for alleged serious violation of 8 CAC 1540(b). The employer contended the inspection should be nullified because the inspector failed to present credentials before gaining access to the work site. The site was delineated clearly, the employer claimed, by barricades and traffic control devices. Noting that the work site was in a public area, open to public view, Lebell upheld the validity of the inspection. "Barricades and delineators installed in a public thoroughfare as here described do not create a barrier beyond which the employer has a reasonable expection of privacy requiring the obtaining of an inspection warrant or the presentation of credentials by the division's represen tative before passing between these markers to observe the operation," Lebell explained. He went on to affirm the cita tion and a $185 civil penalty. Susanvill* Construction A standard requiring construction equipment operators to be qualified by training or experience for their work "means having the skill, acquired by training or experience, to recognize the hazards in working with such equipment and how to cope with them." Law Judge Loeb said in construing Construction Safety Order 1510(b). Deciding the case of Susanrilfe Construction Company. Susanville (No. 1401-79). he said the standard "means more than knowing how to start and stop [a heavy construction vehicle] and put it in reverse and forward gear." Susanville Construction was cited for serious violation of the standard after its operator of a nine-wheel pneumatic roller was killed when the roller tipped over. The evidence showed the employee had operated the roller for only two days and received no training for the job. Susanville Construction explained that the employee had experience operating other construction equipment more complicated than the roller. There is no assurance that experience in operating other types of equipment will qualify a worker to operate a nine-wheel roller, Loeb observed. In this case, the employer should have inquired Into the employee's specific qualifications to operate the roller to insure that only qualified personnel operate such equipment, he said. He af firmed the violation as a nonserious one. Wyoming OSHA APPROVES STATE REGULATIONS COVERING MULTI-PIECE WHEEL RIMS The Occupational Safety and Health Administration July 15 approved Wyoming standards for servicing multi-piece wheel rims. According to the OSHA notice (45 FR 47549), the state standards were found to provide worker protection at least as effective as that provided by federal standards. Copies of the Wyoming state supplement, along with the approved state plan, are available for inspection and copying from: Office of the Regional Administrator, OSHA. Room 1554. Federal Building. 1961 Stout St.. Denver. Colo.. 80294. Occupational Safety and Health Department. 200 East Eighth Ave.. Cheyenne, Wyo., 82002. Technical Data Center. Room N2439R, 200 Constitution Ave . N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. South Carolina STANDARDS ON COTTON OUST. PRESERVING RECORDS GIVEN APPROVAL. OSHA REPORTS The Occupational Safety and Health Administration July 15 announced approval for a series of South Carolina safety and health standards. The regulations determined to be identical to federal regulations on the same subjects cover cotton dust, preser vation of records, toxic and hazardous substances, lead, and special air contaminants, according to the OSHA notice (45 FR 47547). Copies of the South Carolina standards supplement, along with the approved plan, are available for inspection and copying at these locations: Office of the Commissioner of Labor. South Carolina Department of Labor, 3600 Forest Drive, Columbia. S.C. 29211. Office of the Regional Administrator. Suite 587. 1375 Peachtree St.. N.E., Atlanta, Ga,. 30309. Director of Federal Compliance and State Programs, Room N-3U2. 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington. D.C . 20210. Procurement CONTRACTS ON ASBESTOS WORKER STUDY. STATE MORTALITY DATA AWARDED BY NIOSH A contract for developing and maintaining a recordkeep ing system for asbestos-exposed workers was awarded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Under the agreement, the Western Institute for Oc cupational Environmental Sciences. Inc.. Berkeley, Calif., will process data from the records of 2,300 workers employed in shipyards or longshoring during World War II and shortly thereafter. Information from 2,300 histories and 800 questionnaires will be entered and verified on mag tapes, and the tapes matched with each other and with an X-ray evaluation tape processed under a previous NIOSH agreement according to the contract. A continuing record of contacts with each examined worker will be maintained, the contract noted. The docu ment also specified that, where appropriate, workers should be referred to the Asbestos Awareness Resource Center, conducted by the Western Institute under a National Cancer Institute grant. The contractor also agreed to send a mailing to each of the workers in July or August 1980, including general informa tion on the Worker Institute program to date and the ac tivities of the Resource Center. According to the contract, the $17,305 agreement will ex pire December 26, 1980. Washington State Mortality NIOSH awarded a $98,896 contract to the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services for a study 7-31-80 MCD 000013480 0(CuD|J'|9"Ol Safety & Health Reporie* 009S 3237/SO/SOO SO CURRENT REPORT of occupational mortality in the state from 1950 through 1979. The contract, scheduled to expire December 28. 1981. calls for a proportionate mortality analysis of Washington residents 20 years of age and older. The study. NIOSH slated, must be capable of providing proportionate mortality ratios for workers in specified age groupings according to the age at death. Also, an expanded study must be conducted to examine the proportionate mortality experience of males and females. For males, the contract said, the analysis must examine the period from 1950 through 1979. and determine proportionate mortality ratios for the periods 1950-59, 1980-69, and 1970-79. as well as for the enure 29-year time frame. For female workers, the study must determine mortality ratios for the period from 1974 through 1979. the contract specified. The contract stated that, from the proportionate mortality data processed, a report is to be prepared for submission to NIOSH. Occupational Haalth Guidalinaa Arthur D. Little. Inc., Cambridge. Mass., will prepare a series of publications providing information on occupational hazards, under a $46,494 agreement with NIOSH. The documents, collectively titled the NIOSH Oc cupational Health and Guidelines series, will deal individual* ly with guidelines for occupational health, medical sur veillance. respiratory protection, and personal protection and sanitation. In addition, the company will prepare a pocket guide to chemical hazards. Similar publications currently are being developed by NIOSH under the Standards Completion Project, the contract noted. It added that the Arthur Little project will deal with 20 substances which were excluded from the SCP after the Occupational Safety and Health Administration initiated rulemaking on them. Among these substances. NIOSH noted, are asbestos, vinyl chloride, inorganic arsenic, coke oven emissions, and beryllium and its compounds. The contract called for Arthur Little to furnish the necessary personnel, material, services, and facilities to prepare a separate guidelines senes for each of the 20 sub stances. The contract expiration date is December 30. 1980 Safety Information Safety information profiles on five subjects are to be written by JRB Associates. Inc.. McLean, Va.t under a $76,667 NIOSH contract effective for one year from June 30. 1980. According to the agreement, the profiles will cover oil and gas field operations, use of personal protective equipment, use and handling of liquified natural gas. hazards of flam* mable and combustible liquids in plastic containers, and use and hazards of flammable solids. Each profile. NIOSH stated, should include information on potential hazards, occupations at risk, number of persons oc 247 cupationally exposed, control technology, accident favors, and the names and addresses of companies involved in rele vant operations According to the terms of the agreement, each profile should be written in a "narrative, informative, and concise manner." and should include tables and graphs North Carolina LEGISLATURE APPROPRIATES FUNDS TO HIRE SIX ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS RALEIGH. N.C. -- (By an OSHR staff correspondenti -- The North Carolina General Assembly in June provided funds to hire six additional industrial hygienists for the state Occupational Safety and Health Division, bringing to 13 the total number of industrial hygienists employed by the state. North Carolina Labor Commissioner John C. Brooks July 23 told OSHR he will ask the General Assembly to ap propriate $994,000 for 44 more industrial hygienists when the legislature convenes next January. The six positions to be filled this year will represent an 85 percent increase in the industrial hygienist staff. Brooks said the state labor department will request ad ditional hygienists each year, but rapid increases are im possible because of the lack of available industrial hygienists. "We think six is about as many as we can get in a 12-month period. " he said. The state has filled three of the six positions created in June and may set up an in-house training program for the other three. North Carolina also has six vacancies in its enforcement program and may start a training course to fill four of those positions. Publication! POTENTIAL LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS, PLANT SURVEY DATA REPORTED BY NIOSH A report on potential safety and health hazards in coal li quefaction processes is available from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Included in the study (Current Report. May IS. p. 11631 is a review of current information on worker health aspects of coal liquefaction, as well as a survey of two liquefaction pilot plants. Sampling at the plants found worker exposure to "low concentrations*' of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and aromatic amines, some of which are suspected car cinogens. NIOSH stated. Other hazards associated with constituent chemicals in the liquefaction process are acute effects from inhalation, severe respiratory irritation, and chemical and thermal burns. NIOSH noted. Copies of the special technical report. "Coal Liquefaction: Recent Findings in Occupational Safety and Health" (No. 80-I22K are available from NIOSH, Robert A. Taft Laboratories. 4676 Columbia Parkway. Cincinnati. Ohio 45226. 7-31-80 Copyright * I960 by The Bureau of National Affair*. Inc. 00M-3237.a0'S00 90 oooo^01 248 Review Commission Activity ACTIVITY OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION This Section includes -- Review Commission Decisions: Decisions and orders of the full commission. Review Commission Final Orders: Judges' reports which have become final, with date of finality Judges' Reports Ordered Reviewed: Date ordered reviewed, judge's report, and issues on review. Court Cases: Filings and dispositions of appeals from commission decisions in the federal courts. Notices of Contest: Notices of contest to Labor Department citations. REVIEW COMMISSION DECISIONS Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 7/18/80 -- citation for violation of 1910.132(a). for failure to require employees working on loading dock to wear steel tipped safety shoes, is affirmed , evidence proved that employees routinely handled items weighing between 25 and 50 pounds and that full load of such items often weighed as much as 700 pounds: employer's argument, that facts did not show hazard of process or environment within meaning of cited standard, is rejected: facts prove that employees were subject to possibility of foot injuries due to falling freight, and Review Commission and appellate court cases have held safety shoes to be required on similar freight docks (No. 76-4146). Red Lobster Inns of America, Inc., 7/18/80 -- judge's deci sion vacating citation for violation of 1926.401(c), for operating electric generator without fastening ground con nection. is reversed and citation is affirmed; evidence show ed that employer's jobsite superintendent, responsible for operations of subcontractors, rented electric generator for 'use at site, compliance officer observed ungrounded generator in use by two carpenters and issued citation to jobsite superintendent; employer argued that none of its employees were exposed to hazard and that jobsite superintendent had no supervisory authority over employees of subcontractors; these arguments are rejected because employer is responsible for violations of other employers where it could reasonably be expected to prevent or abate violations due to its supervisory authority and control over worksite, jobsite superintendent had substantial authority to assure that construction work was completed successfully; his knowledge of violation is properly imputed to employer (No. 79-55191. Stone 4 Webster Engineering Corporation, 7/18/80 -- judge's decision to affirm citation for willful violation of 1926.500(d)(1), for failure to guard opensided platform 18 feet above concrete floor of trench, as serious violation because employer's action could not be characterized as deliberate, conscious, intentional conduct, is affirmed; Secretary argued that judge's decision was erroneous and unduly restrictive in that it imposed upon Secretary ad ditional burden of proving that employer's disregard for legality of its actions was conscious, deliberate, intentional, and voluntary; Secretary's argument, that erection of protective guardrail and its subsequent removal demonstrated willfulness, is rejected; knowledge of stan dard and subsequent violation of standard do not in themselves prove willful violation; Secretary failed to demonstrate that conduct in question reached level of inten tional disregard, reckless or plain indifference necessary to sustain willful violation, employer's belief that guardrail would interfere with installation of waterproof membrane and its subsequent dismantling of that protective barrier was not devoid of reason (No. 15314). Sunrise Plastering Corporation, 7/18/80 -- citation for violation of 1926.500(b)( 1). for failure to guard several floor openings with standard guardrails or covering, is affirmed: employer's argument, that it is not proper party to correct the cited conditions under Anning-Johnson/Grossrrum Steel, is rejected, under that affirmative defense, employer must prove that it is a subcontractor that neither created nor con trolled the violative conditions and therefore lacks the abili ty to correct the violative conditions; testimony of employer's president established that employer was "con trolling employer'' within meaning of Review Commission cases deciding that issue; evidence proved that employer's contract required it to perform all work necessary to bring worksite into compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations; facts of case show that employer did provide guarding for all cited openings but that these guards were removed by other subcontractors at site; facts prove, however, that employer knew of the guardings' removal but failed to remedy the violations; accordingly, it is found that employer knew of cited conditions, that it could have corrected those conditions, and that it had contractual responsibility for doing so (No. 78-646). REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL ORDERS Anderson-Tully Company, 7/17/80 -- citation for violation of Section 5(aK 1) of Occupational Safety and Health Act. for allowing crossties in process of moving from cut-off saw to tumble in manner presenting hazard to employees, is af firmed with penalty reduced from $360 to $25; employer did not contest citation but only the penalty proposed by the Secretary; evidence proved that employer took all steps in order to ensure safety of its employees, including changing of work stations to minimize any employee exposure to hazard: evidence proved that hazard existed only for short period of time while employer awaited shipment of equip ment needed to abate hazard; evidence was unclear as to whether there was any actual exposure to hazard and as to the number of employees so exposed (Brenton, Judge; No. 79-6907). Bergeron Marine. Inc.. 7'18 80 -- citation for violation of 1910.252ia>(2)(iv)(o), for failure to separate oxygen cylinders in storage from fuel-gas cylinders by minimum distance of 20 feet or by noncombustible barrier, is vacated; cylinders were not in storage but were ready for use in loca tion where welding and burning was performed on daily basis; citation for violation of 29 CFR 1916.42(a)(2), for 7-31-80 Occupational So*oty 4 Hi-olth Report** 0095 3237 SO S00 50 CUKHtNI Htruni failure to secure portable ladder, is affirmed, though employees were familiar with workrule requiring tying off or lashing portable ladder, evidence failed to show employer had effective method of enforcing rule; citation for violation of 1916.43(c), for failure to erect guardrail around deck edges of barge, is vacated; evidence established that nature of work prohibited installation and use of guardrails: com pliance with standard was not economically feasible as ad ditional $53,300 product cost was not shown to significantly benefit employee safety; installation and maintenance of guardrails would create hazard not previously in existence iBrenton, Judge; No, 79-54931. Buliema Dock & Dredge Company, 7/14/80 -- citation for violating 1910 410<c'(1). for failing to provide employee in charge of safety and health aspects of dive team members at dive location is affirmed as a serious violation and penally of $300 is assessed; citation for violating 1910.410(a)(4), for failing to require compressor operator to be trained in diving-physics and physiology, is vacated; employer's shift supervisor had adequate authority and responsibility to satisfy requirements for designated person-in-charge, but he was not present at dive location frequently enough to satisfy the standard, nor did two-way radio compensate for this deficiency; compressor operator does not have sufficient control over exposure of others to hyperbaric conditions to require training in diver phvsics and physiology (Brady. Judge; No. 79-731). Bunge Corporation (Indiana), 7/14 80 -- citation for viola tion of 5<a><li of Occupational Safety and Health Act. for (requiring employees to enter unpurged compartments of desolventizer-toaster iDT without first testing atmosphere to assure that hexane level was below explosive limit and for failing to monitor confined space to assure that hexane-air mixture remained below explosive limit, is vacated; Secretary failed to show presence of ignitable source necessary for explosion to occur; citation for violation of 1910 134(a)(2), for requiring employees to enter unpurged compartments of DT without being equipped with supplied air respirator or self-contained breathing apparatus, is af firmed: employer's argument, that hazardous concentration of hexane was not shown and so standard was not applicable, is rejected; evidence established that employees entering DT suffered headaches, dizziness, nausea, and rubbery legs caused by exposure to hexane laden atmosphere; employer s subsequent direction that employees wear proper respiratory equipment showed recognition of hazard; cita tion for violation of 1910.134(e)(3)(i) and 1910.134(e)(3). for failing to ensure that personnel was familiar with written respirator procedures, for failing to prepare emergency procedures in area where, with failure of respirator, employee could be overcome by toxic or oxygen-deficient at mosphere. is affirmed. Employer's argument, that record did not substantiate find ing that atmosphere within DT was dangerous, is rejected; standard applies in situations where dangerous atmospheres might be encountered, either in normal operations or in emergencies and employer had knowledge that dangerous at mosphere might be encountered in course of its operations; employer's placement of written safety procedures in manage ment level offices instead of employee bulletin board did not effectuate familiarization of employees with procedures; record did not indicate that written procedures were discuss ed at safety meetings; citation for violation of 1910.1001 (g) (2)(i>, in that asbestos waste was placed and stored in trash receptacle which did not have caution label affixed, and citation for violation of 1910.1001<h)(2), in that asbestos waste was not collected and sealed in impermeable containers, are vacated, applicability of two standards in question is predicated upon presence of asbestos fibers and record was devoid of evidence showing asbestos in employer s laboratory (Abels, Judge, No. 79-2205). Crane Service. Inc., 7 11 80 -- citation for serious viola tion of 1926 550) a H 15) (tv). for failure to provide designated person to warn of proximity of power line, is vacated; evidence showed that concrete truck driver was attempting to clean out concrete bucket suspended from crane as ac commodation to crane operator when he swung bucket into 7200 volt power lines and was electrocuted; since job being done by crane didn't require boom to swing in direction of power line, no hazard was reasonably foreseeable and no signalman was designated; in exercise of reasonable diligence, employer could not have anticipated any reason for boom of crane to be swung toward power lines (Blythe. Judge. No, 79-5507). Main Tubular Products, Inc.. 7/18/80 -- citation for viola tion of 1910.2l2(ai<3Hii), in that press brake was used without any point of operation guard, is vacated: employer who had never been cited for violation of any standard did not know, and could not have known that cited standard was applicable to its press brake, guarding of press brakes by in dustry in metal fabrication business in employer's area was non-existent; there was no history of injury due to unguarded press brakes; language of regulation would have led employer to believe that press brakes had been specifically exempted from guarding requirements; use of two or more guarding devices on employer's machine was not feasible, was too expensive and would interfere with employer's production capabilities (O'Connell. Judge; No. 78-327). Metz Contracting. Inc., 7, 17 80 -- citation for alleged violation of 1926 652(0. for failure to slope or shore sides of trench located in hard or compact soil, is vacated, evidence proved that employer did slope the trench wall above fivefoot level. Secretary failed to measure trench's width at bot tom or at five foot level so that no degree of slope of the trench walls could be computed; Secretary therefore failed to meet its burden of proving that cited trench was insuf ficiently sloped: citation for nonserious violation of 1926 65H im 1. for failure to store and retain excavated materials at least two or more feet from edge of excavation, is affirmed: Secretary's compliance officer testified that ex cavated material was stored at trench's edge and employer's witnesses made no effort to refute this testimony (McQuade, Judge; No. 79-5789). Thomas Construction Company, loc.. 6/27/80 -- citation for repeated violation of 1926.56(a), in that employees were not provided with adequate illumination within four story structure, is vacated; employer had ceased performing work in building so it had no knowledge of lighting conditions therein; employer, as one of several prime contractors, had no duty to furnish lighting to other trades working within building; citation for violation of 1926.4SI(d)( 10). in that scaffold platform did not have standard guardrail installed on openside and ends, is vacated; no evidence that employer failed to provide feasible protection for workers during erec tion stage; citation for nonserious violation of 1926.150 (a)(1), for failing to develop fire protection program, is vacated; employer's workers were not working within main building and employer did not create fire hazard therein, employer had no duty to furnish fire equipment in building (O'Connell. Judge; No. 77-3646). Wray Electric Contracting, Incorporated, 7/16. 80 -- cita tion for violation of Section 5(a)U) of Occupational Safety and Health Act. for reinstalling wires into control panel 7-31-80 Copyright * 1980 by The Bureau of National Affairs. Inc 009* 3237 BO $00*0 000013483 MOD 250 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER without locking out safely switch when panel was not readily visible from electrician's working position, is vacated; lock-out requirements were not recognized for employer's procedures; other means of protection negated contention that workplace was unsafe; electrician entered shed periodically and would see workman entering shed: guards were present on lead in wires connected to starter box; alternative allegation of 1926 400<g)(l> violation, in that deenergized equipment did not have tags attached where equipment could be energized, is vacated, proposed amend ment related back to date of issuance of citation so six month limitation provision is inapplicable; however record did not show whether tags were or were not attached to switch iLarkin. Judge: No. 79-2973). JUDGES' REPORTS ORDERED REVIEWED Leone Industries, Inc., 7 16 80 -- citation for repeat, serious violation of 1910 212( a M I >. for failure to guard machine's point of operation, is affirmed as serious violation with SI.000 penalty: citation for repeal, serious violation of 1910.219(f)(3). for failure to guard exposed star wheels on machinery, is affirmed as serious violation with $1,000 penalty; undisputed evidence established violative con ditions as alleged by Secretary; employer successfully argued that machinery involved in present citation was "on loan" while its own machinery was being serviced: employer conceded that machinery being serviced was machinery originally cited by Secretary; employer proved that unless it used loaned machinery in unguarded condition it would have to suspend operations and temporarily lay off its employees, accordingly, citations were reduced from repeat to serious classification and were affirmed as such (Fier. Judge). Issue on review; whether judge erred in failing to rule on Secretary's allegation that serious violation found by judge was repeat violation (No. 79-5276'. Williams Enterprises of Georgia, Inc., 6 26 80 -- citation for violation of 1926.28(a) and 1926.105(a), for failure to require employees exposed to fall hazard to use personal protective equipment or provide alternate protection in cluding safety nets and connector's toggles, is affirmed; evidence proved that employees were exposed to 20 to 90 foot fall hazard and that they failed to remain hooked up to safety lines while moving from work station to work station: employer $ argument, that doctrine of res judicata applies in this case to prevent employer from relitigating issue of whether cited standards are applicable to steel erection, is rejected; significant developments in legal principles applicable to this case mitigate against application of doc trine of res judicata; employer's argument, that Subpart R preempts application of cited standard because Subpart R specifically concerns steel erection, is rejected: although Review Commission was unable to agree regarding applicability of Subpart R, appellate court decision has held that general safety requirements were not preempted by Subpart R. Employer's argument, that industry custom did not re quire use of fall protection devices by Secretary and therefore Secretary could not sustain a finding of violation of 1926.28(a), is rejected; evidence of industry practice, although persuasive, is not conclusive with regard to finding violation of cited standard; evidence proved that safety belts and lines could be used by employees while moving from one work station to another; employer's argument, that Secretary failed to establish that use of safety nets or other fall protection measures were feasible, is rejected; burden of proving feasibility is not on Secretary, but on employer to prove their infeasibility: citation for nonserious violation of I926.750<bi( lj(ii. for failure to solidly plank or deck floor except for access openings, is affirmed; employer's argu ment. that openings in decking were access openings and permitted under cited standard, is rejected; evidence prov ed that openings were maintainedfar longer than needed for legitimate access openings: citation for alleged violation of 1926 7S0(bm 1 )(iii). for failure to maintain safety railing at 42 inch height, is rejected: evidence proved that although employer originally installed cited railing, responsibility shifted to general contractor; evidence fails to establish that employer had knowledge of violative condition at time of in spection iSparks. Judge). Issues on review: whether judge erred in concluding that res judicata was not applicable to facts of this case; whether judge erred in concluding that Subpart R precluded finding of 1926 28(a) violation: whether evidence supports judge's finding of 1926.28(a) and 1926.105(a) violation; whether judge erred in finding violation of 1926.750i bi( lxi); whether judge erred in reducing violation of 1926.750(b)( inn to nonserious; whether judge erred in vacating citation for violation of 1926.7504b)f lMiiil on ground that employer was not responsible for maintaining cited safety cable (No 79-4618). COURT CASES Brunswick Corporation, appeal filed by Secretarv. 7/7, 80. 8th Cir . No 80-1580 (RevComm; No. 79-569. $ OSHC 1708' Capital Electric Line Builder of Kansas. Inc., appeal filed by employer. 7 14 80, 10th Cir., No. 80-1711 (RevComm No. 79-2328. 8 OSHC 1707). International Harvester Company, affirmed, 6/16 80. 7th Cir.. No. 79-2035 (RevComm: No. 76-4388. 7 OSHC 1742). J.I. Hass Company. Inc., appeal filed by employer 7 15 80. 3rd Cir.. No. 80-2017 (RevComm: No. 7y-6864 8 OSHC 17J1). NOTICES OF CONTEST AAA Action Rental's, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, is contesting a $70<' additional penaitv for failure ucorrect a violation ol 1910 22(d)) 11 for failure to ensure that floor load capacities were marked and securely affixed in a con spicuous place (No. 80-3209). ABC Paving Company, Inc., and Frank Cimiaelli Construction Company, Inc., West Seneca, N.Y., is con testing a serious citation and a $200 penalty for 1926 28 a for failure to ensure employees' use of appropriate persona) protective equipment where required. The company also is contesting a 1150 penalty for 1926 JO# (d)(2) for failure to guard open-sided runways >N 80-3107) Acme Engineering Company, Scarborough, Maine, is con testing a 1180 penalty for serious citation for 1926.400 ic ) for failure to ensure that employees did not work in prourr.j ty to unguarded electrical power circuits (No. 80-3012 Anchor Ilocking Corporation, Lancaster. Ohio, is con testing a repeated citation and a $3,060 penalty for 191# 2) (c)(1) for failure to guard open-sided floors, 1910.212 <a i for failure to guard machinery blades, and 1910.219 (f ) for failure to enclose sprocket wheels and chains. The company also is contesting a seven-item nonserw** citation, including 1910.179 (b)(5) for failure to ensure rated load markings on cranes were legible from the grow** 1910.179 (j) (4) (i) for failure to inspect cranes idle (or 7-31-80 Ctrui, oi't' & Hrjlth Reraur- 0O95-323TSO/SOC5O HCD 000013484 CUHHtN I rttr-Lm i month or more before use. and 1910 215 (b>< 9) for failure to ensure proper distance between abrasive wheels and the end of safety guards on bench grinders (No. 00*2995). W.A. Arnold A Sons. Three Rivers. Tex., is contesting a $210 penalty for a serious citation for 1910.309 (a) for failure to ground plug- and cord-connected equipment (No. 80-338H. Bauer Radiator, Inc., DePew, N.Y.. is contesting a serious citation and a $180 penalty for 1910.107 (bH1) for failure to ensure that a spray booth was constructed of steel, concrete, or masonry (No. 80-3139). Bridgeport Brass Company, division of National Distillers and Chemical Corporation. Bridgeport, Conn., is contesting a serious citation and a $910 penalty for 1910.179 (d)(3) and 1910 23(0(2) for failure to guard bridge footwalks ade quately and 1910.309(a) for failure to guard electrical equipment against accidental contact with live parts. The company also is contesting a 15-item citation and an $80 penalty, including 1910.212 (a)(1) for failure to guard machinery nip points and pinch points. 1910.22 (a)(1) for failure to maintain a workplace in a clean and orderly condi tion. and 1910.22 (b)(1) for failure to keep an access way clear where mechanical handling equipment was used (No. 80-3124). Burndy Corporation. Norwalk. Conn., is contesting a serious citation and a $350 penalty for Section 5 (a)(1) for failure to ensure that power was locked out of a press before maintenance, inspection, cleaning, adjusting, or servicing iNo. 80-3009). C A D Batteries, division of Eltra Corporation, Conshohocken. Pa., is contesting a seven-item serious cita tion and a S4.770 penalty, including 1910.1025(c)(1) for failure to ensure that employees were not overexposed to lead. 1910.1025id)(b)(ii) for failure to conduct air monitoring for lead exposure as required, and 1925.1025 (g) 11) < i i for failure to provide and require the use of full-body protective clothing for employees exposed to lead. The company also is contesting a willful citation and a $1,200 penalty for 1910.151 (c> for failure to provide quick drenching facilities for employees exposed to corrosive materials (No. 60-3296). Calumet Wilbert Vault Corporation, Gary, Ind.( is con testing a serious citation and a $320 penalty for 1910 309 (a) for failure to ensure a permanent and continuous grounding path from equipment (No. 80-2896). Campbell Soup Company. Inc., Napoleon, Ohio, is con testing a 16-item serious citation and a $5,040 penalty, in cluding 1910.178(k>t2> for failure to ensure that railroad cars did not move during loading, 1910.309(a) for failure to guard live parts of equipment against accidental contact, and 1910.23(c)(1) for failure to guard open-sided platforms adequately (No. 80-3002). Capitol Steel Construction, Inc., Hillcrest Heights, Md., is contesting a serious citation and a $200 penalty for 1926 250(a) for failure to secure material stored in tiers against sliding, falling, or collapse (No. 80-3183). JAR Carrozza Plumbing Company, Chicago, III., is con testing a serious citation and an $80 penalty for failure to en sure employees' use of protective helmets (No. 80-2992). Chromalloy Research and Technology Division, Chromalloy American Corporation. Orangeburg, N.Y.. is contesting a serious citation and a $1,600 penalty for Section 5(a>( 1) for failure to equip laser systems with at least two safety interlocks and for failure to establish and maintain safety procedures to protect employees from possible radia tion exposure (No 80-3131). G. and W. H. Corson, Inc., PI) mouth Meeting, Pa., is con testing a serious citation and a $720 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to properly safeguard a grade crossing (No. 80-3297). Da>ton Forging A Heat Treating Company. Dayton, Ohio, is contesting a serious citation and a $290 penalty for 1910 215(a)(4) for failure to ensure that grinding machinery was used with work rests to support off-hand grinding work (No 80-3093). DeSoto, Inc., Chemical Coating Division. Cotumbus, Ohio, is contesting a serious citation and a $1,260 penalty for 1910.132(a) for failure to ensure employees' use of protec tive equipment where required and 1910.1000(a)(2) for failure to ensure that employees were not overexposed to carbon monoxide (No. 80-2528). Falls Church Construction Corporation. Falls Church. Va., is contesting a five-item serious citation and a $1,450 penalty, including 1926.28(a) for failure to ensure employees' use of fall protection equipment, 1926 400(h) (1) for failure to use an assured equipment grounding conductor program for temporary wiring, and 1926.500(c)(1) for failure to guard wall openings (No. 60-3292). Federal Die Casting Company, Chicago, 111., is contesting a willful citation and a $20,000 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to train and instruct employees in safe operation of hydraulic trim presses and for failure to equip a hydraulic trim press with filters, a lubricator, a pressure regulator, and a pressure guage for air supply lines. The company also is contesting an 11-item serious citation and a $9,900 penalty, including Section 5(a)(1) for failure to take precautions against molten aluminum mixing with water near melting furnaces, for failure to establish a routine checking and cleaning program for hydraulic trim presses, and for failure to maintain safe air temperatures for control valves to operate. The company also is contesting a five-item repeated cita tion and a $5,400 penalty, including 1910.2l7(e)( 1 Xii) for failure to inspect and test mechanical power presses as re quired. 1910.217(c)(3)(viii)(a) for failure to design mechanical power presses to ensure that controls were not accidentally operated, and 1910.219(e)(l)(i) for failure to guard horizontal belts as required. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation and a $100 penalty for 1910.242(b) for failure to reduce com pressed air used for cleaning purposes to less than 30 psi (No. 80-2903). Fibre-Metal Products Company, Concordville, Pa., is con testing a serious citation and a $400 penalty for 19l0 212(a)(3)(ii> for failure to guard machinery points of operation (No. 80-3309). Foreman Industries, Inc., Dayton, Ohio, is contesting a seven-item repeated citation and a $28,000 penalty, in cluding 1926 28(a) and 1926.105(a) for failure to provide fall protection for employees, 1926.28(a) for failure to ensure that an employee was wearing eye protection where re quired, and 1926.450(a) for failure to withdraw defective ladders from service. The company also is contesting an 11-item serious citation and a $5,800 penalty including 1926.152(g)(9) for failure to post "No Smoking" signs in service and refueling areas. 1926.102(a)( 1) for failure to ensure an employee's use of eye protection, and 1928.1S2(g)(ll) for failure to provide an adequate fire extinguisher where required. 7-31-80 Copyright 1980 by Th Suraau of National Affairs. Inc 0095 3237 80 S0C50 Aft6 0 252 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER The company also is contesting a willful citation and a $4,200 penalty for 1926.451 tek 10) for failure to guard a scaffold adequately. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1926 350< h > for failure to ensure that an oxygen-cylinder gauge was in proper working order (No. 80-2923). Foreman Industries Inc.. Dayton. Ohio, is contesting a five-item citation and a S3.000 penalty, including 1926 400<a) for failure to guard electrical equipment from physical damage. 1926 401(0 for failure to ensure a perma nent and continuous ground path from equipment, and 1926 6U2ich 1)(vi) for failure to ensure that an employee operating a powered industrial truck was trained and authorized for such work. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1926 152(a)(1) for failure to ensure use of approved metal safety cans for handling and use of flammable liquids and 1926 350' a n 9> for failure to secure compressed-gas cylinders in an upright position (No. 80-29241. Garlock. Inc., Mechanical Packing Division, Palmyra, N.Y., is contesting a seven-item citation and a $1,980 penalty including 1910.242(b) for failure to ensure that compressed air used for cleaning purposes was reduced to less than 30 psi. 1910 212( a>< 3><ii > for failure to guard machinery points of operation, and 1910 217<c)(2)(iHd) for failure to ensure that point-of-operation guards did not utilize fasteners readi ly removable by the operator so as to create the possibility of misuse or removal of essential parts (No. 80-3105). General Motors Corporation. Rochester Products Divi sion. Detroit. Mich., is contesting a serious citation and a $630 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to ensure that employees did not ride a lift platform designed for carrying material only (No. 80-3130). Grises-Atkinson Joint Venture. Vancouver, Wash., is con testing a repeated citation and a $1,260 penalty for 1926 300<b'i2> for failure to guard moving parts of equip ment The company also is contesting a serious citation and a $720 penalty for i926.550<ai<9> for failure to barricade areas to prevent employees from being struck or crushed by a crane (No. 80-3215). Grobet File Company, New Hampshire. Inc.. Charlestown. N. H.. is contesting a serious citation and a $360 penalty for 1910 217(bi(3Kii for failure to ensure that mechanical power presses using full-revolution clutches incorporated a smgle-stroke mechanism (No. 80-3225). Grunau Sprinkler Company. Inc.. Milwaukee, Wis., is con testing a serious citation and a $420 penalty for 1926 450(a)(1) for failure to provide safe access to all elevations The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1926 451ia)( 12) for failure to secure planking of platforms from movement (No. 80-3204). Hamer Lumber Company, Ronceverte, W. Va., is con testing a nine-item serious citation and a $3,050 penalty, in cluding Section 5(aHli for failure to institute an effective preventive maintenance program requiring predetermined replacement of hydraulic lines, 1910.265(c)( 12)(v) for failure to lock out power on equipment before maintenance and repair, and 1910 265(g) for failure to provide personal protective equipment where required (No. 80-3290). Harrison Iron & Metal, Inc., Chicago, III., is contesting a 19-item serious citation and a $9,030 penalty, including 1926.21 (b m 2) for failure to instruct employees in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions and applicable regulations. 1926 352(i) for failure to clean, test, and ven tilate a tank which had contained a toxic or flammable sub stance before an employee began torchcutting. and 1925.401(0 for failure to ensure a permanent and continuous grounding path from equipment. The company also is contesting a nine-item nonserious citation and a $395 penalty, including 1926.350'g)f2> for failure to remove defective gas torches from service. 1926.350(a)(9) for failure to secure compressed gas cylinders in an upright position, and 1926 24 for failure to take responsibility for maintenance of an effective fire protection and prevention program (No. 80-3218). Kokosing Construction Company. Inc., Fredericktown, Ohio, is contesting a serious citation and a $560 penalty for 1925.28(a) and 1926 105(a) for failure to provide fall protec tion to employees where required (No. 80-3233). Leather Shop Inc., Concord. Mass., is contesting a serious citation and a $280 penalty for 1910212<a)(3)(u) for failure to guard machinery points of operation. The company also is contesting an eight-item nonserious citation, including 1910.2(a)(1) for failure to post a notice informing employees of their rights and responsibilities un der the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1910.212(a)(1) for failure to guard machinery nip points, and 1910 215(a)(2) for failure to ensure that double wheel grinders were guarded properly (No. 80-3228). Lee's Log Cabin, Inc., d/b/a Log Cabin Kitchen, Schofield, Wis., is contesting a serious citation and a $360 penalty for 1910 309(a) for failure to ground volt receptacles as re quired and 1910.309<a) for failure to ground plug- and cord connected equipment (No. 80-2922). Lincoln Pulp and Paper Company, Lincoln, Maine, is con testing a 27-item repeated citation and a $26,230 penalty, in cluding 1910.309(a) for failure to guard live parts of elec trical equipment. 1910.309(a) for failure to ground plug- and cord-connected equipment, and 1910.309(a) for failure to provide a permanent, continuous grounding path from equip ment The company also is contesting a 27-item serious citation and a $23,100 penalty, including 1910.261(b) (11) for failure to cover revolving surfaces of shaft couplings with safety sleeves. 1910.261(b)< 1) for failure to guard sprocket wheels and chains, and 1910.261(a><3)<xiii) for failure to ensure that a crane was not operated under known unsafe con ditions. The company also is contesting a $29,300 additional penal ty for failure to correct nine violations, including 1910.261(g)(9) for failure to provide the required number of exits, 1910.309(b) for failure to provide disconnecting means for wooden fuse boxes, and 1910.309(a) for failure to ensure a permanent and continuous grounding path from equipment. The company also is contesting a 24-item nonserious cita tion and a $1,965 penalty, including 1910.216(a)(3)(ii) for failure to guard open-sided platforms. 19l0.216(a)(3)(vi) for failure to maintain ladders in a safe condition, and 1910 26l(a)(3)(xv) for failure to withdraw defective powered industrial trucks from service (No. 80-3205). Majestic Industries, Inc., Teterboro. N.J., is contesting a $2,520 penalty for a nine-item serious citation, including 1910.309(a) for failure to ground plug- and cord-connected equipment and for failure to guard live parts of electrical equipment from accidental contact, and 1910.212(a)(3Hu> for failure to guard machinery points of operation (No 80-3129). Daniel Marr & Son Company. South Boston, Mass., is con testing a serious citation and a $120 penalty for 731 80 Qrcup iiior.al So(r> & F>po:*et 0096 323?/0'S00 SO MOD 000013433 <-3 J 1926 500* e h 1(in i for failure to guard open-sided stairways adequately (No. 80*3010). Mechanicals. Inc.. Cincinnati, Ohio, is contesting a serious citation and a $1,660 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to ensure adequate means of support for piping being install ed by employees and for failure to ensure that adequate equipment was supplied and used properly for pipe installa tion. and 1926.21(b)(2) for failure to instruct employees in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions and applicable regulations (No. 80-3095). Metropolitan Edison Company. Reading, Pa., is contesting a 14-item serious citation and a $3,660 penalty, including 1910 309* a > for failure to guard live parts of electrical equip ment from accidental contact, l9l0.252<bK3KiiiKa) for failure to provide a disconnect switch with overload protec tion for an outlet connected to a portable arc welder, and 1910 309(a) for failure to ensure that current-carrying parts of plugs and connectors were enclosed. The company also is contesting a 13-item nonserious cita tion. including'l9l0.22ia)(2) for failure to maintain floors in a dry condition. 1910.37(a) for failure to ensure that exit components were constructed as integral parts of the building, and I910.37(k)(2) for failure to maintain means of egress free of obstruction iNo. 80-3261). Midwest Steel Erection, Inc., Southfield, Mich., is con testing eight items of a 10-item serious citation and a $5,320 penalty, including 1926.4Sl(a)( 4) for failure to guard a scaf fold adequately. 1926 45UaM15) for failure to ensure that upright members of a scaffold were plumb, and 1926.451(e)(4) for failure to ensure that scaffold platforms were tightly planked. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1926 451(e)(8) for failure to lock the wheels of a mobile scaffold (No. 80-3008). Monongaheta Power Company, Fairmont, W. Va., is con testing a serious citation and a $420 penalty for 1926.955)ax6)(i) for failure to ensure that an employee standing on the ground was wearing suitable protective equipment to avoid making contact with equipment while working beside energized lines (No. 80-3231). George Moore Incorporated, Manassas, Va.. is contesting a $2,500 penalty for a six-item serious citation, including 1926.500(b)(1) for failure to guard floor openings. 1926 450(a)(9) for failure to ensure that side rails of ladders extended more than 36 inches above landings, and 1926.451 (b)(15) for failure to guard a scaffold adequately (No 80-3310). \L Industries. Inc., New York, N. Y., is contesting a serious citation and a 1180 penalty for 1910.132(a) for failure to ensure employees' use of personal protective equipment (No. 80-3272). National Engineering & Contracting Company, Strongsville, Ohio, is contesting a serious citation and a $700 penalty for 1926.600{a)(3)<ii) for failure to ensure that equipment parked on an incline Had wheels chocked and the parking brake set (No. 80-3267). Nursery Supplies. Inc., Fairless Hilts, Pa., is contesting a seven-item serious citation and a $3,220 penalty, including 1910 95(a) for failure to protect employees against the effects of noise. 19l0.212(a)(3)(ii) for failure to guard machinery points of operation, and 1910.219(f)(3) for failure to enclose sprocket wheels and chains (No. 803299). Oakley Pattern and Foundry Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, is contesting a six-item serious citation and a $3,570 penalty. including 1910 1025< r1 4 - for fullure to complete framing of employees exposed to lead within 180 days of the standard's effective date. 2910 1025< e>i 2 > for failure to provide employees with respirators where engineering controls to reduce exposure to lead are absent, and 1910.134* a n 2 > for failure to establish and maintain an effective respiratory protection program as required The company also is contesting a repeated citation and a $1,400 penalty for 1910.134(a)(2) for failure to establish and maintain an effective respiratory protection program as re quired (No. 80-3007J. Ohio Brass Company, Mansfield, Ohio, is contesting a willful citation and a $2,000 penalty for Section 5* a it 11 for failure to ensure that employees were wearing approved per sonal protective equipment while pouring molten metal. The company also is contesting a serious citation and an $800 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to ensure that employees did not work within the operating radius of a crane boom and 1910 23<cX3 for failure to guard an open sided platform (No. 802529). Charles Parker Company, Meriden, Conn., is contesting a $420 penalty for a serious citation for 1926.28^a ) for failure to ensure employees' use of personal protective equipment (No. 80-3015). J. C. Penney Company. Inc.. Oklahoma City. Okla., is con testing a serious citation and a $360 penalty for 1926.401(a)(1) for failure to ground plug- and cordconnected equipment (No. 80-3308). Leon H. Perlin Company, Inc., Newport News, Va., is con testing a serious citation and a S480 penalty for 1926.550< b > (2) for failure to ensure that cranes were not loaded beyond their rated load iNo. 80-3303). Precision Tool and Production, Dayton, Ohio, is con testing a $350 penalty for a serious citation for 1910 1001 (j)(2) for failure to make available initial medical ex aminations to employees exposed to airborne asbestos fiber (No. 80-3274). Pullman Power Products, Inc., Williamsport. Pa., is r^n testing a serious citation and a $2,600 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to ensure that employees did not use an elevator before it had been inspected, tested, or licensed for use and before safety switches and interlocks had been con nected. for failure to ensure that employees working in a chimney were protected from falling objects overhead and for failure to provide safe access to a work area V> 80-2928). Reflector Hardware Corporation, Melrose Park. Ill * contesting a serious citation and a $400 penam ' >r 1910 2l2(aK3i(u! for failure to guard machinery pnrv .< operation. The company also is contesting a willful citation 1<* v* tion 5(a)(1) for failure to ensure that a mechanical brake did not repeat when set in the ``once" or ` inch (No. 80-2751). Research-Cottrell, Inc., Somerville, N. J., is con?*-*' serious citation and a $720 penalty for 1926 451'e . * * failure to guard a scaffold adequately (No. 80-3302 Daniel J. Rice, Inc., Long Island City, N. Y., is cvc**' a serious citation and a $240 penalty for 1926 lOo * + failure to ensure employees' use of protective helme* - required and 1926.500(b)(1) for failure to gu*r j openings (No. 80-3109). Riley Stoker Corporation, Erie. Pa., is contesting ^ *> serious citation and a $60 penalty for 1910.132( a > for . 7-31-80 Copyright * 1980 by The Bureau of National Affairs. Inc 009S 3237 80 SOO 50 0000^ 254 to ensure employees' use of persona] protective equipment where required (No. 80-3298j. Leo B. Schroeder, Inc., Dayton, Ohio, is contesting a serious citation and an $850 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to ensure that employees had information necessary to determine the counterweight for safe erection of a scaf fold. 1926 400(a) for failure to guard electrical equipment against physical damage, and 1926.5O0(b)U> for failure to guard floor openings. The company also is contesting a repeated citation and a $980 penalty for 1926.21 (bu21 for failure to instruct employees in the recognition and avoidance of safe con ditions and applicable regulations. The company also is contesting a 1980 penalty for a repeated citation for 1926.401(0 for failure to ensure a per manent and continuous grounding path from equipment (No. 80-2536). Sedalia-Marshall-Boonville Stage Lines, Inc., Des Moines, lowq, is contesting an $800 penalty for a serious citation for 1910.219(d)(1) for failure to guard pulleys, 1910.309(a) for failure to guard live parts of electrical equipment from ac cidental contact, and 1910.309(a) for failure to ground plugand cord-connected equipment (No. 80*3307). Stirling's One-Hour Martinizing Cleaners, Beaumont, Tex., is contesting a serious citation and a $420 penalty for 1910.309(a) for failure to guard live parts of electrical equip ment from accidental contact (No. 80-3380). Stobs Bros. Construction Company, Miami, Fla., is con testing a serious citation and a $240 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to protect employees from possible hazard of falling materials from a building entrance where upper-level formwork was conducted. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1926 125(a) for failure to keep work areas free of debris and 1926 500(b)(1) for failure to guard a floor opening (No 80-3136). Stringert and Bowers, Inc., McKees Rocks, Pa., is con testing a serious citation and a $630 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to guard a roof edge or provide fall protection for employees working there (No. 80-3301). Tate Brothers Manufacturing, Inc., Durant, Okla., is con testing a repeated citation and a $160 penalty for 1910.95(b)(3) for failure to administer a continuing, effec tive hearing conservation program. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER The company also is contesting a six-item nortsertous cita tion. including 1910.1025(c)(1) for failure to ensure that employees were not overexposed to lead. 1910.1025< d) < 21 for failure to conduct initial monitoring to determine employees' exposure to lead, and 1910.1025(fx3Kii) for failure to perform quantitative face fits for negativepressure respirators (No. 80-3176). Treasure Chest Advertising Company, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, is contesting a $1,380 penalty for a serious citation for 1910.24(b) for failure to provide fixed stairs where required. 1910 212(a)(3xii) for failure to guard machinery points of operation. 1910.219(c)(3) for failure to enclose vertical shafting with stationary casing, and 1910.309(a) for failure to guard live parts of electrical equipment from accidental contact (No. 80-3092). Union Carbide Corporation, Metals Division, Marietta, Ohio, is contesting a serious citation and a $1,680 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to keep a railroad bed dry to allow locomotives to stop in an emergency, for failure to equip a locomotive with a proper sanding apparatus, and for failure to maintain proper openings in flangways at turnouts tn track crossings. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1910.22(a)(2) for failure to keep a rail yard dry to prevent employees from slipping (No. 80-3208). United Drilling Company, Oklahoma City, Okla., is con testing a serious citation and a $1,440 penalty for Section 5<a)(li for failure to secure a drilling hose, I9l0.23(c)(3` for failure to guard open-sided walkways. 1910.133ia>( 1) for failure to provide eye and face protection where required, and 1910.2l9(eMl)(i) for failure to enclose horizontal belts as required (No. 80-3270). Vanco Ring Gasket Specialty. Inc., Stafford. Tex., is con testing a $280 additional penalty for failure to correct a violation of 1910.95(b)(3) for failure to administer a con tinuing. effective hearing conservation program (No. 80-3273 >.. Wrecking Corporation of America, Cleveland, Ohio, is con testing a serious citation and a $1,620 penalty for 1926.28* a) for failure to ensure employees' use of personal protective equipment. 1926.152(d)(4) for failure to provide a fire ex tinguisher for a diesel fuel tank truck. 1926.302(b)(7) for failure to equip a hose w'ith a pressure-reduction safetydevice. and 1926.850(h) for failure to ensure that debris was not dropped through floor holes without shutes or a barricad ed area (No. 60-3285). Copies of court opinions reported in Occupational Safety & Health Reporter and not yet published in OSHR Decisions are available on loan to subscribers by contacting BNA's Opinions Clerk, (202) 452-4202. Review Commission rulings and other documents may be obtained by contacting BNA's Research and Special Projects Division, (202) 452-4324. 7-31-80 MCD 000013488 Occupot-oral Safety & Health Reporter 009$ 3237 SO $00 SO Full Text OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION NOTICE OF PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF COTTON DUST STANDARD ENFORCEMENT [45 FR 50328, July 29, 1980] DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1910 Occupational Safety and Health Standards; Occupational Exposure to Cotton Dust in Warehousing and Classing Industries AOCNCY: Occupational Safetyond Health Administration, Department of Labor. Aenow Suspension of enforcement of rule In certain industries. Summary: Pending further administrative reconsideration. OSHA has suspended enforcement of its occupational safety and health standard for exposure to cotton dust (29 CFR 1910.1043} in the cotton classing and cotton warehousing Industries. During this period, the preexisting standard for exposure to cotton dust in 29 CFR 1910.1000 will be enforced. OATt: Enforcement of the standard will' be suspended in the warehousing and classing industries as of July 25,1980, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Bailus WaQcer (202) 523-7075. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSHA issued a final occupational safety and health standard for occupational exposure to cotton dust on June 19.1979 (codified at 29 CFR 1910.1043; published at 43 FR 27350-399. June 23,1978). The standard applied to textile manufacturing and non-textile industries such as cottonseed processing, furniture and mattress manufacturing, cotton waste recycling, cotton warehousing, end classing offices. (A separate standard was issued to regulate exposure to cotton dust in cotton gins. (29 CFR 1910.1048 and 1928.113; 43 FR 27434. June 23.1978).) Petitions for review of the standard were consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and a stay of the standard pending judicial review was issued on October 20,1978. Petitions filed by representatives of the cotton waste processing industries and purchasers and users of cotton batting were severed from the main action on November 1, 197Q. On October 24.1979, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the standard except as it applied to cottonseed oil mills. It subsequently denied petitions for rehearing, suggestions for rehearing en banc, and motions to continue the stay (except for cottonseed oil mills], and the standard became effective and enforceable on March 27.1980. See 48 FR 12418, February 26,1980. The case involving the waste processing industries and purchasers and users of cotton baiting is still before the D.C Circuit, and the judicial stay of the standard as to those industries remains in effect. A stay of the cotton ginning standard issued by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit also remains in effect. Petitions for Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit's October 24.1979 decision were filed by the American Textile Manufacturers Institute and several individual textile manufacturers, the Cotton Warehouse Association end American Cotton Shippers Association (representing the cotton warehousing industry and cotton classing offices), and the National Cotton Council of America (representing the entire cotton industry). The Secretary of Labor's brief in opposition to these petitions will be filed with the Supreme Court on July 28, 198a On July 2.198a the Supreme Court affirmed the Judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidating OSHA's standard for occupational exposure to benzene. Industrial Union Department. AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute (Nos. 78-911 and 781038). Briefly, the Supreme Court ruled that when regulating a toxic substance, the Secretary of Labor must find, as a threshold matter, that the substance poses a significant risk of material impairment and that the new, lower standard will eliminate or reduce that risk. After reviewing the Supreme Court's benzene decision, the administrative rulemaking record on cotton dust, and the preamble to the cotton dust standard. OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the statement of basis and purpose m the cotton dust preamble may not adequately describe the rationale for including cotton warehousing and cotton classing offices. OSHA is now undertaking a more extensive review and analysis of the preamble and rulemaking record to determine the possible regulatory options with respect to cotton warehousing and cotton classing offices. Given the likelihood of further administrative action on the standard as it applies to these two industries OSHA is suspending enforcement of the standard in these two industries until this reconsideration is completed. Public notice will be given if further administrative proceedings are undertaken. During this period when enforcement of the new standard is suspended. OSHA will enforce the preexisting national consensus standard for exposure to cotton dust (29 CFR 1910.1000. Table Z--1) in the cotton warehousing and cotton classing industries. This is in accordance with OSHA's express intent to provide continued protection to. workers until the provisions of the new standard are fully effective and enforceable. See 43 FR 27350, Column 2. This action does not affect the enforcement of the new standard in the textile manufacturing industry, as to which a determination has been made that the standard meets the Supreme Court's requirements, or in any non textile industries other than classing and warehousing. Signed at Washington. D.C this 25th day of July 196a Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary ofLabor. 7-31-80 MCD 000013489 256 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY , HEALTH REJC NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH NOTICE ON GRANTS FOR STUDIES OF REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS PHOGHAM A WOi'SCEMEKT GRANTS ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW BRANCH. OFFICE OF EXTRAMURAL COORDINATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS. NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OC CUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH. CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL. TITLE REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS FROM OC CUPATIONAL HAZARDS. Application receipt dates: November 1, March 1. and July 1. Altered fertility, low birth weight, spontaneous abortion, transplacental carcinogenesis, congenital rmjf/nrirmnon. njufdppMPsis. and dcrelopmenffll abnonniilitics are among the effects on reproduction that have been recognized to result from toxic occupational ex posure. Exposure of both men and women can produce these effects. The knowledge base in the area of toxic reproductive hazards is relatively small. The National Institute for Oc cupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) would like to expand its involvement in the identification and prevention of reproductive effects from occupational hazards. The scope of this announcement is flexible to encourage various in teractive combinations of research approaches that might yield insight into the issues and problems surrounding reproductive effects as a consequence of physical and chemical occupational hazards. The Institute is seeking applications for research and demonstration grants concern ed with basic and applied projects in areas such as epidemiology, toxicology, control technology, and health education. I BACKGROUND INFORMATION The current responsibilities of NIOSH were established by the Public Health Service Act. the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act of 1977. A major NIOSH responsibility un der those Acts is to conduct research necessary to ensure, in sofar as possible, that no worker will suffer diminished health, reduced functional capacity, or decreased life ex pectancy as a result of his or her work experience. As a part of this responsibility NIOSH is concerned with discovering the identity and, if possible, the prevalence of physical and chemical hazards to which male and female workers who are exposed that might affect the development of their un born children. While a relatively few chemical and physical agents are generally accepted as proven mutagens, teratogens, or carcinogens in humans, over a thousand agents are reported to have these effects in animals. Furthermore, many of these agents are reported to be mutagenic in biologic test systems and thus must be suspected as capable of causing reproductive effects in humans. Over the past several decades there has been a threefold increase in the number of women employed in the U.S. workforce. During this period women have been employed in more hazardous occupations including those traditionally restricted to men. In recent years an increasing number of pregnant women have remained on the job until near the end of pregnancy. Thus, many more women and their unborn children are being exposed to chemical, physical, and psy chological hazards of the workplace. Despite this fact, very little is known about the impact of such exposures on fetal wastage and growth and development. Because of the unique role of women in the reproductive process, exposure to chemical and physical hazards has targeted attention on the risks to the offspring of maternal exposure In so doing, we tend to forget that the working male exposed lo mutagenic agents also places the health of his offspring at risk. Other areas of concern are: (1) Recognition of the potential that exists for harm to the germ cells of parents of both sexes signals a need to in vestigate the possibility that occupational hazards might affect the fertility of both men and women; < 21 The realization that significant quantities of industrial materials may be brought home in clothing resulting in the potential exposure of non-working pregnant women, makes studies of teratogenicity of agents to which male workers are exposed as important as studies of infertility and mutagenicity, and 13) The possibility that childhood cancers may be related to pre-natal environmental exposures. NIOSH is offering both a challenge and an opportunity to talented researchers interested in the study of reproduc tive effects from occupational exposures. II AREAS OF RESEARCH INTEREST The goal of this announcement is to stimulate and en courage high (/t/ahtp research and demonstration grants in the areas of research listed below. These areas are not mutually exclusive It is anticipated that a given research study may cut across several areas. Included under each listed area are examples of the types of studies which would be of interest to NIOSH. They are not meant to be restrictive and are cited for illustrative purposes only. A. EPIDEMIOLOGY ASD BIOMETRY: Projects which consider the epidemiology of reproductive effects, including altered fertility, spontaneous abortion, fetal deaths, genetic diseases and disorders and childhood cancer, resulting from chemical and physical occupational hazards. Of particular interest are studies where dose-effect rela tionships are identified or determined. NIOSH is in terested in epidemiological research using a variety of methods or approaches. Such methods include those which generate hypotheses and typically use registries, medical records or statistics as the primary data source and those methods which tend to confirm hypotheses by demonstrating dose-effect relationship or the prevention of an effect by in terruption of exposure. Specific examples of epidemiology studies include: Studies which identify groups of workers with abnormal reproductive experience and determine probable cause. Studies to determine whether an incidence of infer tility. spontaneous abortion, or fetal mortality in the reproductive experience of a specific group of workers and or spouses is abnormal. Studies to assess the parental employment relatedness of cancer in childhood. Studies on known reproductive hazards to evaluate and compare methodologies and to determine association between endpoints of the methodologies. B. TOXICOUXi V. Projects to identify reproductive (mutagenic, teratogenic, etc.) hazards of chemicals to workers and to provide an early warning of the possible deleterious effects. Specific examples include: Research which develops test systems to detect mutagenic activity of air particulates, chemical mixtures or complexes found in the workplace. 7-31-80 Published ov tme bureau of national affairs inc Washington oc 2003?  Projects which study the possible synergistic effect of mutagenic and teratogenic chemicals produced in workplaces Research to validate human cell mutagenic assay systems. Studies which evaluate the usefulness of body fluid analvsis and cytogenic assay systems for the assessment of the mutagenic ha?ard of chemicals to workers. C E X P E R I M E X TA L LABORATOR Y l\ \ h:STI (i ATI OS'S . Projects to elucidate the biochemical and physiological mer/totiisrns of ocNrrtp and nature of reproductive hazards in the workplace. Ex* amples include Studies to develop and validate screening systems based upon biochemical, enzymatic, or hormonal components of body fluids <eg.. blood, urine, semen) that can be used as reliable indices of the functional state of the reproductive system. Investigations to develop, improve, or validate short term or -M rm>, methodMor teratogenesis testing. Studies of mechanisms of teratogenesis. with the goal to improve the ability to predict relative teratogenic potential gf chemically related compounds or to make inter-species extrapolations of teratogenesis data. Research on the mechanisms by which abnormalities are induced in sperm head morphology and the implications of morphological changes as indicators of induced mutations or of impaired reproductive capacity. D. COXTROL TECHXOLOGY Projects to develop new and improved methods or equipment to prevent reproductive effects from occupational hazards. Studies which identify workers potentially or actually exposed to reproductive hazards and design new or improved controls for the hazards. Research which adapts existing methods, as well as develop new methods of monitoring and controlling reproductive hazards in the workplace. Research which seeks to use innovative approaches, such as alternative materials, engineering controls, process modification and protective equipment to prevent known or suspected reproductive problems, E. HEALTH EDCCATIOX RESEARCH AXD DEMOXSTRATIOS' PROJECTS: Projects to increase awareness of the importance of reproductive hazards in the workDlace. Examples include: Development of educational programs for health professionals, and worker educators to increase their awareness of the issues and problems surrounding reproduc tive effects from occupational hazards. MECHANISM OF SUPPORT The traditional grant-in-aid mechanism will be used to support grants pursuant to this Program Announcement. Nonprofit organizations and institutions. State and local governments and their agencies, are eligible to apply. Grants may be supported for up to three years, and may be renewed for an additional period, subject to the competitive review procedure and availability of funds. Awards will be made based on priority score ranking, as well as availability of funds for this Program. Grantees will be required to cost share a minimum of five percent. Grants will be made under the legislative authorization in Section 20< a) (1 > of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 USC 669 (a)(1). Public Law 91-596. The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Citation is Sec tion 13.262. REVIEW PROCEDI RES AND CRITERIA The initial review of applications responsive to this Program Announcement will be arranged by the Division of Research Grants Major factors considered in evaluating each application include: training, experience, and research competence, or promise, of the applicant(s) to carry out the proposed in vestigations, and the adequacy of effort < time) to be devoted to the project. the scientific merit of the proposal: the questions proposed for study, the research design, the proposed methodology, the proposed methods for analysis and inter pretation of data. adequacy and suitability of the existing and proposed facilities and resources. appropriateness of the requested budget relative to the work proposed. adequacy of collaborative arrangement(s), if applicable. A secondary review process will be conducted by NIOSH. Factors considered in this review include: the results of the initial review; the significance of the proposed research to the research program of NIOSH. national needs and program balance, and policy and budgetary considerations. Applications responsive to this Program Announcement are not subject to OMB Circular A-95 Clearinghouse and/or Health Systems Agency review. Proposals considered to be non-responsive to the terms outlined in this Program Announcement will be appropriate ly reassigned for review or returned to the investigator, as indicated. Returned proposals may be revised and resub mitted. METHOD OF APPLYING Applications should be submitted on a form PHS 398 < State and local governments use form PHS 5161-1). Application kits may be obtained from: Office of Grants Inquiries Division of Research Grants National Institutes of Health Westwood Building. Room 448 Bethesda. Maryland 20205 Telephone: (301) 496-7441 Care should be taken in following the instructions included with the application form making certain to fulfill the points identified under the hearing "REVIEW CRITERIA." An original and six copies (original and two copies for State and local governments) must be received no later than: November 1. March 1. and July 1 as applicable. Applications received after the designated deadline will be considered with the applications received for the following deadline. Completed applications must be sent or delivered to: Application Receipt Division of Research Grants National Institutes of Health Westwood Building. Room 240 Bethesda. Maryland 20205 A brief covering letter must accompany the application in dicating that it is submitted in response to this program an nouncement. A carbon copy of this covering letter along with an additional copy of the application should be sent to the Chief. Grants Administration and Review Branch (see below). 7-31-80 P.jbiisnd Ov TH BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS 'NC WASHINGTON DC 20037 mod 000013491 258 IDENTIFICATION OF CONTACT POINT Questions related to this announcement should be ad dressed to: Faye Calhoun Chief. Grants Administration and Review Branch National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Parklawn Bldg.. Room 8-63 5600 Fishers Lane OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPQR'LR Rockville. Maryland 20857 Telephone. (301) 443-4493 or Mr Joseph West Grants Management Officer. NIOSH Parklawn Bldg.. Room 8-29 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville. Maryland 20857 Telephone: (30'l) 443-3122 Journal August 14-15 -- Pulmonary Function Testing for Industrial Nurses. Houston. Tex. (Occupational Lung Clinic. Inc.. 7777 Southwest Freeway. Suite 442, Houston, Tex. 77704; tel: (713) 777-4399). The course also will be held September 11-12. August 14-15 -- Hazardous Chemical Safety. Atlanta. Ga. iCaroi Morris. J.T. Baker Chemical Company, PhJIIipsburg, N.J. 08865: tel: (201) 454-2500). The course also will be held August 18*19 in Seattle, Wash.. August 21-22 in San Francisco. Calif., and September 8-9 in Boston. Mass. August 18-19 -- Toxic Chemical Safety. Wayne. N.J. (Registrar. Starson Corp., NHCI Div., P.O. Box 133. Stan ton. N.J. 08885; tel: (215) 258-7045). The course also will be held Sept. 11*12 in Cleveland. Ohio. August 18-21 -- Hazardous Chemical Safety Management. Minneapolis. Minn. (Short Course Registrar. Eastek Corp.. 3543 Baldwin Drive. Easton. Pa. 18042; tel: (215) 252-1737). August 18-22 -- Fundamentals of Modern Safety Manage ment. Sacramento. Calif. (International Loss Control Institute. PO Box 345, Loganville. Ga. 30249; tel: (404) 466-22081. August 18-22 -- Development and Growth of a Modem Safety Program, Sacramento, Calif. (Ernest Chaney, Inter national Loss Control Institute. P.O. Box 345, Loganville, Ga 30249. tel: (209) 485-3720). August 19-21 - Recognition. Evaluation, and Control of Oc cupational Health Hazards. Monroeville, Pa. (Michael Russak. Industrial Health Foundation, 5231 Centre Ave.. Pittsburgh, Pa. 15232; tel: (412) 687*2100). August 20-21 -- Hazardous Material Safety. Wayne. N.J. (Registrar. Starson Corp., NHCI Div., P.O. Box 133, Stan ton, N.J. 08885: tel: (215) 258-7045). The course also will be offered September 11-12 in Cleveland. Ohio. August 25-29 -- Occupational Respiratory Protection (NIOSH 593t, Park City. Utah (Katharine Blosch. RMCOEH. Bldg 112. Univ of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112; <801) 581-5710). August 25-29 -- Advanced Occupational Respiratory Protection. Park City. Utah (Katharine Blosch, RMCOEH Bldg 112, Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City. Utah 84112; tel: (801) 581-5710). August 25-29 -- Applied Industrial Hygiene, Los Angeles, Calif (Institute of Safety and Systems Management, Univ. of Southern Calif., University Park, Los Angeles, Calif. 90007). August 25-Z9 -- Professional Consulting in Safety and Loss Control. Atlanta. Ga. (Frank E. Bird, Jr.. International Loss Control Institute. P.O. Box 345, Loganville, Ga. 30249; tel: (404) 466-2208). September 3 -- How to Implement a Safety Program. Bur bank. Calif. (Training Institute. 616 South Westmoreland Ave.. Los Angeles. Calif. 90005; tel: (213) 385-6461). September 4 -- Safety Management by Objectives, Bur bank. Calif. (Training Institute. 616 South Westmoreland Ave.. Los Angeles. Calif. 90005; tel: (213) 385-6461). September 8 -- Reproductive Hazards. Cherry Hill, N.J (Mary S. Hill. New Jersey State Safety Council. 50 Park Place. Suite 820. Newark, N.J. 07102; tel: (201) 642-3123). September 8-12 -- Fundamentals of Modem Safety Management. Atlanta. Ga., (International Loss Control Institute. PO Box 345, Loganville. Ga. 30249; tel: (404) 466-2208). September 8*12 -- Basic Safety Management. Houston. Tex. (International Safety Academy. P.O. Box 19600. 10575 Katy Freeway, Houston. Tex. 77024: (713) 932-9400) September 8-12 -- Occupational Respiratory Protection (NIOSH 593). Cincinnati, Ohio (J.S. Ferguson, Kettering Laboratory, Univ. of Cincinnati. 3223 Eden Ave., Cincinnati. Ohio 45267: tel: (513) 872-5733). September 8-19 -- Industrial Hygiene Measurements. Cin cinnati. Ohio (J.S. Ferguson, Kettering Laboratory, Univ. of Cincinnati. 3223 Eden Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 45267; tel; (513) 872-5733). September 9*16 -- Respiratory Hazards. Morristown. N.J (Mary S. Hill. New Jersey State Safety Council. 50 Park Place. Suite 820, Newark. N.J. 07102; tel: (201) 642-3123). September 10-11 -- OSHA and the Hazard Recognition Concept for General Industry, Blacksburg. Va. (Adult Registrar, Donaldson Brown Center for Continuing Educa tion. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg. Va. 24061; tel: (703) 961-5182). September 11-12 -- Occupational Health for the 1980s, Salt Lake City, Utah (Katharine C Blosch. RMCOEH. Bldg. 112. Univ of Utah. Salt Lake City. Utah 84112; tel. (801) 581-5710). September 15-17 -- Oil Spill and Hazardous Materials Con trol Technology. East Brunswick. N.J, (Rosanne Razzano. Dept NR. Center for Professional Advancement, P.O. Box H . East Brunswick. N.J. 08816; tel: (201) 249-1400). 7-31-80 Occupations! Soie'y & Hc-al'h Reporter 009$ 3337/$0'SO0 SO MCI) 000013492