Document 93rOkqqk8pBwvp9JQoDNERRLR

FILE NAME: National Safety Council (NSC) DATE: 1976 DOC#: NSC099 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: NSC - National Safety Congress Transactions VOLUME 16 Mining National Safety Co uncil 444 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1VSC - I T Asters can profit and in area could ige. Methods rock close to o damage to e available to x noise to a /ell-fractured adverse Con nie; what we necessary to s to use those tn expensive n ill-trained is not so obpoor blaster lars worth of t. on scientific iples can be blasters. The eal. (Alt-W f f c 'u: t... -/ Mining Sessions BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ASEAMAID TO PROTECTING WORKERS IN THE MINING AND SMELTING INDUSTRY By M. O. VARNER Department o f Environmental Sciences, ASARCO Inc., Salt Lake City, UT An objective of industrial hygiene is to protect the worker against the health effects of ingestion and inhalation of substances that in some forms and above certain quantities or concentrations might be toxic. One of the tools used in providing protection against the effects of such substances as lead, arsenic, and cadm ium is biological monitoring. Another and com panion tool is air monitoring.. Biological monitoring is a general term that includes routine analysis of body fluids, primarily blood and urine, to determine concentrations of the con taminants. An effective biological monitoring program will show, in ad vance of possible illness, when such con centrations are rising and approaching levels associated with health effects and when, therefore, preventive measures must be taken. Biological monitoring yields a measure of the potential effect of total exposure of the individual and in that sense is superior to air monitoring as a means of determining the extent to which protection may be needed. Even when air monitoring shows that airborne concentrations in the workplace are at levels indicating a desired degree of protection, work habits and practices, personal hygiene, or even spare-time ac tivities might result in a worker's inges tion as well as inhalation of different amounts of contaminants than those in dicated by air monitoring. More impor tantly, the potentially harmful absorp tion and accum ulation of certain substances can be detected best by analysis of samples o f blood or urine. Biological monitoring is quite consis tent with the sound and prudent practice of industrial hygiene. The American In dustrial Hygiene Association defines in dustrial hygiene as a science "devoted to the recognition, evaluation, and control of those environmental factors . . . which may cause sickness. . . ." As the most effective and the most accurate means of recognizing and evaluating oc cupational exposure to various sub stances and therefore of triggering con trol measures, biological monitoring constitutes sound and prudent industrial hygiene practice. The criticism has been made that a program of biological monitoring uses the workers involved as "human guinea pigs." This charge is not valid, because the objective of any health maintenance program that includes b iological monitoring is protection based upon scientific data obtained from experimen tation that has already been done. Although biological monitoring has significant advantages over other procedures in many situations as part of the detection, prevention, and com pliance mechanisms, this procedure is not applicable in dealing with some sub stances that might be found in the workplace. This is because those sub stances are not readily excreted in urine or because they cannot be measured in urine or blood. Such substances include asbestos and silica, for which en vironmental monitoring, coupled with comprehensive medical examinations, 23 19T6 National Safety Congress must be used for the assessment of in dustrial hygiene problems related to operations involving those particular substances. Environmental monitoring, par ticularly the sampling and analysis of air in the workplace, is an important procedure and every employer should have an air sampling program in effect. Two purposes can be served thereby: 1. Areas in a plant can be identified in which airborne concentrations violate adopted and promulgated standards of exposure. These measurements can be used to indicate where engineering con trols and modification of work practices need to be instituted or improved, if to do so is feasible. Control of concentrations of dust and fume by exhaust ventilation is the usual method of preventing employees from inhaling excessive quantities of sub stances that could, in time, accumulate in the body and cause illness. The re quired degree of control by this or other means is not always feasible or im mediately available, however, and ex isting controls can be supplemented by approved respirators which, when properly fitted and worn, will effectively prevent inhalation of contaminants. Or dinarily, on most jobs, respirators need be worn only part of the time. 2. The effectiveness of engineering con trols can be evaluated by air monitoring. Air sampling, however, has a number of serious deficiencies and may not ac curately measure the worker's exposure actually effective in causing absorption of airborne substances. Air samples can be unreliable indicators of employee risk, particularly for such materials as lead, cadmium, and arsenic which can also be ingested. As ordinarily done, air sampling and analysis do not correct for large particles which cannot be inhaled and for the varying solubilities of air borne compounds. An environmental "exposure limit," based simply on air borne co n centrations, should not, therefore, function as the sole com 24 pliance mechanism or be the only measure used for the worker's protec tion. Similarly, biological samples alone should not be relied upon, but should be supplemented with air sampling data to verify exposure sources or indicate poor personal hygiene, work habits and prac tices, etc. The air sampling pumps used for en vironmental monitoring are sometimes referred to as " sophisticated in struments." They are not sophisticated at all. They merely consist of a sample holder and filter, a piece of plastic tubing and a vacuum pump. This equipment typically measured only the total mass of airborne particles. The equipment also produces measurements which are sub ject to considerable variation and so are unreliable as indicators of either employee health or the condition of the working environment. _Air sampling and biological monitor ing can be combined to assess the effec tiveness of respirators, particularly when dealing with such compounds as lead, cadmium, or arsenic. For example, Table 1 shows the results of testing respirator efficiencies used in the production of arsenic. The figures were obtained by collecting air samples, both insdie and outside of a respirator, under actual field conditions. Biological samples also can be used as an indication of the effectiveness of respirators. Table 2 shows the results of biological monitoring for employees handling arsenic compounds. In April the type of respirator being used was changed. By December, there was a 50 per cent reduction in average urinary ex cretion of arsenic, indicating the effec tiveness of the new respirator employed in April and the value of employee train ing programs. A truly effective industrial hygiene program gives adequate emphasis to both air sam pling and b iological monitoring. When used together, the sources of employee absorption of some potentially toxic materials can be es tablished, i.e., personal hygiene, workplace of occupa by the dil maintenar types of n R, Run 1 Wei 2 Wei 3 MS. 4 MS. 5 Wil 6 Wil 7 A 8 A 'ie only , protec- nples alone , t should be ing data to dicate poor s and prac- 1 tsed for ensometimes icated inhisticated at f a sample lastic tubing . equipment otal mass of ipment also ich are subn and so are of either dition of the cal monitoress the effeccularly when \ 's as lead, .. example, :s o f testing rsed in the figures were amples, both tirator, under an be used as ectiveness of the results of >r employees nds. In April ing used was here was a 50 ige urinary ex- ting the effec- itor employed mployee train- y .strial hygiene emphasis to d biological together, the nstion of some can be es- ` nal hygiene, Mining Sessions workplace exposure, etc. The prevention of occupational disease can be achieved by the diligent application of a health maintenance program involving both types of monitoring. T able 1 Respirator Testing Per Cent Respirator Run Type Efficiency Arsenic 1 Welsh 7500-8 98.76 2 Welsh 7500-8 99.10 3 MSA Type H >99.43 and >99.18 4 MSA Type H >97.47 and >96.61 5 Willson R-12 >99.22 and >98.95 6 Willson R-12 99.63 7 AO R-57 99.83 8 AO R-57 97.12 T able 2 Month Urinary Excretion Changed to Different Respirators April -- Sept. 12.1 Oct. 15.6 Emphasized Proper Use of Respirators Dec. 50.3 25 uciy as a detec to systems for or production t deal of conolving around i. Admittedly, ther new, and Lse starts and unately, the lent their eflingly reliable, e necessity of which will err t can operate ith little or no re expensive tibie gas inall familiar, I bear in mind rument to rentities of gas rt o f output "'ing with a te device, ulity is there, as I began it, ' long ago to y where Dr. `1 have intery man possiunconscious to find one i o f having ng under its 11is certainly r warning." ' / u `J 1 Petroleum Sessions INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE CONSIDERATIONS IN REFINERY OPERATIONS By MELITON M. GARCIA Mgr., OccupationaTTltC*Tennoeon , Houston, TX A refinery is a m asterpiece of engineering skill--in this maze of vessels and pipelines a marvelous transforma tion of crude oil is taking place; a great variety of petroleum and petrochemical products which have a great effect on the economy of this country and on the world are being produced. To the casual observer or to a person not trained in occupational health, the only possible hazard they associate with the refinery is a fire or an explosion. To the novice industrial hygienist, the presence of occupational health hazards, with the exception of the noise, is also obscure. The only evidence that some " t o x ic " a g en t is lu rk in g in the background is the "refinery odor" that can be detected at all areas. To the refinery worker, to the owner of the refinery, and to the community members that depend on the jobs provided by the refinery, the "odor" is affectionately referred to as "the smell of money." During normal operating conditions in a refinery, the potential for exposure to occupational health hazards in an operating unit is at a minimum. The reason for this is that very few personnel are in the unit and the products are all in a closed system. The greatest p<jt(qptial for exposure occurs during turnaround of a unit or units. At this time vessels are opened, catalyst is replaced, surfaces on tanks, pressure vessels, pipes, etc., are cleaned and welded, and insulation is stripped and replaced. A high potential for exposure continues until all units are back on stream. The workmen experiencing the greatest exposure potential are the maintenance personnel who are assigned to perform their labors in the refinery complex. The personnel least exposed are probably the unit op erators. Automation and centralization of con trol instrumentation have contributed greatly to the reduction of operating per sonnel exposures. Of course, during turn around most refinery personnel become involved and the exposure risk increases. At this time, contract personnel are brought in to perform all types of work and they are also exposed to the poten tially harmful agents. The major occupational health hazards that can be identified in refinery operation include noise, dusts, chemicals, and sanitation. Noise Noise is the most obvious and per vasive harmful agent. It is generated by electric motors, steam turbines, cooling fans, forced draft fans, primary and secondary air intakes for burners, steam leaks, high pressure air and steam let downs, pressure control values, power generators, compressors, sand blasting, fluid transmission pipes, flares, and m echanical equipm ent needing maintenance or replacement. Sources like the high pressure steam and air let down can generate 125 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the outlet. In a typical refinery, at least 75 per cent of the area bounded by the battery lines of the whole refinery complex may exceed 85 dBA. Past and present activity in noise con trol by industry and the enforcement of the OS HA noise standard has resulted in the development and installation of various noise control devices in refinery operations. For example; flares have been equipped with silencers; cooling fans have been designed with more blades and operate at slower speeds; 23 1976 National Safety Congress forced draft fans on boilers or stacks have been equipped with silencers; p ipelines have been lagged with acoustical materials; electric motors of the totally enclosed fan cooled (TEFC) variety have been equipped with mufflers; primary intake air openings on burners have been equipped with mutes; acoustic plenums have been constructed around the secondary air intakes for burners; turbines, pumps, and motors have been enclosed in acoustic booths; high pressure steam and air let-down outlets have been equipped with silencers; greater attention has been given to the repair of steam leaks, to the replacement or repair of bad bearings and to dampening of vibrating equip ment; control valves are being replaced with " trim or drag" valves that drastically reduce the noise at the valve body and eliminate transmission of the noise along the pipeline. Adoption of one or more of the noise control techniques has resulted in signifi cant reduction of noise levels at the source and significant changes in the quality of the ambient noise at the unit and refinery as a whole. Dusts The dusts to which a refinery worker can be ex p o sed , e s p e c ia lly the maintenance and crafts personnel (com pany or contractor), include asbestos, silica, catalyst, coke, and residue or scale accumulated inside vessels or pipes. Exposure to asbestos occurs when the old insulation is stripped from the vessels and pipes, when the new insulation is trimmed to fit the vessel or pipes, and during clean up of the waste insulation and debris. Preventing exposures re quires that the material to be stripped be wetted down before stripping begins, that the scrap be disposed of in closed and labeled containers, that dustproducing operations such as trimming and grinding be done with the use of exhaust ventilation, and that personnel wear respiratory protective devices when conditions warrant it. 24 Exposure to silica occurs when the vessels and pipelines" are sandblasted. Not only is the person d o in g the sandblasting exposed, but so are the refinery workers who may be working in an area downwind from the sandblasting operation. Recent studies by contractors for NIOSH have sh o w n that sandblasters are definitely exposed even though they are wearing the common sandblasting hood and supply air. To ameliorate exposure to silica, many employers have changed from river sand to fine fused slag known as "Black Beauty" and "Stan-Blast." Better respiratory protective hoods are also be ing used. When a unit is shut down for turn around, catalyst beds are changed. Ex posure occurs when the workmen enter the confined spaces to remove the catalyst or when the vessel is being charged. Toxic substances that may be found in the catalyst include: silica, nickel, vanadium, iron, cobalt, and other substances. Use of appropriate protec tive clothing will reduce the exposure to catalyst dust. General and/or local ex haust ventilation must be used in con fined spaces. Chemicals The chemicals to which refinery per sonnel can be exposed, either in the gas eous or liquid state, are legion. These chemicals can be raw products, in termediate products, or final saleable products. The following are examples of some of the common potential exposure to be anticipated: 1. Operating personnel who sample the product streams, check the product storage tanks, and open drain pipes on various vessels or water knock-out tanks are exposed to varying concentrations of hydrocarbon vapors. 2. Personnel at the product loading locations, tankers and. barges may, depending upon the prevailing at mospheric conditions, experience signifi cant exposures to hydrocarbon vapors. A recent study conducted by Shell Oil of the lusted* ig th e re the king in lasting actors that d even mmon silica, from >wn as Better Iso be- r turn d. Ex1 enter /s the being nay be silica, 4 other itecsure to :al exn con- ry perhe gasThese ts, inaleable pies of I posure * sample ' roduct pes on t tanks ions of oading m a y , ng at<mifi- pors. lOil of Petroleum Sessions the potential exposure of personnel attending to the loading operations ex perienced their highest exposure when loading tankers with top loading and no vapor recovery systems. 3. Laboratory personnel who analyze the many samples are exposed to the hydrocarbon vapors; most laboratories are ill-equipped as far as local exhaust capabilities are concerned. 4. Personnel who work with anti knock additives for gasoline must con stantly be on the alert to prevent ex posure to those extra-hazardous agents. Proper protective clothing must be worn by personnel, adequate local exhaust ventilation must be provided when working with these agents in confined spaces, and an adequate supply of kerosene must be available in the event that decontamination of the skin or clothing is necessary. 5. Personnel working in the alkyla tion unit, especially if hydrogen fluoride is used as the catalyst, must observe very strict precautions if contact with this very corrosive agent is to be avoided. Impervious clothing must be worn; the extent of protection needed is dictated by the work to be performed and the location in the unit. 6. When sour crude is processed, ex posure to hydrogen sulfide can occur at the crude storage tanks or anywhere on the closed system prior to its removal at the sweetening unit; from this point, ex posures can occur in the closed system leading to and at the sulfur plant. 7. Exposures to toxic substances used in ancillary operations include: elemen tal lead used to seal the connecting joints in vessels, or lead fumes generated while welding or burning on painted surfaces; lead oxide used as a primer paint on the outside surfaces of vessels and piping; elemental mercury used in pressure sens ing devices; water treatment chemicals that include chromates, acids, and caustic materials; radioactive sources used as level gauges and density sensors; fumes from welding or brazing operations, especially when working in confined spaces or on contaminated sur faces. Sanitation Refineries are show places when it comes to housekeeping and outward appearance in the units. Unfortunately, this zeal for cleanliness is lost when it comes to lunch rooms, restrooms, water fountains, change rooms, and places where food is prepared and served in the unit. If occupational health hazards in petroleum refining operations are to be identified, quantified and controlled and if prevention of exposures are the objec tives of the management, a comprehen sive industrial hygiene program must be instituted to accomplish the following: 1. Examine the work environment and environs: (a) study work operations, processes, and materials to assess the nature of the potential for exposure to harmful conditions. This will require an assessment of work habits, equipment use, materials used as raw and in termediate materials or products and by products, number of persons exposed, duration of exposure, and mode of exposure; (b) make appropriate measurements to establish the concen tration of contaminant or magnitude of exposure. 2. Interpret results of field studies, ex aminations, and measurements to deter mine the ability of the stresses to cause illness and the degree of hazard potential created by these stresses. 3. Make, specific recommendations as to the need for and type of control measures necessary to minim ize or eliminate exposure. These measures may include one or more of the following: isolation of the process or work opera tion to reduce the number of exposed personnel; substitution of a hazardous material with one of no known hazard or at least one of lesser hazard; alteration of the process or work cycle to minimize human exposure; appropriate applica tion of ventilation practices and equip ment to provide an atmosphere safe for 25 1976 National Safety Congress human occupancy; provide shielding or the education of managers and plant enclosures and limit the time of exposure employees in the prevention of o c and distance between the stress agent cupational diseases. and the worker; good housekeeping 8. Conduct epidem iologic studies practices, including cleanliness of the among workers and similar industries to work place, proper waste disposal, ade discover the possibilities of the presence quate washing, toilet, and restroom of occupational diseases. Correlation of facilities, healthful domestic water supply and lunch room facilities, and plant studies, worker exposures, and in cidence of disease will help in guiding the f control of insects and rodents; ap development of realistic standards by ! propriate personal protective devices governmental agencies. j co such as respirators, hearing protectors, 9. Coordinate with various company * bo. and other special clothing consistent organizations such as manufacturing, ' clii with the nature of the hazard. production, safety, fire protection, a 4. Review plans for new or modified medical, employee relations, engineer- bu: expansion of facilities or processes; ing, etc., on matters relating to the use of hig review engineering designs of facilities hazardous substances and control of per- of and health hazard control methods; and sonnel exposures. fur review and approve materials purchased "ac for use in process or operation. This Conclusion tj0 practice will assure that occupational To the casual observer who tours an as health hazards are recognized and oil refinery while it is in full operation, sh< elim inated while in the planning or the presence of occupational health an< design stages rather than retrofitting hazards and the potential for personnel ere after the fact. exposures are not obvious. However, to 5. Prepare realistic rules, regulations, the professional industrial hygienist, the for standards, or operating procedures to subtle exposures that occur while the gre conduct work in a health-safe manner. refinery is operating smoothly and while me 6. Prepare appropriate methods of the refinery units are on turn-around are saf alerting the worker to the hazards real and present cause for action. po associated with the materials or process. Maintenance personnel have the highest of This should include material safety data .risk potential and turnaround operations cid sheets, warning labels for bulk and small pose the greatest opportunities for ex- the containers, placards at the site of poten posure. Noise and chemical dusts, mists, me tial exposure, and hazard control and vapors are the hazardous agents of his bulletins. greatest concern. nec 7. Develop and conduct programs for th< me (i.e sell for "A 1 SOI ref 1 boi ser em boi dat 26 ! ,. w S <T-,0 / OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES SECTION NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 1976-77 General Chairman--Vern A. Sielert, Loss Prevention Manager, G. T. E. Service Corp., Stamford, CT First Vice-Chairman--Bruce G. Gallagher, Safety Coordinator, Ontario Hydro, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Second Vice-Chairman--Richard J. Oliphant, Safety Director, Denver Water Dept., Denver, CO Secretary--Wendell K. Stevens, Staff Supervisor, Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Indianapolis, IN Program Committee--Frank E. J ohnson (Chairman), Safety Administrator, General Telephone Co. of Michigan, Muskegon, MI; Robert W. Dressell (Vice Chairman-- Communications), Safety Coordinator, Pacific Northwest Bell, Seattle, WA; William Irwin (Vice Chairman--Electric), Senior Safety Representative, Public Service Electric & Gas Co., Newark, NJ; Richard Schafstall (Vice-Chairman-- Gas), Supervisor of Safety, Education & Train ing, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., Cincinnati, OH; Darrell Barnes (ViceChairman-- Water), Safety Director, City of Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO Technical Publications Committee--Charles J. Popke (Chairman), Safety Director, The L. E. Myers Co., Chicago, IL; J ames G. A nderson (Vice-Chairman), Safety Director, Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., Shreveport, LA; Committee Members-- David J. Martinson, Manager, Health & Safety, East Ohio Gas Co., Cleveland, OH; Charles W. Entsminger, Personnel Supvr., Safety, The C & P Telephone Co. of W.V., Charleston, WV; J oseph D amiano, Industrial Hygienist, Public Service Electric & Gas Co., Newark, NJ Training Committee-- Robert S. Horn (Chairman), Director, Job Training & Safety, Pennsylvania Rural Electric Assn., Harrisburg, PA; Marvin O. N elson (Vice-Chairman), Safety Coordinator, National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn., Washington, DC; Committee Members--Harry Faint, Safety Director, Henkels & McCoy Inc., Elkhart, IN; Cecil Williams, Safety Coordinator, Virginia Assn. Electric Coops., Richmond, VA; J. Wesley Sammis, Assistant Manager, Safety Dept., Philadelphia Electric Co., Philadelphia, PA; Robert W. D ressell, Safety Coordinator, Pacific Northwest Bell, Seattle, WA Off-The-Job Safety Committee--T. O. (Ike) Gill (Chairman), Assistant Manager of Safety, Texas Power & Light Co., Dallas, TX; J erry S. T aylor (ViceChairman), Safety Director, Continental Telephone Service Corp., Atlanta, GA Industrial Hygiene Committee--Dave Trayer (Chairman), Supervisor, Industrial Hygiene, Special Projects, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, AL; D on H. M arshall (V ice-C hairm an), Manager Community Employee Relations, St. Louis County Water Co., University City, MO 16 Membership Committee--Norman R. Danfelt (Chairman), Manager, Safely, Metropolitan Edison Co., Reading, PA; Larry R. Person (Vice-Chairman), Minnesota Gas Co., Customer Service Dept., Minneapolis, M.N Audio-Visual & Training Aids Committee--Edmund J. Kelly (Chairman), Stuff Supervisor, Safety, A. T. & T. Co., Long Lines, Somerset, NJ; Committee Members--Charles A. Crawley, Manager Safety, Columbia Gas Transmis sion Co., Charleston, WV; Howard G- Husted, Safety Engineer, Department of Water & Power, The City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; Homer T. Welch 111, Safety Director, Lee County Electric Cooperative Inc., N. Ft. Myers, FL Publicity Committee--Cecil Williams (Chairman), Safety Coordinator, Virginia Association Electric Coops., Richmond, VA; Howard G. Hustad (ViceChairman), Safety Engineer, Department of Water & Power, The City o f Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA Newsletter Committee--Carl W. Luckowiak (Chairman), Personnel Supervisor-- Safety, Wisconsin Telephone Co., Milwaukee, Wl; Robert W. Stankus (ViceChairman), Safety Engineer, Philadelphia Gas Works, Philadelphia, PA Research Committee--Clarence O. Lind (Chairman), District Staff Supervisor, Safety & Health, Illinois Bell Telephone Co., Chicago, 1L; Harry C. F aint (Vice-Chairman), Safety Director, Henkels & McCoy Inc., Elkhart, Indiana; J. Wesley Sammis, Assistant Manager, Safety Dept., Philadelphia Electric Com pany, Philadelphia, PA Contest & Awards Committee--Charles K. F leming (Chairman), President, Ruraiite Services Inc., Portland, OR; Homer T. Welch HI (Vice-Chairman), Safety Director, Lee County Electric Cooperative Inc., N. Ft. Myers, FL Associations Committee--J erry L. T homas (Chairman), Safety Director, Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Co., Columbus, OH; R ichard Schafstall (ViceChairman), Supervisor of Safety, Education & Training, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., Cincinnati, OH Nominating Committee--Ernest G. Shearer (Co-Chairman), Coordinator, Train ing & Safety Education, Indiana Statewide Rural Electric Cooperative Inc., Indianapolis, IN; Paul Windsor (Co-Chairman), Consultant, National Safety Council, Chicago, 1L; Past General Chairmen--J ohn Yeaman (Retired), Alex andria, VA; Colon Stanley (Retired), Tampa, FL; Robert H. Ward, Safety Director, Omaha Public Power District, Omaha, NB; Basil J. (Base) Lorenz, Manager of Safety, Northern Indiana Public Service Co., Hammond, IN; Marvin B. T ravis, Northern Natural Gas Co., Omaha, NB; Charles W. Schweickart, President, Hoosier Engineering Company, Dublin, OH; Don L. Myers (Section Administrator), National Safety Council, Chicago, IL Special Association Representatives American Gas Association--Charles A. C rawley, Safety Manager, Columbia Gas Transmission Co., Charleston, WV Canadian Electrical Association--Bruce G. Gallagher, Safety Coordinator, On tario Hydro, Toronto, Ontario, Canada National Utilities Training--Safety--Education Association--A rt Mc Mahon, Job Training & Safety Director, Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative, Inc., Tucson, AZ 17 National Rural Electric. Cooperative Association--Marvin O. Nelson, Safety Coor dinator. National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn., Washington, DC American Water Works Association--R ichard J. O liphant, Safety Director, Denver Water Dept., Denver, CO Edison Electric Institute--J ohn P. Markey, Coordinator of OSHA Activities, Edison Electric Institute, New York, NY 18