Document 933qoZ6yyrE8j3kbN2DdB48bR

WHO SHOULD TELL THE WORKER? a talk by RICHARD FLEMING EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. V presented at CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION SYMPOSIUM ON INFORMING EMPLOYEES ABOUT HAZARDS IN THE WORKPLACE September 14, 1979 Hyatt on Union Square San Francisco, California AP00054690 Hazard in the workplace is far from a modern invention. Work, like every other form of human activity, has always involved the confrontation of hazard, i.e., a source of danger, by the worker. As a biological mechanism, man has proven as successful as he is because of his ability to recognize hazard, and to reduce the risk, i.e., the probability of loss or injury, from such hazards to generally acceptable levels. This success has not always come easily or without grievous loss, but it is the character of man's intellect that he can analyze and learn from bad experiences and utilize that newly won knowledge to better inform, train and safeguard those who would carry on the endeavor, whatever it may be. From his earliest days as a hunter, man has utilized his unique skills to overcome a hostile environment and to compete successfully, and ever more safely, with other creatures bigger, stronger, faster than he. He mastered the use of fire, a fearful hazard then and even now, and began a lengthy evolution of tools and safety devices and techniques that continues into today and will continue tommorrow. In the course of these developments, the complexity of man's society has naturally increased many fold, and greater and greater specialization has been required of every individual. As this complexity and specialization have grown, they have created new hazards as well as comforts and these hazards in turn have had to be recognized and overcome. It is characteristic of this process of development that many new things were tried, and the price for innovation, in part, has had to be paid in confronting and learning to limit the effects of new and uncommon hazards peculiar to the new development itself. In the highly developed and specialized world of the modern day workplace, there is usually very little of the new worker's prior AP00054691 -2- experience in his more normal environment that sensitizes him to, or trains him to, perceive the hazards he may now confront. Furthermore, a number of these hazards may in fact be unperceivable by the use of his ordinary senses, or even his common sense. There is, then, no substitute for direct, specific information about the special, and inevitable, hazards confronted by a worker in a new work assignment. Nothing short of specific knowledge and experience in carrying out the job and the circumstances surrounding it is capable of fully teaching the safety needs of that job. It may take more than this, but it cannot take less. Thus, a new worker must rely on adequate and appropriate information and training from those who know the job best. This should be, indeed must be, the person who teaches and supervises the performance of the job and selects the person to fill it. Who, then, should tell the worker about hazards in the workplace, and how he may appropriately control risks? It should be perfectly clear that this is a prime and nondelegable responsibility of the employer. The employer, after all, is the architect of the work environment. He should be uniquely aware of the characteristics and limitations of the equipment involved, the materials to be handled, the conditions of processing and so on, and should be in the best position to assess and explain the sources of potential trouble and safe operating procedures to minimize risk from them. Since no job can be designed to be hazard-free, it necessarily follows that it cannot be risk-free. It is both morally right and equitably necessary that the employee understand and accept the risks he assumes as a condition of his employment. Since the hazards and risks involved are likely to be of consequence to both the employee and the employer, there is a clear commonality of interest and purpose in this AP00054692 issue. A single uninformed or careless employee can substantially increase the risk to all other employees, and to the employer's business security as well. All too often this issue of personal responsibility of the individual worker for his own safety, and that of his fellow workers and his plant, is under emphasized. Just as a work environment cannot be made risk-free, it cannot be made fool proof against an uninformed, unthinking, uncaring worker nor from every conceivable human error on the part of an otherwise conscientious individual. For this reason it is absolutely essential that safety training become and remain a significant and continuing part of every work environment. It is mandatory that workers understand and conform to approved safety practices, as a matter of habit, through repetitive training that establishes such habits. It is vital that each workplace and work assignment be designed as reasonably as we know how to prevent severe penalty by reason of equipment or human malfunction. Well, now we have said the easy things to say and to agree upon on this topic. If you are one who does not feel that we are in clear agreement up to this point, hang on - we may be about to get quite a bit further apart. Clearly, if every employer and employee agreed with what I have thus far said, we would be in better shape than we are. While I sincerely believe that the vast majority of both groups do agree, and act, in accordance with that general understanding, there are exceptions. And, as usual, it is these exceptions that cause the trouble. There are a very few employers who do not properly discharge their responsibility and so our industrial injury and illness count is higher than it should be. There are employees who violate or ignore safety rules and training, and so our statistics are poorer than they should be. AP00054693 -4- And, there are unrecognized hazards that catch us, and there are recognized hazards for which our control measures are inadequate. In November of 1978 the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor published the results of its on-the-job injuries and illness survey for 1977. Here is what the report said; - 5.3 MM people were injured on the job in 1977 - This is an increase of 300,000 over 1976 - Injury rate rose from 9.2 in 1976 to 9,3 in 1977 per 100 full-time workers (third annual increase in a row) - Number of lost workdays to work-related accidents continued its gradual increase reaching 36.1 million or about 60 days per 100 workers - Estimated accidental deaths in establishments with more than 11 employees increased by 20% over '76 to about 4,800 people - The industries with the biggest increases in these figures were: agriculture forestry fishing construction wholesale & retail trade services industries declines were shown for: mining transportation public utilities Apparently chemicals remained about level. AP00054694 -5- Bear in mind that these figures are obtained by sampling techniques, not a full incident counting system, and have been criticized by some as being inaccurate on this basis. For the remainder of our discussion we will use them, however, since they are the best available compilation of workplace injuries in mul ti-employee endeavors, and they are issued by the Department of Labor. And, oh yes, one more point from the BLS - These figures include nearly 162,000 workers who were subjected to recognized occupational diseases, down from 168,000 the previous year. These statistics are not good. They represent a real cause for concern and we should be doing much better. Other segments of our society also think we should be doing better and so they have decided that they, not employers, must tell the worker. Such intervenors come from all directions, but the more important include the following: a) Government - Federal, State, Local b) Labor unions c) Self-appointed public advocacy groups d) Environmentalists e) Politicians f) Lawyers (especially class action types) g) Others too numerous to mention. AP00054695 -6- It may be redundant to say that not all of these are the greatest of friends of industry. That they are often much more poorly informed themselves than they should be, that accuracy in their statements may not be the most important thing to them, and that they may have other motives in attempting to intervene than they claim, or should have, is frequently all too apparent. Indeed, you may have already concluded that, based on the fact that industry's hazard and risk control program is not functioning perfectly in spite of strenuous effort, and because some few employers have not met their responsibilities, that many of these intervenors are determined to use this issue to embarrass, punish, harass, accuse, and blame industry and to demand that it be regulated to death, a goal to be achieved by fair means or foul, in the guise of protecting the worker. If you have concluded anything so rash, you are very close to the nark. You see in our earlier discussion about the philosophy of telling the worker about the hazards in the workplace, we glossed over an almost unending series of questions of detail that present many areas of potential conflict made to order for the outside meddler. The questions could be grouped according to classes. Here are some examples: Class I - How is a hazard to be defined? At what level of concern does it become important, i.e., a priority item? With what degree of factual support? By whom should hazards be defined? According to what criteria? AP00054696 -7- Class II - What information on the hazard should be collected? From what sources? Who will fill information gaps? How? At what cost? How fast? Why? Who will validate the information? Class III - How will risk be assessed? What risk abatement means are to be used? What risk level is acceptable? How is this to be determined? By whom? According to what criteria? Will cost be a consideration? How will risk/benefit/cost balance be achieved? Class IV - What should be told to the worker and in how much detail? When? Where? Why? At what level of sophistication? How often? Orally or in writing? And again, by whom? And who should decide these things and according to what criteria? What legal liability problems does all this impose and for whom? AP00054697 Class V - What records must be kept concerning employee health experience re accidents, illnesses, fertility, mental acuity, emotional state, physical condition, etc., etc.? By what physical tests? Administered by whom? How often? Where? How long must records be kept? What exposures must be measured? To what degree of accuracy? How is this information to be related to health history? By whom? Under what circumstances? To whom will these records be available? Under what circumstances? Who will decide these things? According to what principles? Class VI - How will the employer's proprietary business information be protected? How much of this must be given to the employee? the union? the regulator? the self-appointed advocate? the environmentalist? Although that list is not complete by any means, it may suffice to illustrate the point. You see, so many of these questions are answerable only on the basis of subjective judgments, and there are no definitive answers for any of them, that a determined adversary, willing to play loose with the few available facts, can wreak havoc on our industry. And they already are doing this. AP00054698 -9- We could spend nours together discussing examples of the activity of our adversaries in this regard, but we do not have the time for that. Rather, I wish to talk about only one, relatively trivial, example that bears directly on telling the worker, and the public, and then'I will close. Today in Chicago the second day of a two day meeting is drawing to a close. I do not know how many of you have seen the publicity on this meeting since it is being held primarily for the reporters of the public media, who have been extensively recruited to attend this meeting from all over the nation. I want to read to you from the program sent out as pre-meeting publicity. The meeting is called "Lost In The Workplace: Is There an Occupational Disease Epidemic?" I now quote from the program: '`Sometimes death strikes swiftly in the workplace. More often, it is an insidious process. Workers exposed to multiple hazards - sometimes dozens of chemicals at a time - usually do not die suddenly and dramatically. But each year at least 100,000 Americans die from the accumulation of daily exposures, while countless others are left disabled or sterile. "While occupational death and disease represent a tremendous tragedy to the affected families, this massive yet silent slaughter is too often a story lost in the workplace. Nonetheless, no one is immune to the consequences of occupational disease. They affect business, jobs, the economy, and ultimately every community. AP00054699 -10- '"Lost in the Workplace: Is There an Occupational Disease Epidemic?' is an attempt to provide some of the answers and to provoke new questions. Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall will be joined by other government officials and many of the nation's most knowledgeable scientists and business and labor representatives for this two-day seminar. "Among the topics will be such vital and controversial subjects as the nature and extent of occupational disease, the cause of workplace cancer, the debate over reproductive hazards, and the role of government regulatory policy. Journalists who have regularly tackled these issues will discuss the problems of covering occupational disease issues and offer 'how to1 advice. There will also be a showing of the much-praised film, 'Song of the Canary.1 "This conference offers journalists the opportunity to listen and talk to some of the most important spokespersons in an increasingly important field. There are stories to be found in Chicago on September 13-14, 1979." Perhaps you already know that this meeting is being organized, sponsored and conducted by OSHA. Perhaps you know that these flyers were sent out to all parts of the country by letters addressed to "Dear Journalist" and signed by Eula Bingham urging attendance. A quick glance at the lineup of speakers and topics is interesting and informative. Here is a copy of the program: AP00054700 t-OZWOOOdV Ajeueo go 5uos t c;muv pue tuciuiriQ jsoa uoiSuiqSEw, eqi 'spjeypiy IMS ting siooniieg 3WJ, 'UOUOH ujOX SSUJJ. ling o6eoiq3 aqj. `/jauuey taeqp'ft auirefiew AiO uois^oh 'jogips jswjjoj `JS|UM S3uei3BVJ 'S'UOQ u>oj. 3SV 'jaaapcud 'S!*n i<ud j9>i)CA m3n sui 'sueoustuy Gtiepuadxg 'jauine 'jns&o>g griey oorg p aiStn/Y 'joqgne 'nc:>s |ipey ;jojejapoyv /)9)?S icuuooiiiBieCjisnisuoiiojjp'uvcwugiegpeaijHisspeuiot pue u&]E3i|nuap| usSouojb^ go E3iho jo;39j'0 'siuegwi jeieg jQ uotgdnay doysigio^ e(fwrt uljeaH Aig=r>pDjdy rsuoiiejau^ *jrqny ucmejDdjoo BigiAtjeft-suyDr juapisajy aoi/v joius `upox gray vo luEnnsuoO gsa;ajui pi|Qnd'jssiflCua |P)ueii>uOJiAU3 'UEUJ5||SPO /JJ*8 XJOA M3AJ )0 AjlSiOAIun /JO '9UP!PSM go |D0U3S !cu*s iutoig 'supipen go josssgovd pue auprpsw Agiuruumco go jossaiojy 'momiisS 6uiwg -jq /plS ***0 :sogsqcy ujsnpu| pen pue lOiwaiO 'tJS "uonoDuiegg sjmvom jax/om pajaSuepus su `jouine : ijox'cy. cjr^ pBiiun i/oosy umSuvst/Vi Mvn 'Jcgipg >3i|{e/Awipiue;y pue vouine )S3ui. sprigs :Rjoin=pow AuoujgiEaj, g*uo*Jy --mieaH jjsmsuv pue suoiiianQ '.uoaigourn Xuedu/OO DUE S/nomaN 3D WOd np o -joiDejia leoiaaiA,1 sievoo/DQ'Lpjex aoa;g uo uoiufi S Ji xJOjVi Piujoiv pue |bd:uj3U0 'gjO '.uapissjy 30iA luPDQTzew Awouguy UO'l01OJd pue auro qige)-g jc xuJBiqaiy UO|13*|GJj |0 v9nn\ |ran?|Od ssdusos WIIE5H leiwduiuOflAi/a go sidm:sui [euoiiEN 'jogoajio 'iiey piAeo 'jq ' UJIE3N pue /leges jeuoneonooQ jog ainjnsui )euoiisn jogsejlO XjndaQ `sbuiojj uuor 'JQ sioujiii go XjisjaArun qgiesLj pigany jo goouPS'9UiPipa)*i geiuauiuojiAig pue icuoiiedrcpo 'JOss|Oj^ \>*Oujeo ujEJlrtQ VQ J3V og UBigM .'ipantH iruiujeqo cpjez*H UMouy 6ui||&<iuc>o M4|<J0 qr *41 uo swjq :bjbq Xjojary Bin PU|H*B jocn go Aueiajpss ggEuSjeg^ Aeu voqr\ go luaujuedaQ STl yueSH pue Ais^s leuoueenppQ jOJ /jejSjpas uieisiss'e' 'aiewSuig egng -jq Sjmiuv pur tuoigsno ji^joja urau#ujv *ui Cui:o*ioJd u>oo|m 6i6t 'Cl JqwageS `Aeptunux 6i6l >l-l jaoiuajdss uc o&eoiqo ui punoi eq oi sauois /e ajeqj. pgai; lueyocos/gSuiscajpui u? ui suosjeasaxOOs lueuoaiui gspiu air 10 aujps eg xieg due uSism 01 ArunpoOCo 6U) SlSi|tLiir>Ci SJSUC B3u;ajiiC3 Ciq_L .,/jeueo #qj |C Duos., 'ujiij oesiejd-usruj egg )D buwOjS * WQ OSIE ||1M 031*06..01 'ft.., <sjjo pur sans?' eseasio ieuoi)EO-"ODO *uua*33 io su-aiQO'Q eui ssfos'o h<m assm pa.xsei AuemSaj abj jy* E,::itw;n0r >0'|CX3 Aj01EI"l53; 1U9oj'JJ9ac5 ;c e:3j ul Due '^Diejpi; 9A';3nDo/3Si -;ac a)?5ap -0<n >a3UE3 aoe;0wGM jo asrtcr BU- B-rJt,------------- --------- --______ pue e;meu 0m se sioslqns ieis.sacjiuoo pue gej'A uons eq him ssidoi syi 6uoojv 'JCUIUJ0S /ED OMl Sun jog saAtieiu8s}daj x>oz\ Due sssu soq pue sisigusos eiaeafeDBiMOuM uolu s uoueu 9Ul joAa/upeauuJiosi uec ShiiemonigeguosIjelvbNut*uejbtajcoSoe;S-guiion Ajeie.-oes suousa^o wau bxoac.c ci cu* EjaMSue sui id euios boiao^d 0 iOlusuc ue $i ^piiusp'CP sseasiQ ieuoi1eQn33Q UE SJSUi sg .apElQxiOAV GUI) u- iso-;,. SjSMSut Sul Dull C, VDpiy 3 LIBUO f |I 'syofaj 3i|llu3'3S tui!3i||U03 pue ssssaocjo iputsaoui ts.S'jjop SIP3*U.BU3 6u'1SiM'300j0I |C iui U1 gr.q--cc> J'jewoO'-" Due fiui6u0iieu3 e ^ f . = ->i UD ^l III g^rAw Aliunaiiuoo /iaA0 Agaieuimn oue 'AujOuOOB yi 'scol -ssauisna isagje Aayj. esrasip leuoigEdnpsc go sssuencasuop swi 01 aunmiwi Steuoou'ssaouiauPN aaeidxiOM am ui isoi /jogs e uaigo 00151 jeiu^Aeis luaiis ga/ aAissEuj 5'u; 'saigiuiej paipsige bui 01 Ar.ofceii vnoDuaojaj] e tuesa.oaj eseas'peue uieao leuoiieo^aoo 6"u/a aiuais jo oaiQESio usi e<e tiauio ssauunop siium vajnsca Ai>ep go uO'iei^ajAsp* eui ujOji a>p suepiisiuv DOO 001 iiebi ie ;esa uoea mo * iep'iejue^3 ptr /'USOPris SO isu 03 amcasd--3ujii e it Sie3ili-au3 |0 SU5JCP SSuuiiSujuS --Sp,.:TtU S'C iouj Oi casoC'S sjs.jd/.s 'aporf SnOipiSU' uE S- 1' JU..3 a;Dk-< S3fiO'OM ......... ( - > J.raa 5aii',:3a'A i r- r ir` Tl = } r r j i I * : \ -TT- 1 -12- 0< Mice nd Men: Cancir In the Workpiici 9 Lunch Break The Government Rol: Haw U Work* Wealth and Health: Economic and Policy lames ot Regulation a Ov, Carctnogem; Their Nature and toenlHicatlon Or. Thomas- ujncuso Pfseazr Professor mcus:/ia! arc fl*ffOruner)a) r-ea '.n Sc erCtfS Graduate School oi ?-.5i'C ~c3 University oi F-itsour-n Or Umoerto Sarficct. Chief Laooratory oi cicerimeruai Patrcic^v Division at Cancer Cause arc Prevention. National Cancer insr.tute Cancer Prevention Or. Marvin Legator. Professor ano Director. Dmsion o! environmental Toxicoicgy. Preventive Medicine ana Community Health. University of Texas Politics of Cancer Dr. Samuel cDStem, Protessor. Scnooi of Public Health, University ol Illinois, author. The Poimzs of Cancer Questions ana Answers For Further Information, Contact U.S. Department of labor Occupational Safety ana Health -dtfjrninis rra tion _ Or. Euta Bingham. Assistant Secretarv lor Occupational Safety and Health Dr. Anthony Robbins. Director. National Institute far Occupational Safety and Health Timothy Cleary. Chairman. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Moderator: Franklin Greer. Special Assistant to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Laoor Grover Wrenn. Director. Federal Compliance ana State Programs, Occupational Saiecy and Heaitn Administration Peter Lowry, former Chief Counsel. Council on Wage and Price Stability Dr. Nicholas Ashford. Associate Prcresscr of Technology anc Fency, and Assurant 0<rec:ar of The Cxrer for Policy Aiterna fives. Massachusetts institute ol Tecnnotogy David Bourdon or Carol Parxer {202* 523*86t5 Otfce of Information and Consumer Affairs Occupational safety and Health Administration U.S. Department of Labor Washington. D.C. 20210 Lost in the Workplace: 4 f 'I .-i Cv--N-c-l.' ;n % Is 77iere an Occuoarional Disease Eoidemic? AP00054702 If you are familiar with the litany of "industrial abuse" and misinformation on the health and safety issue that has poured out of OSHA and its consultants, you will see that the bulk of the cast of characters who provide it are on this program. There are at least two of the authors of the infamous "Estimates Paper" which was prepared hastily and without an^ peer review for HEW Secretary Califano to support a speech he made before an AFL-CIO convention in which he claimed 25-38% of all future cancer cases would be due to occupational exposure to chemicals. This paper, when finally made available for review, long after Califano had captured the desired headlines, was ridiculed and denigrated by responsible scientists all over the world. It was an advocacy paper of the worst kind, and has made Government epidemiology a laughing stock in scientific circles. The program includes several persons who have been pushing the scare story that there is a cancer epidemic in the nation caused and fueled by workplace exposure, all in the face of incontrovertible statistics that show that only lung cancer, attributable almost entirely to smoking, is increasing noticeably and, on an age adjusted basis, almost all other cancers are level or declining over the last 50 years, and total age-adjusted cancer incidence has not changed over that time period. The program includes a man in government employ who has made a career of claiming, and attempting to prove, that there is an excess of cancer and birth defects among people living in the vicinity of industrial plants, only to see his every report in this regard thoroughly debunked by other government groups or independent scientific groups. Note the titles of the symposia and the people involved in them, and note the showing of one of several professionally developed films by OSHA which are part of their publicity campaign, produced at very high cost. AP00054703 -14- How does that program sound for balance? If we exclude the workers providing personal testimony, there are two of the 27 people on this program from industry and both of those are medical doctors. It may not be too presumptuous to assume the workers' testimony will not be pro-industry. Following the publication of this program, the American Industrial Health Council protested to OSHA on the design of this meeting and its publicity, and was able, by considerable arm twisting, to get additional industry representation on the program. An attempt to add one or two more objective scientists on the program as well was refused. I do not know how much attendance this meeting has generated but there will be some industry people there, now that the program is known about, you may be sure. Early information indicated press attendance would be light, however. Before we leave this outstanding example of your government at work, a few more comments may be in order. Remember the Bureau of Labor Statistics.figures I quoted earlier in this talk? Those figures said total deaths were 4,800 in establishments with over 11 employees in 1977 as part of 5,300,000 workplace injuries or illnesses. Those figures were also said to include 162,000 persons who contracted recognized occupational diseases in 1977. How then does one rationalize those figures with the "massive yet silent slaughter" in which "each year at least 100,000 Americans die from the accumulation of daily exposures while countless others are left disabled or sterile?" It seems abundantly clear they cannot be rationalized. As you heard from Or. O'Connell this morning, extensive searching of the literature reveals in a NIOSH report published in 1972 a statement that "there may be as many as 100,000 deaths per AP00054704 -15- year from occupationally caused disease." This conjecture is based on the most trivial and inappropriate of extrapolations of very skimpy data. Studies of three sample groups of workers were made by government people at quite different times: Underground metal miners in 1963 Copper smelter workers in 1969 Uranium Miners in 1971 Perhaps you will recognize these as industries with greater than average health hazards. Total violent and nonviolent deaths reported in these three studies were totalled, and the ratio of these was determined. That ratio of nonviolent/violent workplace-related deaths for the three groups studied was 7:1: 422 violent deaths; 2,800 nonviolent deaths. The NIOSH report does not state how the nonviolent deaths were defined. Another estimate taken from a National Health Survey conducted by the Health Services and Mental Health Administration's National Center for Health Statistics showed that, in 1971, a total of 14,000 violent occupational deaths occur per year for the nation as a whole. This total of 14,000 was then multiplied by the derived ratio from the three selected industries to get 7 x 14,000 = 98,000 deaths/yr claimed to be caused by occupational disease. Incidentally, a significant portion, approximately 5,000, of the reported 14,000 violent deaths were due to motor vehicle accidents. This figure* without any other known substantiation, has been used so frequently by OSHA and other government agencies that any casual observer surely considers it by now to be incontrovertible fact. That is why I say even your government is playing loosely with the facts. And as you heard from Dr. O'Connell, this is no isolated example of malperformance by government agencies. AP00054705 -16- What is the bottom line of all of this? Our society is playing adversarial games of politics and bureaucratic aggrandizement and power seeking with the legitimate concerns we all should have for the safety and health of our work force. We are permitting nonsense and irrationality to weigh down our economic strength and to misdirect appropriate disposition of our resources in very wasteful ways. We are dissipating our energies in needless wrangling, and destroying our faith in each other because of uselessly adversarial postures on matters where our interests are identical. We al1 want the safest workplace environment reasonably attainable based on the best knowledge available. We need to find a way to devote the necessary resources to gaining better knowledge on how to do this in a cost-efficient way rather than wasting those resources in expensive regulations which produce no benefit for anyone. These things have happened, in part, because we in industry have not yet done a good enough and uniform enough job in understanding job safety thoroughly and then "telling the worker" in candid, complete terms. Nor have our workers done a good enough job in their observance of their personal responsibility for safety. One concrete step we all in .this room can take to improve the whole scene is to assure that industry is less subject to criticism on our performance by performing better. Who should tell the worker? That, ladies and gentlemen, is your job, and mine. Thank you very much. AP00054706 Richard Fleming Associates, Inc. 7661 Beryl Road Zionsville, PA 18092 Phone (610) 966-2010 Fax (610) 966-2150 RECEIVED January 12, 1995 1.99. LAW DEPT Bruce Whitney, Esq. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. 7201 Hamilton Boulevard Allentown, PA 18195-1501 Dear Bruce: Attached for your information is a copy of my first invoice letter to Andy Hanen. As we discussed, because of my deep personal involvement in the industry efforts in the debate on the OSHA standard and the work to comply with it after it was promulgated, 1 am quite interested in helping the industry in general in the defense of this suit, as well as Air Products. If in your work with the litigation group you see the opportunity to suggest that possibility to others who might have an interest, I hope you will do that. Of course, no such other activity should work to interfere with the Air Products defense. Furthermore, as I told you, if I am approached by others, I will consult with you before any decisions are taken to assure there would be no adverse implications. While I deplore the bringing of these claims against Air Products, 1 am pleased to have the opportunity to work with you. Best wishes. Richard Fleming RF/ta Enclosure AP00054707 Richard Fleming Associates, Inc. 7661 Beryl Road Zionsville, PA 18092 Phone (610) 966-2010 Pax (610) 966-2130 January 11, 1995 Andrew S. Hanen, Esq. Hanen, Alexander & Spalding 3850 Texas Commerce Tower 600 Travis Houston, TX 77002 Dear Andy; I enjoyed the opportunity' to meet and talk with you, Thome, Bruce and Mayo Smith during our meetings of January 3 and 4. It seems very clear that the Air Products defense against this illconsidered suit will be a very strong one and chat it is in good hands. While I certainly cannot speak for other individual companies, I can speak to the efforts of Air Products, and of the industry as a whole, to deal forthrightly and openly with the issues involved, as I have told you. Because of my personal involvement on behalf of both Air Products and the industry beginning in 1973, I am anxious to do all I can to help both on this matter. It is my understanding that I am to submit my invoices for my efforts to you for payment. Accordingly, I attach Invoice 95-1 to'cover my work to date. Since the schedule for my future efforts remains uncertain, my hillings are bound to be somewhat sporadic in nature. I trust this creates no problems for you. I look forward to working with Thome and you. Best wishes. Richard Fleming RF/ta Enclosure AP00054708