Document 8RBrv0BmXvO8gKQMQ33Dyw24d

FILE NAME: National Safety Council (NSC) DATE: 1970 DOC#: NSC506 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: NSC Transactions Presentation - Pollution, A Community and Occupational Problem aber Order Form 1970 Congress Transac|rions Quantity Ordered Stock Voi. No. No Title 1-9 10 or more, 022.22-1 1 General Sessions 4 Index to all Volumes $ .95 $ .75 022.22-2 2 Aerospace; Airtransport .95 .75 022.22-3 3 Automotive & Machine Shop; Power Press & Forging .95 .75 022.22-4 4 Cement, Quarry 4 Mineral Aggregates .55 .50 022.22-5 5 Chemical; Fertilizer; Research 4 Development .95 .75 022.22-5 6 Civic Leadership; Church, Women, Youth, Farm .95 .75 022.22-7 7 Coal Mining .95 .75 022.22-8 8 Construction; Public Employee 1.25 1.10 022.22-9 9 Electronic 4 Electrical Equipment : .55 .50 022.22-10 10 Food 4 Beverage; Meat 4 Leather Industries; Trades & Services ! .95 ' .75 022.22-11 11 Glass & Ceramics; Rubber & Plastics i .95 .75 022.22-12 12 Industrial Subject Sessions; Associations . . 1.25 1.10 022.22-13 13 Labor .95 .75 022.22-14 14 Marine .95 .75 022.22-15 15 Metals .55 .50 022.22-16 16 Mining .95 .75 022.22-17 17 Motor Transportation 1 .95 .75 022.22-18 18 Occupational Health Nursing; Hospitals 1 .55 .50 022.22-19 19 Petroleum i .95 .75 022.22-20 20 Public Utilities i .95 .75 022.22-21 21 Pulp 4 Paper; Printing &Publishing I .95 .75 022.22-22 22 Railroad ! .55 .50 022.22-23 23 School & College 11.25 1.10 022.22-24 24 Traffic; Driver Improvement 1 .95 .75 022.22-25 25 Wood Products; 4 Textile .95 .75 022.22-26 26 Early Morning Sessions . .55 .50 022.22-27 27 Public Safety i .95 .75 022.22-28 28 Home Safety ; ,95 .75 022.11 COMPLETE SET OF 28 VOLUMES $14.50 Automatic 20 % discount to NSC members; 1 0 % to U. S. Federal Government Agencies. Payment must accompany all orders of $5.00 or less. SHIP TO: i Organization_________________________________________________ ;________ Addres s________________________________________________________:_________ City________________________________ State_____________ Zip Cocte_______ to Attention of_______________________________________________ j________ BILL TO: Organization Address City to Attention of . Customer's Purchase Order Number State ZId Co re ...... m a il TO: NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 425 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 022.22--13 1970 A A D ' / r S ip A :opr r e p A R Y il O R* * ^ " * * " VOLUME 13 NATIONAL SAFETY CONGRESS TRANSACTIONS LABOR SAFETY NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 425 North Michigan Avenue ChicaaOr Illinois 6067 7 1970 National Safety Congress wherever. That is, at changing the insti tutional conditions and jolting the built-up myths of decades that have deluded the public into thinking that these losses are unavoidable and a necessary price of oper ating a highway system and owning cars. I t won't happen without heat, unfortu nately. The track record of self-induced change in the auto-highway construction field is poor, and there's no reason to think it will improve. If it was better, we'd have had collapsible steering columns decades ago, and passive restraints before 1970. As for the road builder--$820 million just to correct non-major safety dficiences along alteady opened Interstate! It is much too early to say that pressing highway loss problems are solvjed or even that mechanisms have been put in operation to solve them dependably without sometimes abrasive but still vitally needed public in tervention. POLLUTION-- A COMMUNITY AND OCCUPATIONAL PROBLEM By THOMAS F . W ILLIAM S Assistant to the Administrator, Environm ental H ealth Service, Public H ealth Service U. S. Dept, of Health, Education and Welfare, Rockville, Md. The current wave of interest in environ mental problems, which has already proved more lasting than many predicted, suggests that we are beginning to re member that the safety of people is the most important factor in the complicated ecological equation. I am sure that many of you were work ing for environmental improvements long before anti-pollution themes were being worked into soap operas and into adver tising campaigns for every kind of prod uct from soup and soap to cats and cos metics. I am sure also that you welcome this long delayed burst of sanity and that you see many other indications th at the public is finally demanding that the in stitutions of our society, both public and private, begin to constructively w ork to ward solving these complex problems. W e who serve these institutions are caught short. That same public demanded so little of us a short while ago that we are poorly prepared to meet their expecta tions. Under such circumstances it is to be expected that representatives of Gov ernment at all levels, representatives of industry, labor, and of other private or ganizations wifi sometimes complain th at we cannot overnight" rectify the errors of hundreds of years. Yet we must be pa tient with those who are unpatient with us. Their impatience means that a real and profoundly important re-examination is taking place. This re-examination covers not only man's relationship to nature, out also to his institutions, and to his fellow man. I t's taking place at the highest levels of Gov ernment, and among our young people, among intellectuals, and in the growing consumer movement, and, I 'm glad to say, in labor and industry, too. People are questioning whi ther rights of private property are so sacred that they include the right to untrammelled ex ploitation of natural resources. They are questioning--indeed they have already re jected--the validity of an industrial cost accounting system that regards the air and water as free resources for waste disposal. They are beginning to und<rstand that concern for the environment i: essentially a concern for man. W e may legitimately be concerned about the fate of the bald eagle or the grizzly bear ot the giant redwoods. And we should indei.ed question a human ethic th a t callous':y destroys other life forms. But in the filial analysis, the question is: W hat is h; .ppening to man in an environment in which these things which share his delicately balanced cgo system are already threatened with de struction? N ot only are streams and lakes dying Labor Sessions before their time, and birds, fish, and other wildlife threatened with, extinction, but human health is affected by the barrage of microbiological, chemical, and physio logical insults that man has injected into his environment. W e know something about the effects of environmental pol lutants on. human health--the relationship between some urban air and occupational pollutants and respiratory disease or can cer, for example. But we have barely begun, to explore some of the more subtle, long-range hazards, including pre-natal and genetic effects and the psychological and sociological impact of unwholesome environments. People are also beginning to appreciate the fact that what is commonly termed "pollution1' is not the whole of the en vironmental problem. The environment of life is more than open land, air, and w ater. I t 's also the special environment w here we live, work, and play. President Nixon made this very clear in a message to the Congress in which he called for new oc cupational safety and health legislation: "There has been much discussion in recent months about the quality of the environment in which Americans live. It is im portant to note in this regard that during their working years most American workers spend nearly a quarter of their time at their jobs. For them, the quality of the workplace is one of th e most im por tant of environmental questions. The pro tection of that quality is a critical m atter for Government attention.1' Since I plan to discuss community air pollution first, let me describe briefly the im portant Government attention was lias been given to the question of protecting not the workplace per se, but of our total environment. Last December Congress passed the En vironmental Policy Act. When President Nixon signed the measure into law as his first official action on New Year's Day, he stated that the need to arrest the deteriora tion of our environment is the "now or never" issue of our time. In his State of _the Union Message, the President said: "The great question of the seventies is, shall we sur render to our surroundings, or shall we make our peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done to our air, our land, and our water?" Pursuant to the Environmental Policy Act, the President appointed a three-man Council on Environmental Quality to coordinate Federal policy and action in the environ mental field, in much the same way the Coun cil of Economic Advisers guides and advises in financial and economic policy. The Coun cil's first report, issued in August, shows the breadth of the Government's activities, which have been fragmented throughout many agen cies, making a truly coordinated strategy difficult. In an effort to end the peacemeal approach, the Administration is now establishing two new Federal agencies to bring together the major environmental activities of the Federal Establishment. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is in operation, and the En vironmental Protection Agency is to begin operations in a few weeks. The Environmental Protection Agency will be a separate executive agency, outside the Cabinet, reporting directly to the Presi dent I t will bring under one organizational roof the Federal programs dealing with air and water pollution, solid wastes, pesticides, and radiation. I t will be responsible for establishing and enforcing standards, moni toring pollution in the environment; research and demonstration, and assistance to State and local Governments. The E P A then, will handle the front-line attack on environmental damage to health and property. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will be respon sible for long-range research on pollution problems of the future, especially the trends we suspect are taking place on a global scale in the oceans and in the atmosphere. NOAA is a new agency in the Department of Commerce, expanding the Department's Environmental Sciences Services Administra tion. Every year toxic m atter from industrial, municipal, and domestic sources is being re leased into the air over the United States at a rate of about 200 million tons--or, if you prefer your share, close to a ton for every American. T he cost to the Nation of the effects of air pollution is estimated to be 10 to 20 til- 1970 National Safety Congress Hon dollars annually. These figures include damage to buildings, equipment, fabrics, land values, farm crops and animals. They do not take into account the valuable resources that are spewed out in the air as waste. As to the impact on human health--acute episodes of pollution in London, New York, Tokyo, and other cities have clearly been as sociated with soaring death and illness rates, especially among the elderly and those with weakened hearts and lungs. It is also wellestablished that air pollution contributes to the incidence of such chronic diseases as em physema, bronchitis, and other respiratory ailments. There are other hazards that can be identi fied but are perhaps even more difficult to quantify. The levels of carbon monoxide in heavy traffic, for example, often reach levels that can affect human judgment and be havior. This factor, together with impair ment of visibility, undoubtedly contributes to our automotive accident toll. What is even more disturbing--science is only beginning to explore the possible effects this chemical pollution may have on the pre natal stage of life, or on the genetic endow ment we pass on to future generations. As for the long-range planetary effects'-- some scientists believe that increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will soon begin to demonstrate a ''greenhouse'' effect, hastening the melting of the polar icecaps and raising the level of the oceans. Others speculate that on the contrary, atmospheric pollution will usher in a new Ice Age. You may have it either way you want it--neither prospect has much appeal. In the Environmental Health Service, we are presently engaged in an effort to control air pollution under 1967 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Briefly, to control stationary sources, we publish criteria on health and welfare hazards and related documents on control techniques. States develop air quality standards and establish implementation plans which are applied on a regional basis throughout the country. With regard to motor vehicles, the Federal Government has direct standard setting and enforcement au thority. The House and the Senate have now passed new and stronger air pollution legis lation. The bills differ widely in many re spects and are now being subjected to the conference procedure in an effort to iron out these differences. First, with regard to automobile emissions. The Secretary of H EW was authorized by 1965 legislation to establish F :deral stand ards limiting the emission of pollutants from auto exhaust. Federal emission standards for motor vehicles went into effect yrith the 1968 model cars for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, with more restrict! re standards being effective with the 1970 m pdel and further restrictions proposed for 1972 and 1975. Standards for nitrogen oxides are anticipated in 1973 with further restrictions anticipated in 1975; standards for particulate matter are also anticipated in 1975. Furthermore, last July, aft&r we found that 1970 cars were not as lean as the standards intended, we announpred new and more accurate test procedures assure that new cars in 1972 and later woi . fully meet the intent of the exhaust emissi on standards. The House hill would contini e the present standards-setting procedure, while the Sen ate version would prescribe, a> part of the statute, specific standards for exhaust emis sions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons which must be met by 1975, and for nitrogen oxides which must he met by 1976. Both pieces of legislation world strengthen Federal authority by authorizing production line testing to insure compliance. Testing is now limited to prototype vehicles. The Sen ate bill includes a 50,000-mile warranty for satisfactory emission control. So far, our National Air Pollution Control Administration has published criteria on sul fur oxides, particulate matter, photochemical oxidants, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons --together with information on effective and practical control techniques. Within a short time, we expect to publish crit eria and con trol information on nitrogen oxides, lead, fluorides, and polynuclear organic matter. During the last year and a half, we have drawn the lines around 61 air quality control regions, and expect to bring the total to 90 by the end of the year. These will embrace all the major metropolitan areas of the coun try, some of them lying whdlly within a single State, others involving two or more States. I The States affected have bedn engaged in i Labor Sessions the process o establishing' their own air quality standards, for these designated re gions, based on our criteria, and in develop ing approved implementation plans, in accord ance with an established timetable. A total ,of 19 States have adopted air quality standards for their air quality re gions--and IS of these have been accepted by the Secretary of H E W as sufficiently protective of public health and welfare. Plans for implementing the standards have been submitted by seven States and are now under review. The legislation proposed by the Adminis tration for passage this year, and the bills passed separately by the House and Senate, all are aimed at strengthening our control efforts by the establishment of uniform Fed eral air quality standards. There seems to he little doubt that any legislation enacted will result in our National Air Pollution Control Administration defining national air qualify standards, which as a minimum must pro tect human health, at least for those pollut ants which are most pervasive. For those pollutants considered to be im mediately hazardous to health, the Federal Government would he empowered to curtail or eliminate discharge into the atmosphere. In addition, it appears that the Federal agency will he empowered to establish emis sion or performance standards for new sources of pollution, and possibly for modi fied, existing sources. This would mean that a new power generating plant, for example, would have to comply with Federal standards limiting its emission of pollutants or pre scribing the effectiveness of its control devices. As for implementation of air quality stand ards: under the Senate-passed hill, States would have a year and a half to develop approved implementation plans and another three years to achieve compliance with the standards. The House bill is less specific-- a "reasonable time" would he allowed. The question naturally arises then--if we have uniform Federal standards and State wide implementation plans, what happens to the air quality control regions already desig nated? Under the House bill, all regions al ready marked out would remain in effect and others could be designated by the Fed eral Government. Under the Senate bill, inter state regions embracing parts of more than one State would be continued, but designation of regions within the States would be part of the States' responsibility. In any case, the States, in implementing the standards, would be required to approach the control process on an effective regional basis which would, of course, be in accord with present procedures and would build on progress already achieved. Interested and concerned citizens have played an important role in our progress so far--for, as I am sure most of you know, the Clean A ir Act has specifically required that States must hold public hearings in develop ing State standards for their air quality re gions. I am glad to say that an opportunity for citizen views to he heard is included in the legislation now under consideration. Although the Federal Government would now establish the standards, the States will be required to hold public hearings in de veloping their implementation plans. Citizens will have an important role to play in making vital decisions about the methods--and the timetable -- by which clean air will be achieved. The occupational health problem, like the community air pollution problem, is an un desirable by-product of progress. As the President pointed out in the message I cited earlier, many industries have made progress in protecting worker health and safety on their own. Many professional organizations such as the National Safety Council have worked to promote better working conditions, but the overall record is still uneven and unsettling. In our industrial society, it is in the fac tory or on the farm or in the mine that the very contaminants that finally become pollu tants of the natural environment are first encountered. I t is a high-risk environment-- from the standpoint of both safety and health --and yet some of the very people who are understandably concerned about the industrial waste that is poured into our air and water have not yet taken their first clear look at the environmental problem of 80 million American workers. Each year thousands of persons are killed in occupational accidents; 3,600 persons die from occupational diseases; more than 2 million persons are injured seriously enough 1970 National Safety Congress lion dollars annually. These figures include damage to buildings, equipment, fabrics, land values, farm crops and animals. They do not take into account the valuable resources that are spewed out in the air as waste. As to the impact on human health--acute episodes of pollution in London, New York, Tokyo, and other cities have clearly been as sociated with soaring death and illness rates, especially among the elderly and those with weakened hearts and lungs. It is also wellestablished that air pollution contributes to the incidence of such chronic diseases as em physema, bronchitis, and other respiratory ailments. There are other hazards that can be identi fied but are perhaps even more difficult to quantify. The levels of carbon monoxide in heavy traffic, for example, often reach levels that can affect human judgment and be havior. This factor, together with impair ment of visibility, undoubtedly contributes to our automotive accident toil. What is even more disturbing--science is only beginning to explore the possible effects this chemical pollution may have on the pre natal stage of life, or on the genetic endow ment we pass on to future generations. As for the long-range planetary effects-- some scientists believe that increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will soon begin to demonstrate a "greenhouse" effect, hastening the melting of the polar icecaps and raising the level of the oceans. Others speculate that on the contrary, atmospheric pollution will usher in a new Ice Age. You may have it either way you want it--neither prospect has much appeal. In the Environmental Health Service, we are presently engaged in an effort to control air pollution under 1967 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Briefly, to control stationary sources, we publish criteria on health and welfare hazards and related documents on control techniques. States develop air qualitystandards and establish implementation plans which are applied on a regional basis throughout the country. With regard to motor vehicles, the Federal Government has direct standard setting and enforcement au thority. The House and the Senate have now- passed new and stronger air pollution legis lation. The bills differ widely in many re spects and are now being subjected to the conference procedure in an effort to iron out these differences. First, with regard to automobile emissions. The Secretary of H EW was authorized by 1965 legislation to establish Federal stand ards limiting the emission of pol.utants from auto exhaust. Federal emission standards for motor vehicles went into effect with the 1968 model cars for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, with more restrictive standards being effective with the 1970 model and fur ther restrictions proposed for 1972 and 1975. Standards for nitrogen oxides are anticipated in 1973 with farther restrictions anticipated in 1975; standards for particulate matter are also anticipated in 1975. Furthermore, last July, after we found that 1970 cars were not as clean as the standards intended, we announced new and more accurate test procedures to assure that new cars in 1972 and later would fully meet the intent of the exhaust emission standards. The House bill would continue the present standards-setting procedure, while the Sen ate version would prescribe, as: part of the statute, specific standards for ejchaust emis sions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons which must be met by 1975, and Ifor nitrogen oxides which must be met by 1976. Both pieces of legislation would strengthen Federal authority by authorizing productionline testing to insure compliance. Testing is now limited to prototype vehicles. The Sen ate bill includes a 50,000-mile warranty for satisfactory emission control. ; So far, our National Air Pollution Control Administration has published criteria on sul fur oxides, particulate matter, photochemical oxidants, carbon monoxide, and Hydrocarbons --together with information on effective and practical control techniques. Within a short time, we expect to publish criteria and con trol information on nitrogen oxides, lead, fluorides, and polynuclear organic matter. During the last year and a half, we have drawn the lines around 61 air quality control regions, and expect to bring th : total to 90 by the end of the year. These will embrace all the major metropolitan areas of the coun try, some of them lying who ly within a single State, others involving Cvo or more States. The States affected have beeh engaged in Labor Sessions the process of establishing their own air quality standards, for these designated re gions, based on our criteria, and in develop ing approved implementation plans, in accord ance with an established timetable. A total ,of 19 States have adopted air quality standards for their air quality re gions--and IS of these have been accepted by the Secretary of H EW as sufficiently protective of public health and welfare. Plans for implementing the standards have been submitted by seven States and are now under review. The legislation proposed by the Adminis tration for passage this year, and the bills passed separately by the House and Senate, all are aimed at strengthening our control efforts by the establishment of uniform Fed eral air quality standards. There seems to be little doubt that any legislation enacted will result in our National A ir Pollution Control Administration defining national air quality standards, which as a minimum must pro tect human health, at least for those pollut ants which are most pervasive. For those pollutants considered to be im mediately hazardous to health, the Federal Government would be empowered to curtail or eliminate discharge into the atmosphere. In addition, it appears that the Federal agency will be empowered to establish emis sion or performance standards for new sources of pollution, and possibly for modi fied, existing sources. This would mean that a new power generating plant, for example, would have to comply with Federal standards limiting its emission of pollutants or pre scribing the effectiveness of its control devices. As for implementation of air quality stand ards: under the Senate-passed bill, States would have a year and a half to develop approved implementation plans and another three years to achieve compliance with the standards. The House bill is less specific-- a "reasonable time" would be allowed. The question naturally arises then--if we have uniform Federal standards and State wide implementation plans, what happens to the air quality control regions already desig nated? Under the House bill, all regions al ready marked out would remain in effect and others could be designated by the Fed eral Government. Under the Senate bill, inter state regions embracing parts of more than one State would be continued, but designation of regions within the States would he part of the States' responsibility. In any case, the States, in implementing the standards, would be required to approach the control process on an effective regional basis which would, of course, be in accord with present procedures and would build on progress already achieved. Interested and concerned citizens have played an important role in our progress so far--for, as I am sure most of you know, the Clean A ir A ct has specifically required that States must hold public hearings in develop ing State standards for their air quality re gions. I am glad to say that an opportunity for citizen views to be heard is included in the legislation now under consideration. Although the Federal Government would now establish the standards, the States will be required to hold public hearings in de veloping their implementation plans. Citizens will have an important role to play in malting vital decisions about the methods--and the timetable -- by which clean air will be achieved. The occupational health problem, like the community air pollution problem, Is an un desirable by-product of progress. As the President pointed out in the message I cited earlier, many industries have made progress in protecting worker health and safety on their own. Many professional organizations such as the National Safety Council have worked to promote better working conditions, but the overall record is still uneven and unsettling. In our industrial society, it is in the fac tory or on the farm or in the mine that the very contaminants that finally become pollu tants of the natural environment are first encountered. I t is a high-risk environment-- from the standpoint of both safety and health --and yet some of the very people who are understandably concerned about the industrial waste that is poured into our air and water have not yet taken their first clear look at the environmental problem of 80 million American workers. Each year thousands of persons are killed in occupational accidents; 3,600 persons die from occupational diseases; more than 2 million persons are injured seriously enough 1970 National Safety Congress While we may be justified in complaining' that we cannot overnight rectify the errors of hundreds of years, we must, at the same time, move purposefully and swiftly toward a new standard of ecological excellence, in consonance with the scientific anc technological realities of today. We mm : take this giant step here on earth for all i ankind, for as President Nixon has said, this is the "now or never" issue of our ti WHAT'S BUGGING YOU? A PA NEL DISCUSSION Presiding: Edward J. Legan, Interna tional Representative, International Brother hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Washington, D. C .; Incoming Vice-Chmn., Labor Conference, N.S.C. Moderator: Dale Maes, Vice President, Local No. 3, International Union of Oper ating Engineers, San Francisco, Calif. Panel: Charles T. Greene, Director, Industrial Safety Div., District of Colum bia, Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board, Washington, D. C.; J oseth Leon ard, Safety Director, International Long shoremen's Assn., New York, N. Y .; Stanley P. Ochmansxi, Customer .Ser vices, Safety Services, Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Miami, Fla.; Marco Vestich Assistant Director, Safety Dept, United Steelwork ers of America, Pittsburgh, P a .; Nathan Willens, Industrial Hygienist, Illinois De partment of Labor, Chicago, 111. (Previously submitted Questions are pre sented to the panel by Mr. Marr.) Marr: Why are the heads of big indus trial union departments such as apprentice ship, safety, workmen's compensation, and insurance noticeably absent from these types of safety sessions? Vestich- Speaking for the United Steel workers Union, Safety Director Paul Schremp could not be here because of per sonal reasons. He was so anxious to be here that he waited until Monday, October 26 before he decided that he definitely could not come and that he would send me in his place. Marr: It may he that this questioner was thinking about heads of other depart ments than the safety department when he asked this question. If this is the case, I believe we all must admit that heads of departments other than safety have other conventions and commitments to handle, and since they do have safety peoplt, the safety people are the ones designated to attend these sessions. Actually, most o:. the safety directors of unions which havi safety di rectors are here. If local union representa tives feel that other department heads from large industrial unions should be here, it is up to them to indicate this at their various meetings, conferences, and conventions. Mask: O ur local union has just started a safety program and we wculd like to know what advice and assistaice we can obtain to be certain we do the most effective job possible. O c h m a n s e i: F irst of all, I would sug gest that you outline objectives which will reflect what you want to do with your safety program. Then, develop a policy statement which will be endorsed from the top officials of the union down to the grass roots membership. Then follow your ob jectives as closely and as effickntly as you possibly can. L eonard : I would like to ai Id that you be sure you do not appoint any politicians to conduct your safety prograjm. Appoint only dedicated and interested people to this responsibility. Vestich: Be sure that you hbve contract language that establishes a n d ' endorses a labor-management safety corrjmittee. No program can succeed without this type of authority, This kind of contra ct language should include right of entry tp any work area, right to a copy of an) inspector's report, the right to bring in yc ur own experts for consultation, the right to refuse to work at a job you believe is unsafe, etc. Greene: You must remember that if you expect management to assist and comply with policies and objectives, ym must be certain that the union also complies and respects the objectives of the program. This is definitely a two-way street. Especially, the membership oi the onion must definitely understand that the officers of the company and the union are going to demand that everyone follows the requirements and ob jectives of the program. W h een s: I agree with Marco Vestich that the union should have the right to reports of inspectors, and I as a state in spector would welcome being permitted to provide a copy of my report to the union. However, as the Illinois state law indicates, I cannot do this. In relation to the question as asked, assistance can be obtained in set ting up a safety program from U. 5 . De partment of Labor representatives, State Labor Department representatives and, naturally, the National Safety Council. Makr: During many past years, a lot of safety people said that safety and health is management's responsibility. Actually, this is true but, unfortunately, if management does not accept the job, it is the union per son or worker who gets hurt. Therefore, many unions find that they will have to exert the initiative to start a safety pro gram. Our union has found that training the membership on safety and health haz ards and what to do about them when they are identified has been very effective in reducing accidents. Naturally, during this training many foremen and other manage ment people can be taught if they are not already inclined to follow effective safety and health principles. A safety program is useless if our members are not wearing personal protective equipment that is pro vided and if they are breaking safety rules that have been established. This is why the educational process is so necessary. Leonard : As I have mentioned before, we have included the wearing of personal protective equipment in our safety contract, and as far as I am concerned the men are going to wear the equipment or they're not working. I am willing to put my job on the line for this purpose. As long as the per sonal protective equipment, such as hard hats in our case, are necessary and are fitted properly, the men have to wear them. Greene: I would like to add one thing, and that is whether it's wearing personal protective equipment or installing mechani Labor Sessions cal safeguarding, none of it is of any vaine if these requirements aren't properly and thoroughly enforced. Naturally, to make a regulation or an agreement enforceable, it must be worded properly, and it should not include exemptions which make enforce ment practically impossible. Therefore, I suggest that you keep enforcement in mind when you word your agreements and regu lations. D elegate : Our union has a labor-man agement safety committee at one of the Monsanto plants and we work together superbly. We have three union members and three supervision members on the com mittee and we meet once a month. W e also investigate accidents. Our union representa tives on the committee are elected by the members, and this works best. As long as the union representatives do a good job and realy represent the membership, they are reelected. This keeps these positions out of politics because of appointments. Delegate from Local 185, United Steel workers of America: We are having a problem with our contracted company be cause they insist on purchasing safety spec tacles from a certain company. Our union safety committee and many of our members would like to be able to use spectacles from another company because they are more comfortable and provide a better fit. Our members are even willing to pay the dif ference in the cost, but the company refuses to cooperate. Also, our company only re quires hard hats in certain areas of the plant, which makes it practically impossible to enforce this rule. In addition, many of the foremen and plant protection personnel will not wear the hard hats even in those areas where they are required. Naturally, this kills the hard hat safety program. Marr: In support of what the delegate just said, since the safety spectacle indus try is progressing so fast and coming out with so many new innovations, it is only common horse sense that labor and man agement should periodically review their safety spectacle program to determine if more effective and/or more comfortable spectacles can be purchased. The other day I went to my eye doctor and informed him I wanted a pair of safety spectacles ground to my prescription. The doctor spent quite a hit of time trying to talk me out of the safety spectacles. Naturally, I informed him 1970 National Safety Congress to lose time from their w ork; and more than $2 billion is paid out in compensation claims. And we must remember that these figures are probably understated, because occupa tional illnesses are often improperly diag nosed or not reported. Certain toxic fumes, dust and vapors -- cadmium, mercury, nitrogen dioxide, for ex ample--may strike a swift and deadly blow, or, on the other hand, other contaminants of the workplace at lower levels of concentra tion can do their harm insidiously over a long period of time. Three and a half million American work ers are exposed to asbestos in the course of their daily work. After some years, they have a good chance of succumbing to asbestosis, the dust disease of their trade, that is, if lung cancer doesn't get them first. Mesothe lioma, a malignancy of the lung or pleura, which is so rare that it strikes only 1 in 10,000 of the general working population, was found to be the cause of 1 death in 10 m a study of insulation workers. Can we write this off as a special and limited prob lem? I don't think we had better--for asbes tos is something that is increasingly present throughout the environment--afid there is some evidence that long or massive exposures are not needed to produce mesothelioma. Coal tar pitch can cause skin cancer, and some chromium compounds are suspected cancer agents. Arsenic and lead, and hundreds of new and modified chemicals, are every day pollutants of the industrial environment. And many of these same poisons flow into our streams or air as industrial wastes or are released at the burning dumps which become the final resting place Df the products of our industry. Among soft coal miners, the death rate from respiratory disease is five times that of the general working population. Two weeks after the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 was enacted, 42,200 former coal miners had applied for disability compensation for the "black lung" disease which has been the scourge of miners for generations. We thought for many years that byssinosis--the "white lung" disease of cotton tex tile workers -- was not a problem in this country, although it was known to be a problem elsewhere. Recent studies suggest that we were wrong--that "white lung" does in fact disable and shorten the lives of thou sands of textile workers. In other words, many of us are being ex posed to a double or triple dose of environmental pollution--in the work environment, and in the community environnent as well. The only real distinction is that the oc cupational setting is a limited an l more easily controllable environment than the natural W hile Federal occupational health and safety programs are not to be ho used in either of the two new Agencies 1 discussed earlier, interest in this problem has virtually paral leled rising interest in the environment. This is related in part, I am sure, to something I said earlier--that in our industrial society it is in the workplace that contaminants and some of the other stresses of dur urban en vironment are first encountered. I t is note worthy in this regard that virtually all of the pollutants on which we are developing N a tional community air quality criteria are gen erally found at even more hazardous concen trations in certain working environments. The two Federal departments [most directly concerned with occupational health and safety are Health, Education, and Welfare and Labor. W e may be sure that the new En vironmental Protection Agency (will be work ing closely with both of them] in the years ahead. I believe that enactment, in 1969, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act marked the beginning of a nevf era in deal ing with occupational health problems. As you probably know, the Act jestablished a Federal standard for dust levels in coal mines, based on H EW recommendations and authorized the Department o:: Interior to promulgate any additional or revised stand ards necessary to protect the miners' health and safety. The Bureau of Occupational Health, which is part of our Environmental Health Service, has responsibility for developing improved health standards for mines. I t als6 must in sure that all underground coal miners in the U. S. receive regular medical examinations to detect ocoupationally-caased disease and is charged with finding techniques for the pre vention and control of occupational diseases among miners and others working with or around coal mine products. The Bureau has been moving ahead under Labor Sessions these new authorities, both in research and in the establishment of a system to insure regular physical examination of miners. Earlier this year, State medical teams under contract to the Bureau began examining miners in seven States, while Bureau medical teams are continuing comprehensive medical studies begun earlier. Bureau staff are optim istic that they can meet the requirement of the Act that first-round medical examinations for all active miners (some 90-100,000) be completed by next July. Special instrumentation is being developed for the necessary medical tests and dust sampling. The Bureau has also published regulations governing dust sampling techniques and has promulgated recommendations for potable water and sanitation in mines and for medi cal assistance in mine emergencies. During the past two years a great number of bills pertaining to occupational health and safety of other workers have been introduced in the Congress. This is an unprecedented occurrence. Never in our history has there existed anything resembling comprehensive Federal legislation in this field. Bills have been reported out of committee in both houses of Congress, and are due to come up for floor debate when Congress reconvenes in November. While the hills differ in some re spects, their basic similarities suggest that real improvements in occupational health and safety are at last on the horizon. Both bills would cover all businesses engaged in inter state commerce. They provide that the De partment of Health, Education, and Welfare establish a National system for gathering occupational disease and safety data and de velop criteria for healthful working condi tions, on which National uniform standards could be based. The Department would, for the first time, be allowed right of entry so that such data would be meaningful. Both bills provide that the Department of Labor could set standards and enforce them. These standards would apply uniformly to like in dustries across the country. Both hills would provide States with the opportunity to en force these standards, provided they could qualify to do so. If States failed, the Federal Government would provide the necessary backup. As you know, the Administration's recom mendations are contained'in the Steiger bill in the House and in the Dominick hill in the Senate, both of which call for a National Board to set uniform standards deriyed from the criteria developed by H E W and to be enforced by the Department of Labor, The Board would include representation from in dustry, labor and other concerned groups. W hile neither of the bills which have been reported out of committee contains this pro vision, inclusion of such a board is apt to be reconsidered when the bills reach the floor. W hether new legislation will be enacted and signed by the President in this session of Congress is still in doubt There is no doubt, however, about the fact that legislation for the protection of the worker from occupa tional hazards has finally risen to its proper place among our National priorities. The two problems I was asked to discuss today fall within a number of legislative and organizational initiatives that the Gov ernment is taking to insure that our basic institutions can respond in a timely way to compelling challenges for change and re newal. Industry, too, is today showing signs of a new understanding of its responsibilities, not only for the health and safety of workers and for the products it offers to the con sumer, but also for its impact on the en vironment. And labor is extending its interest to in clude the fight for a livable environment for all. Union members, for example, have be gun to play an important role in the public demand for effective community air pollu tion standards in several states. Steel workers, auto workers, and chemical workers have taken the first, unprecedented, steps to work pollution control into the col lective bargaining system. W hat has been so often lacking to date in our efforts to save the environment . . . lacking on the part of industry and labor, and on the part of Government as well is the willingness to tackle these problems as a fun damental part, not just a side issue, of American life. In our present situation, I think all of us are coming to realize that some hallowed "rights" and "privileges" may have to be placed on the line if the rights of ail--and of the generations that come after us--are to be preserved.