Document 9J53j9qoX0nZbO2X1OyKv0yMV

TEXAS CHEMICAL COUVCII 1000 BRAZOS, SUITE 200, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701-2476, (512) 477-4465 To: TCC Members From: S. E. Anderson Attached you will find the Minutes of the Third Quarter Occupational Safety Committee Meeting which was held in Houston, Texas on Sept. 8 & 9. This was another productive meeting. We formed a new committee to deal with Process Hazards Management, we formed a sub committee to work the issues on rapid response to regulatory issues, we adopted the performance/awards system for Board approval, and work continues on the ambulance issue. All of this in addition to beginning to break in a new Chairman. It looks like we're hitting our stride. Begin to plan now to attend the Fourth Quarter meeting on December 8 & 9, 1988. Group VIII will host, coordinated by Dave Bremer of Hoechst-Celanese. We will meet at the Holiday Inn/Hobby Airport in Houston. It should be another great meeting! See you there! S. E. Anderson Vice Chairman SEA/km LAM 010320 DPMC-0672 TEXAS CHEMICAL COUNCIL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY COMMITTEE 3RD QUARTER MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 19SB The 3ra quarter meeting convened at S:GO a.m. Septemoer 9, 19SS at the Nasa Bay Hilton on Clear Lake. The attendance roster is included as Attacnment I and an uodated membership list as Attachment II. I terns discussed are as foilows: I. Chairman's Report - Larry Lucchesi - Chevron Chemical Co. (Jim Woodrick has been appointed by TCC to take over the chairmanship of the new SARA Title III Committee. Larry Lucchesi was appointed to take Jim's place as chairman of the Occupational Safety Committee.) The TCC Executive Board met in June at which time were approved. A mission statement was developed outcome to be favorable public opinion, favorable able tax rates and regulatory agencies that favor position. future plans for TCC with the desired legislation, favor a global competitive A staff expansion is projected to double the staff to 10 people by 1993. At that time there will be separate directors for TCC and ACIT. Other additions to the staff will be a new director of governmental affairs, a public relations and communications specialist and two additional clerks. As noted before, company dues will be doubled to bring about these improvements II. Vice Chairman's Report - Stan Anderson, Rohm & Haas Tom Gillespie received a promotion within Shell and will no longer be a member of this committee. A letter of commendation from Jim Woodrick to Tom Gillespie was read concerning Tom's accomplishments with the Occupation Safety Committee. A. Stan presented information in the Health and Safety Newsletter, Volume 3, No. 1 from CMA. I terns of interest in this newsletter were a view of SARA Title III, the use of magnetic media for submitting data to EPA, Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG's) being developed by members of the Organization of Resource Counselors, Inc. (ORC), the availability of the TRANSCAER video, preparations for the 1989 Internationa1 Agency for Research and Cancer (IARC) meeting, OSHA's proposed lock out/tagout rule, and the delay of HAZWOPER. The CMA contact, along with the CMA phone number, is noted for each of the items if additional information is needed (Attachment III). B. Industrial Ambulance Update LAM 010321 A tele-conference was held between John Fisher, Tom Dearing, and Stan Anderson concerning plans to get legislation to improve this untenable situation. Plans are to work with the next session of DPMC-06723 TCC Minutes Face Z legislation to define emergency vehicles and develop language to allow voluntary permitting. Ed Watson will be the legislative sponsor. Our draft of this proposal is written. It will be distributed to OSC members. Note: Charles Gilmore, one of the charter members of the Occupational Safety Committee, was present. He stated that this committee was formed 30 years ago with 16 members. We can be proud of the accom plishments of this group since that time. III. Committee Reports A. Ad Hoc Recordkeeping Committee/Safety Performance and Awards Ron Starcher, Exxon 1. The OSC developed a position for TCC on OSHA recordkeeping that was submitted previously. In the past quarter there have been no new proposals on recordkeeping. 2. The Safety Award Program was presented (Attachment IV). A motion was made and carried to send this program to the executive board of TCC for approval. Since this completes the charter given to this ad hoc Committee, Ron Starcher resigned as chairman. A new chairman will be selected for the Safety Awards Committee. B. CAER/SARA Committee - Jim Woodrick, DuPont LAM 010322 No report from this committee since Jim Woodrick was not present. Stan Anderson will report on this subject at the next meeting. C. Flag Waving - Charlie Craig, Mobay Synthetics Lubrizol, Bayport - Completed one year without a lost workday injury on August 11, 1988. Celebrated with pizza party for all personne1. Union Carbide Corp, Linde Division, Deer Park - Completed nine years without a lost workday injury. The Brown & Root Mainte nance crew completed three years without a lost workday injury and they have only had one lost workday injury in the last eight years. Cain Chemical, Bay'City - On August 1, 1988 they completed seven years without a lost workday injury. Texas Alkyls, Inc. - As of March 6 they have completed five years without a lost workday injury and the contract maintenance group (Brown & Root) have completed 15 years without a lost workday injury as of August 30, 1988. Hoechst-Ce1anese, Bishop - Completed one million safe work hours without a lost workday injury. DPMC-06724 TCC Minutes Pace 3 Georgia Gulf Ccrp.. Pasadena - Thev have comoieted 10 years and over 700.000 safe hours without a lost workdav injurv. Dow Chemicals. Texas Operations - Exceeded tneir best previous safety performance record of 21.8 million safe work hours without a lost workdav injury and as of September 9, 1988 have postec 22 million hours. This encompassed 500 days. Chevron Chemical Co. , Orange - On July 1, 1988 they completed one year and one million safe hours without a lost workdav injury. Goodyear, Houston - Completed over 1.2 million safe hours without a lost workday injury over a period of 367 days. Mobil Chemical Co., 01efins/Aromatics Plant, Beaumont - Completed 3 million safe work hours and four years without a lost workday injury on June 22, 1988. Amoco Oil Company, Texas City - Plant Central Maintenance Divi sion completed over one year and one million safe work hours without a lost workday injury on August 19, 1988. D. Drug Abuse - Fred Sigmon, Hoechst Celanese In 1985, TCC took the stance that each member plant should have a pro-active drug abuse program with the goal of a drug-free chemical industry. A blue book entitled, "The Safety Considera tions of Drug Abuse in the Workplace", developed by the Occupa tional Safety Committee is available from Faye Washington at TCC. Her phone number is (512) 477-4465. Results of the latest survey of member companies is at TCC headquarters and should be mailed to the members soon. Resf.nses were down from 101 in the last survey to 82 in this survey. Of the 82, 74 have drug and alcohol abuse programs. The' percentage of plants participating is this type of a program has increased steadily since these surveys have been taken. Seventy-eight of the plants have screening programs for new employees and virtual ly 907. have an Employee Assistance Plan. Also, we are seeing an increase in number of contractors who have drug and alcohol abuse prog rams. In a recent development, Phil Gramm has met with a group of 11 other Senators to 'set up a plan for eliminating drugs in the U.S. We are very supportive of his efforts. E. Safety Standards - John Biggers, Dow LAM 010323 I terns discussed are included in Attachment V. They were: 1. Department of Labor report stating that labor--management committees in safeguarding worker safety and health need to be strengthened. This item will merit close watching in the future. DPMC-06725 22 'linuteE ice -1 1 2. Speech bv Robert Smerko, Presiaent, of the Chlorine Insti tute, calls for an all-out safety drive at chemical plant operations to preclude further Federal Government intrusions into the industry. G. Lee kou t/Tagou t - Unions in favor of lockout system. Ci'IA ana SOCMA support use of tags in addition to locks. Note: Public hearing on lockout/tagout will be heic in Houston on October 12 and 13, 1980. Dow Chemical personnel will testify at the hearing. It was aiso recommended that TCC be represented as we have submitted written comments to the OSHA docket officer (Attachment VI). Stan Anderson wili be available for the hearing. Other personnel who may attend will be Chairman Larry Lucchesi and the Lockout/Tagout Ad Hoc Committee members (Dennis Mitter1ehner, Ed Harris, Walter Treybig and Wayne Wright). 4. Electrical Safetv - The latest information on the proposed standard. 5. Display Terminals - New York union leaders organized to spur local and state VDT legislation. This looks like another pseudo-issue to assist in unionizing. 6. OSH ACT Reform - Representative Henry, the ranking minority member of the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Health and Safety has assembled a formal task force to develop legislation to amend portions of this act. Need to work on influencing this committee. 7. Warning against using plastic PVC pipe in compressed air piping. 8. Asbestos - A partial stay of the OSHA asbestos standards as they apply to three non-asbestiform minerals was-extended for another year. 9. Health Hazards - Possible future issue concerning car-- cinogenicity of diesel exhaust. 10. Drug Abuse - Senator Dole states that OSHA's authority should be expanded to insure drug-free workplaces. 11. Cumene Studies - EPA issued the final rule requiring studies an cumene. 12. Litigation - Briefs filed in appeal of a decision excusing Unocal Corp. from fire safety standard. OSHA Star - Art Mundt, Dow LAM 010324 An explanation was given of the OSHA voluntary protection pro grams. This includes what's in it for the company, what it takes to comply with the program, and how to get started on the pro gram. Additional information can be obtained by contacting DPMC-06726 either Diet- Zier, VFP Coordinator, U. S. Dent, of Labor - 05HA . Dallas Rector,ai Office, Fnone (214) 767-4741 or Art Mundt. Dew Chemical U.5.A., Director of Safety ana Lass Prevention. Texas Operations. Phene (409) 23S-2467. G. Texas Industrial Fire Board - Tom Dearing, Phillips 6c Updating the Industrial Fire Training Board - There have been three new directors elected and Ed Harris is the new Lice Chair man. Membership is up by 157.. A 15-minute video was procuced which explains the purpose and function of the Industrial Fire Trainina Board. Copies will be made available. There is a strong move in Texas to come up with state fire codes. The State Firemen's Association will push for this, but will work with the Industrial Fire Training Board to develop an industrial exemption. ITSFA has been declaring itself an expert in fire protection and has written what it proclaims is a standard for industry without industry's input. Both NFPA and the Texas Industrial Fire Training Board (Tom Dearing) have written letters denouncing this publication. A copy of this letter is Attachment VII. Problems concerning the development of emergency service dis tricts have been discussed with Senator Buster Brown who will work on making legislative clarifications. As a result of the SHA citation against Unocal Corp. they have requested that API give them a position statement on sub-part L. Good HazMat training is available from Lamar University in Beaumon t. Anyone having unusual fire equipment that they are no longer planning to use is asked to donate it to the fire museum. The next meeting of the Industrial Fire Training Board will be held at Texas Eastman in Longview on December 6, 1988. H. TCC/TSA Safety Seminar - Walt Treybig, PD Glycol lam 010325 The 1988 Safety Seminar was a resounding success. There was an increase of 146 participants, resulting in a total of 812. The first day was sold'out with 444 being present. (Approximate1y 60 turned away.) Profits for the seminars were approximate1y 427,000. As a result 450,000 from seminar funds was turned over to TCC to be used in the building fund. The possibility of increasing the seminar to three days (third day would be a repeat of the session for 1st line supervisors) was discussed and approved. The seminar will be held at the San Luis in Galveston from June 27 to June 29 with the 2nd quarter 1989 0SC meeting being held on June 30. DPMC-06727 TCC Mi .ouces P ao e o ' The first meeting of this committee for the 1969 Seminar will be held September 16 at 3:00 at the Texas Safetv Association offices in Houston. It was dec aea to Term a planning use of any future profits from the se safetv seminars 11 is the feeling that this money should go toward promoting s f etv health and environmental matters - possiblv in the form of scholarships Fred Siamon will head the committee. V. Miscellaneous A. Effective Response - Since the Occupational Safety Committee meets only every three months, there is always a problem of how we as a group can respond to issues that arise. A group consist ing of Larry Lucchesi, Stan Anderson, John Rivard, John Biggers and Ron Starcher will meet to map out strategy toward accomplish ing this . B. Committee Chairmanships 1. Process Hazards Management - A new committee will be set up to deal with this issue. John Biggers will chair this committee. 2. Safety Standards Committee - Ron Starcher will replace John Biggers as chairman. C. Worker's Compensation Legislation There is a move on foot to make revisions to Texas Worker's Compensation. No OSC involvement will be needed at present as Harry Whitworth, TCC Director, has this as a top priority. D. Personnel Lifts - A new OSHA regulation concerning the use of personnel lifts was published in the Federal Register on August 2, 1988. Members should get a copy of this as soon as possible as some major changes are required. It is effective October 3, 1988. V. Fourth Quarter 1988 Meeting Plans - Dave Bremer, Hoechst Celanese The fourth quarter meeting will be held at the Hobby Airport Holiday Inn in Houston on December 8 and 9. DPMC-06728 BoB tV7v>g_ Pp> Plft^K ^ ^ bbfWHB ftlGHT 77/v ft/o/zsJ 7^r 'Z o Gscctrsptftr (4dou -thoAfiier ftftftUCtS Rcb-ih{- Church 4- /'/?") Yd'Sjn A*n /7^/c^W //rf/zrt /*t flH-Uik) Le^sts /j Ga.c,oJ> &* t's <Srt/i (/y/l l fAr*> s L'fiOiJ MooG" f?i+?ry d/KiTet? ftl/L T 'JOtTK/m^ yGb/fer //ty^'h CfAc/c. Z^yA/Af >/?&/ i>/9*e6Z. Pftmy P/<?/e.PopNt TZr^f S /V/?/ Yfi-LCi MKfi Yft FA NA ^> ( M. \ R^ TilLeTLy GftftftLtt P T L(AC^ kJ. Lv*<A^-f- /jYfat ch^A\Y' ^ cm. Co r*i ps^--y / sys 5 st ~nyz ___ Pgt^~oo/ Ch6.MICfU_ ExCHAUGG iH&USTfcw TP/AS ftZTfts CftetfjCAL S CO ^r*\^\jo , "T^x^ Lay S&CZ-t- &/c. Co. SpSLL. 0,L. G> . H UKo/J CftZsi/c/i-LS. /inn u/ ^// <Z<xo\J cC^r^vTOfVl^ C-X. /// /?fCA> S' ~ 'ZZ'S, P. ~ J&CUy^ai Grooe/y-e^fc - /YfiU^I~oAJ ft- & ft? s+A. - ^4y/ sft G^/^-sleS <t, J&a^0*-zft ftftorACS tYt*6/d//k~7~- Ocd^^f" Jteer- /V^ Di>/g Ct\&Micy)ts ftoftrt aa/o J-Jass j LSrtyfttir J**. Y?<rv'A-&ifii Goi.s Go SLf , Yl> (y/yCcLj /6eddrsc,rf ^/^S/CAVSS/tS ft&tcrr&A? C/aS! 0A/ d/J\*P>i dt-j ZYsSc/b. /Ypzo Ofesypofzs /sJc- y&vPoPr t/tS ~/tST?H'r*J d C.a.vp*iCZ~J UthoAj (L/lftP/0 / Tzxfts c/ry rcrxAc.<D cj-tew /CA&' H$**&,t* dUVR.oio ^VIfkMCow ^LWck. <^ . B*yrt>tfA) "W'** C'^y yS^jyftfto - Z're wA.s V<i\c C_ -- Dtenr Cn>_ LAM 010327 DPMC-0672 K/ Boh //W*'I Yv>. <V>*. /'k 7"eo Ak/'s/j VJ. D. m ' tferlohru -rtf 2>&f*/*6 /^J\2&- 5" / = A'l&SS C0-4WJ lS\<ir<e-e^ /w iA*\*rf` Arrru fflivlmoiU14% 3"irv\ ^VierN^t1^jc>D /</?/? Sizk Ed ("WzJU s UrzSLd Loc.c,it&?i Xo-u'j V\tk itu-o elocj (/d/c/e's CC ^' p y* /7U0 ^ ^ 7 d^i) rt i&L (Torf> Mob!/ Ch /' c>^/ -- /Vo />&//,?* & <2j^ s7~ Ed>-t u^j /- 4 gA:<g ^7^4->---QC'P Dc> va/ (iP ChtMtco^l' C-reev/i/X ~\X----- - lloc(L<Xa+Je*<- tS iur^p 5o(.rc,x 7%cY'V^'CS ~ 4^/fe^c {^/4^rum <Zlitm`C*K.(lu-fE/te* diJ&l/Z>A) CM&rrj i<LsfL- 4z> /V / Cumt/iiA-euj T/nvtfrr? ' #4yr^A. LAM 010328 DPMC-06730 /0 /v_ ^.'-<-^0 \L ty-ijyuIXL+Yy ' OUL 1 4 1988 Health & Safety <*** r*" Velume a Mo. i BOARD HEALTH EFFECTS COMMITTEE ENDORSES EPIDEMIOLOGY CENTER CONCEPT Juit*vt988 The Board Health Effects Committee held its fourth meeting at CMA headquarters on May 11. A major portion of the meeting focused on discussing the need and the means to estab lish an epidemiology center to encourage and enhance industry epidemiology programs. George Rodenhausen, chairman of the Health and Safety Committee (HSC), reported the results of a recent telephone poll of a sam ple of CMA member companies. The tele phone poll, designed by the HSC Epidemiolo gy Work Group, showed: Approximately forty percent of CMA members have occupational epidemiolo gy programs: Programs generally are located in larger companies with one thousand or more employees; and Over eighty percent of these programs have been in existence for more than five years. The poll also showed that an overwhelming majority of these companies contacted were in favor of the idea of an epidemiology center sponsored by industry. The Board Health Effects Committee re viewed and endorsed the HSC concept of an Epidemiology Resource and Information Cen ter (ERIC). ERIC is intended to be a service or ganization that would: Assist companies in developing in-house occupational epidemiology programs; Develop industry-wide guidelines to pro mote data quality; Provide technical and scientific consulta tion to companies on epidemiologic is sues; and Advocate the greater use of epidemiolo gy and human health effects data in regu latory and risk assessment activities. CMA's Board of Directors has recom mended that the Board Health Effects Commit tee continue developing the concept CMA Contact Lon Ramonas, 202/887-1384 The HEALTH AND SAFETY NEWSLETTER is published by CMA's Health, Safety and Chemical Regulations Division. It indudes valuable information concerning regulatory developments and Con gressional and Administration action affecting the chemical manufacturing industry, in addition to per tinent activities of CMA's Health and Safety Committee. For further information, contact Diane S. Layne, Editor. . u, LAM 010329 CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 2501 M Street NW 202-887-1100 Washington. DC 20037 Telex 89617 (CMA WSH) - - ' , '. . -K- ' DPMC-06731 CMA TESTIFIES ON TITLE III CMA testified before the U.S. Senate Com mittee on Environment and Public Works Sub committee on Superfund and Environmental Oversight during oversight hearings on SARA Title III, the Emergency Planning and Commu nity Right-to-Know Act of 1986. George Rodenhausen (Vice President for Environ mental, Health and Safety Affairs, Hoechst Celanese Corp.), Chairman of CMA's Ad Hoc Title III Coordinating Group and the Health and Safety Committee, restated CMA's support for Title III, saying that CMA views the law as a continuation of its CAER, Air Quality, and Waste Minimization Programs. Rodenhausen stated that CMA is confident of a high level of compliance to Title III by its member companies. It is difficult however, to predict the level of compliance outside the chemical industry. Title III has been mischaracterized as a "chemical industry law". As a result many companies outside the chemical industry may be under the misimpression that Title III does not apply to them. To make Title III work, Rodenhausen said that EPA must Continue its efforts to educate industries and businesses of the coverage and pro visions of the law; Announce a clear and comprehensive strategy to enforce compliance with the law; and Help make Title III emissions and inven tory information understandable to the public. Other witnesses before the subcommittee, chaired by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), were state government representatives, a rep resentative of an environmental coalition, and EPA staff. CMA Contacts Marion R. Herz, 202/887-1365 CMA MEETS WITH EPA ADMINISTRATOR ON TITLE III Representatives from CMA met with Lee Thomas, EPA Administrator, and other EPA staff on June 14,1988, to discuss SARA Title III activities and implementation. CMA was represented by George Rodenhausen, Hoechst Celanese; Robert Roland, President; Jon Holtzman, Vice President-Communica tions; and Christopher Cathcart, Associate Di rector -- Health, Safety and Chemical Regula tions. Topics discussed at the meeting in cluded: Health effects -- How will health effects information be provided to the public to help them understand the significance of the Section 313 Toxic Release Inventory information? CMA recommended that EPA refine the Integrated Risk Informa tion System (IRIS) modeling system to meet the demands of Title III; that EPA develop lay-language chemical hazard information to supplement data reported under Title III; and that EPA establish a mechanism to provide health effects in formation to the public; Modeling under Title III -- How will tech nical modeling assistance be provided to the states and the public? CMA ex pressed its concern that modelling sys tems like pcGEMS and CAMEOII do not meet the needs of Title III use; Compliance Assistance and Enforcement --* How can the level of compliance with Title III be improved? Attendees agreed that both education efforts, and EPA's enforcement policy, must be directed to all industries covered under the law, in cluding downstream users of products. Assistance should be provided to SERCs and LEPCs in meeting emergency planning requirements; and LAM 010330 2 DPMC-06732  Risk communication -- How can we as sure effective communication of risk un der Title III? CMA and ERA agreed on the importance of risk communication under, the law and will continue their ef forts in this area. Mr. Thomas commended CMA on its efforts to educate industry and the public about Title III. CMA restated its commitment to work with EPA and ail affected parties to make the law work. CMA Contact: Marion R. Herz, 202/887-1365 TTTLA III SBCTtON 313 RIPORT1NQ OSAOUNI JULY 1y 1983 Under Section 313 of SARA Title III, certain businesses are required to submit reports each year on the amounts of chemicals their facilities release into the environment The first of these reports is due by July 1, 1988, for re leases during 1987, and must be sent to the U.S. EPA and to designated state agencies. (See related article this issue and April 1988 Health and Safety Newsletter.) Owners and operators of manufacturing facilities that have 10 or more full-time employ ees, that are in Standard industrial Classifica tion (SIC) codes 20 through 39, and that manu factured, processed or otherwise used a listed toxic chemical in excess of the specified threshold quantities must submit reports. The statute has a three-year phase-in, as fol lows: 1987 -- Facilities manufacturing or processing any of the listed chemicals in excess of 75,000 pounds; 1988 -- Facilities manufacturing or processing in excess of 50,000 pounds; 1989 and thereafter -- Facilities man ufacturing or processing in excess of 25,000 pounds; and Any year -- Users of listed toxic chemicals in quantities over 10,000 pounds. The following information must be reported: The name, location, and type of busi ness; The identity of the chemical and wheth er it is manufactured, processed, or used; An estimate (in ranges) of the maxi mum amount of the toxic chemical pre sent at the facility at any time during the preceding year; The quantity of the chemical present at the facility at any time during the pre ceding year; The quantity of the chemical entering each environmental medium annually; Waste treatment/disposal methods and efficiency of methods for each waste stream; and A certification by senior o.f.oials that the report is complete and accurate. EPA is required to make the data reported under Section 313 available to the public through a computer database. The database is expected to be available in the Spring of 1989. This Toxic Release Inventory is intended to help answer citizens' questions about chem ical releases in their community. CMA is con cerned, however, with the potential misuse or misunderstanding of such raw data, without explanatory information. CMA is working with EPA in this regard, and CMA members are preparing to answer the public's questions on the local and regional level.- LAM 010331 3 DPMC-06733 EPA has prepared industry-specific guid ances to assist companies in meeting the Section 313 reporting requirements. The guid ances cover release estimation in the following industrial activities: monofilament fiber manu facturing; spray application of organic coat ings; electroplating operations; semiconductor manufacturing; eiectrodeposition of organic coatings; wood preserving operations; paper and paperboard production; roller, knife, and gravure coating operations; leather tanning and finishing; textile dyeing; rubber production and compounding; presswood and laminated wood product manufacturing; and formulation of aqueous solutions. Copies of the industryspecific guidances are available from EPA (800/535-0202). CMA Contact: Marion R. Herz, 202/887-1365 BPA WORK GROUP REVIEWS TITLE III An EPA draft "Title III White Paper" evalu ates SARA Title Ill's requirements, policies and implementation efforts to determine changes needed to improve the law and its implementa tion. The draft report was written by a work group of state and EPA officials. It includes suggested changes to make Title III more ef fective. Implementation: The paper recommends close coordination between the preparedness staff in the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), which ad ministers most of Title III, and the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS), which handles Section 313. Enforcement EPA, in consultation with re gions and states, should finish its draft national enforcement strategy, according to the work group. Using the National Response Team as a basis, OSWER should provide an invento ry of training courses and begin develop ing a national training strategy. OSWER should also decide how to address the ex pected low compliance level of local emer gency planning committees (LEPCs) in de veloping focal emergency contingency plans and whether to seek an extension to the October 1988 planning deadline. EPA should bring together states with es tablished information systems and devel op ways to share basic software among all states. EPA should also: find alternative sources for funding train ing and information management activi ties; consolidate emergency planning and re sponse program requirements of the va rious federal agencies and make them available to the states; and standardize material safety data sheets (MSDSs), validate the information, and make it widely available. Chemical Lists: The work group recom mends changes in the Title III chemical lists policy, including: Convene an agency wide task force to create a basic set of criteria to be fol lowed by all program offices in the devel opment of, or amendments to, program chemical lists; Review the chemicals listed under Title III to assure they meet the criteria estab lished by Congress; and Combine lists from Sections 302, 304, and 313 to help eliminate confusion of Ti tle III requirements. Legislative Changes: The work group stress ed that any changes made to the law should await completion of the major statutory dead- LAM 010332 4 DPMC-06734 I lines (through 1988) under Title III. Some of the changes recommended are: Give EPA inspection and information gathering authorities; Expand Title III to include federal facil ities; Give discretion to SERCs, LEPCs and fire departments on whether to require re porting of MSOS information, and wheth er facilities should report to one, two, or three locations; Siminate Tier I chemical inventory form required by Section 312; Limit Tier II (Section 312) reporting to chemicals with an established reportable quantity and make information on other OSHA chemicals available on request; Authorize EPA to fund cooperative agreements with SERCs and LEPCs; and Develop model legislation for adoption by states to strengthen enforcement author ities, collect penalties, established fee systems, provide liability protection for SERC and LEPC members and clarify SERC responsibilities to LEPCs. The work group concludes that current Title III outreach programs by federal, state and lo cal governments are inadequate and recommends that EPA develop a comprehen sive national outreach strategy to publicize Ti tle III requirements. CMA Contact: Marion R. Herz, 202/887-1365 SUBMITTING SARA 313 DATA ON MAGNETIC MEDIA Instructions for submitting SARA Title III Section 313 data on computer tape or diskettes (magnetic media) are now available. Reporting Section 313 data to the U.S. EPA on magnetic media is optional and is an alterna tive to submitting a paperJorm. / Magnetic media reporting will allow EPA to load the information directly into the Toxic Re lease Inventory database, ensuring data integ rity. Reports on paper forms will be entered by an Agency contractor, which can result in typographical errors in the data Submitting magnetic media reports does not relieve the submitter of any regulatory requirements of the Section 313 final rule issued on February 16, 1988 (53 Fed. Reg. 4500). Reports to state agencies on magnetic media must be dis cussed with, and authorized by, the state in volved. CMA Contact: William Royce 202/887-1280. EPA SETS UP TITLE III HOTLINES EPA has established several hotlines to han dle requests for information on SARA Title III reporting requirements. They are: For information on Section 313 (202) 5541411; For information on other parts of Title III in cluding magnetic media instructions (800) 535-0202 (or (202)479-2449 in D.C. or Alas ka). EPA's regional offices have also set up Title III information centers. They are: Boston, MA - (617)565-3273 Edison, NJ - (201)321-6765 Philadelphia, PA - (215)597-1260 Atlanta, GA - (404)347-3222 Chicago, 1L - (312)886-6418 Dallas, TX - (214)655-7244 Kansas City, KS - (913) 236-2806 LAM 010333 5 DPMC-06735 Denver, CO - (303)293-1730 San Francisco, CA - (415)974-7054 Seattle, WA - (206)442-1270 CMA Contact: Marion R. Herz, 202/887-1365 EPA REGIONS HOLDING SEMINARS ON TITLE III SECTION 313 The Environmental Protection Agency's ten regional offices are conducting seminars to help facilities prepare their Title III Section 313 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Form. The workshops include a discussion of Title III, Section 313 and release estimation, and detailed review of the reporting form. To help the regional offices prepare the seminars, EPA headquarters prepared a three-hour vide otape suggesting what topics might be cov ered. The seminars are usually cosponsored by the state emergency response commissions (SERCs), local emergency planning commit tees (LEPCs), or, in some cases, industry. For more information, contact the regional con tacts listed below: EPA Regional Contacts for Title III Section 313 Workshops: Region 1 - Ann Waish (617) 565-3230 Region 2 Nora Lopez (201) 906-68790 Region 3 - Curt Eisner (21S) 597-1260 Region 4 - Jack Findlan/Stewart Eglin (404) 347-5053 Region 5 - Angeio Coste (312) 353-5871 Region 6 Dick James (214) 655-7244 Region 7 - Ed Vest (913) 236-2806 Region 8 - Diane Groh (303) 293-1735 Region 9 Kathleen Goforth (415) 974-4061 Region 10 - Philip Wong (206) 442-4061 CMA Contact: Marion R. Herz, 202/887-1365 CMA DEVELOPS PROPOSAL ON HOW TO CONDUCT RESEARCH PROGRAMS UNDER SARA SECTION 110 CMA has developed a proposal on how to conduct Health Effects Research under Sec tion 110 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Under Section 110, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Dis ease Registry (ATSDR) must Prepare summaries of available toxico logical and epidemiological information on the most hazardous substances found at waste sites (toxic- oiogical profiles); Assess whether enough information is available to determine significant human exposure levels for each substance; Identify necessary additional testing; and Assure that a health effects research program is initiated where additional test ing is needed. CMA's proposal identifies three ways for conducting a health effects research program: 1) Negotiate a voluntary testing agreement with the manufacturers/processors of the substance; 2) Rely on Section 4 of the Toxic Sub stances Control Act (TSCA); or 3) Conduct testing under direct ATSDR sponsorship outside of the TSCA con text CMA's proposal emphasizes "voluntary test ing" as the most desirable way to conduct required testing. A voluntary program offers the advantages of being simpler and more expeditious than a "mandatory'' program under TSCA or ATSDR sponsorship. If a voluntary testing agreement cannot be reached, CMA's proposal suggests that Sec tion 4 of TSCA should be used when: 1) A sound basis for making an "unreason able risk" or "substantial human expo sure" finding exists; LAM 010334 6 DPMC-06736 2) There is substantial consumer, occupa tional or environmental exposure as a result of ongoing manufacturing or pro cessing activities; and 3) Information may be generated under a TSCA rulemaking more quickly when compared to an ATSDR sponsored program. The proposal has been approved by CMA's Board of Directors and will be sent to the ATSDR for consideration. CMA Contacts Lori Ramonas, 202/887-1384 INDUSTRY URGED TO WORK WITH PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS CMA is encouraging its members to involve local and state officials in industry community outreach and emergency planning activities. Examples of activities in which public health professionals can become involved are: 1) in terpreting emissions data to be made public by July 1; 2) educating the media and the public about the chemical industry's safety record; and 3) developing or modifying coordinated emergency response plans. Recently, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry developed a course on the health components of an integrated haz ardous material emergency response pro gram. The purpose of the course is to help public health officials, emergency responders, hospital workers and cleanup contractors un derstand how people interact in an emergency. The Integrated Emergency Response Dem onstration Program is given in Louisville, Kentucky, ten times a year. Two field exercises give participants an opportunity to gain handson experience with emergency equipment and resources. The workshops give public health officials an outstanding opportunity to gain knowledge that will benefit industry and the community. Workshop speakers include pub lic health officials and other emergency planning specialists from Louisville govern ment and industry. Louisville has had a mutual aid plan for more than 40 years. For more information on the program, call Tom Bartenfeld at (404) 4884100 or write to: Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, Emergency Response Branch (F-38), 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, Geor gia 30333. CMA Contact: Joseph Kelley, 202/887-1150. DOCUMENTS FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING NOW AVAILABLE Through the efforts of many people, emer gency response planners have access to new information that may help them do their jobs better. Emergency response planning guide lines (ERPGs) are substance-specific emer gency guidance documents which can be used by LEPCs in developing coordinated emergen cy response plans. Specifically, ERPGs can be used with other information to identify the "probable affected area" in the event of a chemical release. Under Title III, LEPCs are required to submit emer gency plans to state planning commissions by October 17. ERPGs are being developed voluntarily by members of Organization of Resource Coun selors, Inc.'s (ORC) occupational health and safety group. ORC is a human resources con sulting firm headquartered in New York. The idea for producing ERPGs began when several ORC member companies recognized the inadequacy of existing data and chose to develop emergency response planning docu ments together. The American Industrial Hygiene Associat ion (AIHA) has established a program to re view, approve and publish ERPGs. Prior to LAM 010335 7 DPMC-06737 publication the ERPG drafts are submitted to a technical review committee of AIHA for peer review, revision and approval. There are 366 chemicals on the Environ mental Protection Agency's list of extremely hazardous substances (EHS). ORC will con centrate on producing ERPGs for EHS with the highest combined acute toxicity and vol atility. ORC is working with EPA, the National Research Council and other appropriate regulatory agencies to produce the needed ERPGs. ) An ERPG establishes three levels of expo sure on which to base emergency response planning decisions. The cover page of each ERPG includes a chart which depicts the three levels on a continuum of concentrations and effects. The levels are set by testing and by studying the health effects associated with one-hour exposures to various concentrations. The text of an ERPG document provides the material's chemical and physical properties, animal and human toxicology data, rationale for the levels established and a bibliography of source documentation. ERPGs already exist for phosphorous pentoxide, crotonaldehyde, perfluoroisobutylene, chioropicrin and chioroacetyl chloride. Docu ments for those substances are available from AIHA for $7, which includes a three-ring binder to which other ERPGs may be added. Additional ERPGs will be sold in sets of five at $5 each. To order a set of ERPGs, send a check or money order to: AIHA Emergency Response Planning Guideline Committee, 475 Wolf Ledges Parkway, Akron, Ohio 443111087 or call (216) 762-7294. If you would like more information about ERPGs call Becky Daiss, ORC, at (202) 7376330. CMA Contact: Joseph Kelley, 202/887-1150 CAM RECOGNITION AWARD MOOIPI6D CMA has modified the CAER Recognition Awards Program. The new award, "The Certifi cate of Recognition for Community Outreach Activities", recognizes the community outreach programs of local facilities. This certificate re places the Level I Award, which was presented to communities for establishing local planning committees. To notify CAER participants of this change, a CAER Awards Recognition flyer was devel oped and distributed throughout the CAER network. The new program flyer has proved to be a tremendous promotional tool for the CAER Recognition Program. Since the new award was announced, CMA has received numerous applications for it The following facilities have qualified for the Certifi cate of Recognition for Community Outreach Activities: Maryland -- FMC Corporation's Baltimore Plant Michigan -- Olin Corporation's Livonia Plant New Jersey -- El. DuPont's Deepwater Plant. Union Carbide's Bound Brook Plant Ohio -- Monsanto Company's Addyston Plant Texas -- Exxon Chemical's Mont Betvieu Plant and Virginia -- Merck and Company's Stonewall Plant The following Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) have qualified for the CAER Achievement Award for Community Emergency Preparedness: New Jersey -- Raritan Valley HMAC; and Virginia -- Martinsville/Henry County CAER Council. If you wish to apply for a CAER Award, please mail in a request for an application package to: CAER Awards Program Chemical Manufacturers Association 2501 M Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20037 CMA Contact Kim Gerson, 202/887-1273 LAM 010336 DPMC-06738 TRANSPORTING WITH CASH -- TransCAER CMA and the Association of American Railroads (AAR) have co-produced a video tape on a joint safety and emergency pre paredness program of the chemical and rail road industries. "Moving Hazardous Materi als Safely: A Partnership That Works" is a ten-minute video devoted to an explanation of TransCAER. TransCAER is an outgrowth of the CAER process. Its purpose is to increase public awareness of hazardous materials transport and to improve the emergency response capabilities of communities through which haz ardous materials are transported. CMA is helping to expand TransCAER from its origin in Freeport, Texas, where Dow Chem ical and Union Pacific Railroad began their co operative activities. The videotape, available in Vz and y* inch VHS, is $45.00 for CMA mem bers and $67.50 for non-members. To order, write to: CMA Publications Fulfillment 2501 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Phone orders cannot be accepted. CMA Contact Joseph Kelley, 202/887-1150. SPA TO PUBLISH BIOTECHNOLOGY REGULATIONS IN JULY In an effort to have final biotechnology reguations signed in this administration, EPA plans d publish proposed regulations for biotechology products covered under TSCA and 1FRA in July. The proposed rules under SCA are expected to formaliz' many of the oluntary procedures spelled in the 1986 Coordinated Framework for Regulation of liotechnology (51 FR 23302-93) anc Agency olicy statements. There are, however, significant departures from the Coordinated Framework. The Agen cy may substitute a TSCA Experimental Re lease Application (TERA) for the full PMN sub mission currently required under the voluntary procedures for R&D environmental releases of recombinant organisms. The TERA is said to be simpler and require a shorter review time than a PMN. The Agency is still pursuing the Environmental Biosafety Committee (EBC) concept EBCs will function much like Institu tional Biosafety Commitees (IBC) used under NIH Guidelines. The Agency believes that EBCs can speed the review process and pro vide regulatory oversight of R&D activities. The proposed rules will also broaden the applica tion of the Significant New Use Rule (SNUR). Policy statements by the EPA Office of Toxic Substances over the last year have extended the definition of intergeneric organisms and have required up-front substantiation of confi dential business information (CBI) for environmental releases. These policies are ex pected to be part of the proposed rules. The EPA Biotechnology Science Advisory Committee (BSAC) discussed CBI require ments during the January and May, 1988, meetings. In January, a proposal developed by Robert Colwell, a BSAC member from the University of California at Berkeley, and Margaret Mellon, National Wildlife Federation, was presented to the BSAC. The proposal listed information which the authors believe should not be held as C8I. CMA submitted a letter to the committee responding to the pro posal. Randy Schumacher, CMA's Director of Health, Safety and Chemical Regulations, also made a brief oral presentation at the May BSAC meeting. CMA expressed concern about the proposed approach, pointing out that in some cases, regulatory oversight was occurring at the R&D state of product develop ment Loss of CBI protection in these cases could jeopardize competitiveness as well as European and Japanese patent rights. CMA Contact: Sandra Tirey, 202/887-1274 LAM 010337 9 DPMC-06739 ATSDR SEEKING PEER REVIEW OP PROCEDURES FOR EXPOSURE REGISTRIES The Agency for Toxic Substances and Dis ease Registry (ATSDR) has revised its docu ment outlining the "Procedures for Estabiishing a National Registry of Persons Exposed to Toxic Substances." ATSDR held workshops in February to solicit comments on the draft pro cedures document and submitted the revised document to a peer review panel on May 20, 1988. CMA's Geraldine V. Cox, Ph.D., Vice President-Technical Director, served on the peer review panel. Other peer reviewers were: Dr. Lee Ann White Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs and Doctoral Program Tulane University New Orleans, LA Mr. Dave Bennett Chief of Toxic Integration Branch EPA Washington, D.C. Dr. June Fessenden-Raden Associate Professor of Biochemistry Cornell University Ithaca, NY Dr. Terry Shehata Chief of Environmental Health New Jersey Department of Health Trenton, NJ Dr. Patricia. Buffler Professor of Epidemiology University of Texas Houston, TX Dr. R. G. Parrish Medical Epidemiologist Center for Environmental Health and Injury Control Atlanta, GA Dr. Jean French Health Scientist NIOSH Atlanta, GA ATSDR's revised procedures for exposure registries have several significant improve ments. Most significant is the inclusion of a de finition of "exposed." ATSDR will consider an individual exposed when there is 1) a contami nated source, 2) a route of transmission and 3) indication that transmission of the contaminant has occurred. For example, an individual will be considered "exposed" if there is contamina tion, verified by analytical results, of well water which was used as drinking water by the indi vidual. In addition, the procedures are more explicit about determining the exposure of each individual in the registry. Another significant improvement is the sep arating of site identification from the process of priority ordering of the sites for establishing ex posure registries. This separation will aid in clarifying each process. ATSDR will use only exposure factors as the primary criteria for as signing priority to the selected sites. These ex posure factors include level and toxicity of the contaminant contamination of pathways of ex posure and size of the potentially exposed population as well as current and past potential exposure. ATSDR will use advisory panel review at key decision points such as prioritizing of sites, re view of research protocols that request access to registry data and information to be dissemi nated to registry participants. Use of advisory panels will help assure that Agency decisions are scientifically based. CMA Contact Sandra Tirey 202/887-1274. NEW TSCA SECTION 5(o) "MODEL" CONSENT ORDER PROPOSED BY EPA On April 25, CMA commented on EPA's pro posed "Standard Provisions for Section 5(e) Consent Orders and Corresponding Signifi cant New Use Rule Provisions Issued Under TSCA." EPA will use these standard provisions as its Section 5(e) ``model" consent order and in the Generic SNUR. These documents are expected to be finalized in late spring and late summer of this year, respectively. LAM 010338 10 DPMC-067 40 CMA recommended that EPA develop a carefully targeted regulatory approach that protects health and the environment without placing unnecessary burdens on PMN sub mitters and their customers. CMA commented that several changes should be made to the model consent order. Specifically, EPA should: (1) reevaluate the model order's testing provisions; (2) adopt a more flexible approach in requiring the use of protective equipment; (3) develop alternative mechanisms for controlling workplace expo sures; (4) take additional steps to achieve con sistency with OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard requirements; (5) revoke Section 5(e) orders once a SNUR is promulgated for the order (6) allow manufacturers and their customers a reasonable opportunity to insti tute corrective action before EPA becomes in volved, in the event of non-compliance with or der requirements; (7) control releases of new chemicals using only consent order provisions; and (8) exempt mixtures containing low con centrations of the PMN substance from all con sent order provisions. CMA pointed out that standardized consent order provisions will not expedite the PMN process if they result in overly restrictive regu latory controls which inhibit the commercial development of individual new chemicals. In this event PMN submitters will continue to seek relief on a case-by-case basis, and the negotiation of draft consent orders will remain a time-consuming process that requires a sub stantial commitment of EPA and industry re sources. CMA will meet with EPA soon to discuss these recommendations. CMA Contact William J. Royce, 202/887-1280 CMA TO SEND INDUSTRY OBSERVER TO OCTOBER 1988 IARC MEETINGS At the request of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), CMA will send an industry observer to Working Group meetings scheduled for October 18-25, 1988, in Lyon, France. Participants at the meetings will evalu ate the potential carcinogenicity of "Organic Solvents, Some Resin Monomers, Some Pig ments and Occupational Exposures in Painting Trades." Final conclusions on numerical classi fications will be made at this meeting. CMA's representative at the October meet ing will be Neil Krivanek, Ph.D., of El. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Haskell Labora tories. CONCAWE ("The Oil Companies Euro pean Organization for Environmental and Health Protection") and ECETOC (The Europe an Chemical Industry Ecology and Toxicology Center) have also been asked to send observ ers. The tentative list of substances to be consid ered at the October meetings is as follows: Petroleum solvents - special boiling-point solvents - white spirits - high-boiling, aromatic solvents Toluene Xylenes Phenol Cyclohexanone 1,2-Epoxybutane Bis(2,3-epoxycyclopentyl)ether Some glycidyl ethers - Allyl glycidyl ether - n-Butyl glycidyl ether - tert-Butyl glycidyl ether - Phenyl glycidyl ether - Bisphenol A diglycidyl ether Dimethylformamide Morpholine Antimony trioxide and antimony trisulphide Titanium dioxide Occupational exposures in painting trades CMA has coordinated with several industry trade associations to ensure that all chemical specific concerns are adequately represented. Please contact CMA as soon as possible if you LAM 010339 11 DPMC-06741 have toxicologic, epidemiologic, production, use, occurrence or analysis information on any of these substances. lARC's conclusions do not represent a com plete risk assessment for carcinogenicity on chemical substances. Yet those conclusions are directly applied to regulations and legisla tion in the United States. Because of this trend, CMA is actively promoting sound science with IARC and other U.S. regulatory authorities to improve the way in which chemicals are nomi nated to lists. A major objective is to eliminate unwarranted regulations on chemicals that do not pose a clear or reasonably foreseeable carcinogenic hazard to humans. CMA Contact Nancy G. Doerrer, 202/887-1282 PREPARATIONS FOR 1989 IARC MEETINGS UNDERWAY On February 21-28, 1989, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) will hold a series of Working Group meetings to evaluate the potential carcinogenicity of "Some Flame Retardants and Textile Chemicals, and Exposures in the Textile Industry." The follow ing substances and exposures will be consid ered: Flame retardants Bis(2.3-dibromopropyl)magnesium phosphate Chlorendic acid Chlorinated paraffins Decabromodiphenytoxide (DBDPO) Dimethyl hydrogen phosphite Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulfate and chloride (THPS and THPC) Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate Trisf 1,3-dichloropropyt)phosphate TextBe dyes 4-Chloro-o-toiuidine (update) Cl Disperse Blue 1 Cl Disperse Yellow 3 (update) Cl Vat Yellow 4 5-Nitro-o-toiuidine Other taxtUa chemicals Nitrilotnacetic acid (NTA) and its salts Sodium(2-ethyihexyl)su!fate Industries Exposures in the textile industry Like the October 1988 meetings described in this newsletter, IARC intends to classify these substances and exposures for potential carcinogenicity. IARC will consider only pub lished data at its meetings; unpublished indus try data will not be accepted. Companies are encouraged to immediately submit for publica tion to recognized scientific journals any data on these substances or exposures that might be relevant for carcinogenicity classification. CMA is currently contacting members and in dustry groups with specific interest in these substances and exposures. Please contact CMA if you can help identify industry experts in the textile industry, or if you have toxicological, epidemiological, produc tion, use, occurrence or analysis data on any listed item. CMA Contact Nancy G. Doerrer, 202/887-1282 TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILES: THE NEXT ROUND On April 17, 1987, the Agency for Toxic Sub stances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) pub lished an initial list of 100 hazardous sub stances found at waste sites, each of which will be subject to toxicological profile development (52 Fed. Reg. 12866). The toxicological profiles on the first 25 of these substances are now un dergoing final revision by ATSDR, subsequent to significant public input According to Section 110 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), the next list of 100 hazardous sub stances will be published in -October 1988. LAM 010340 12 DPMC-067 42 Look for this list in the Federal Register as Oc tober approaches. In December 1988, ATSDR will publish draft toxicological profiles on the following sub- stances: CAS NO. Subetence name 56235 57749 62759 72559 75003 75274 75354 78591 78875 79005 79435 87865 91941 92875 107062 108883 108952 111444 121142 319846 542881 621647 7439976 7440666 7782492 Carbon tetrachloride Chlordane N-nitrosodlmethylamine 4,4,`-DOE, ODT. DOO Chloroethane Bromodichloromethane 1.1-Dichloroethene Isophorone 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Pentachlorophenol 3,3'-Oichlorobenzidine Benzidine 1,2-Dichloroethane Toluene Phenol Bis( 2-chloroethyl)ether 2,4-Oinitrotoluene BHC-alpha, gamma beta delta Bis< chloromethy1 )ether N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine Mercury Zinc Selenium A 90-day public comment period will be granted upon availability of the draft toxi cological profiles. CMA members are urged to submit pub lished and unpublished health effects and ex posure data directly to ATSDR at the following address: Ms. Georgi Jones Director, Office of External Affairs Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Building 28 South Chambiee 1600 Clifton Road Atlanta, GA 30333 CMA Contact Nancy G. Doerrer, 202/887-1282 OSHA ISSUES LOCKOUT/TAQOUT PROPOSAL The U. S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued a proposed regulation for the lockout and tagout of hazard ous energy sources. The rule, which has been under development since the mid-1970's, is designed to prevent the unexpected activation of equipment being serviced or repaired. OSHA estimates the regulation could save 122 lives a year. The proposed regulation calls for worker training, labels on hazardous energy sources, and the tagging or locking of equip ment during maintenance. Industry experts believe the new rule is gen erally reasonable. It appears, in most respects, to reflect current good industry practices. OSHA's Lockout/Tagout rule was published in the April 29, 1988 Federal Register. CMA commented on the proposed rule on June 28. CMA Contact Kyle Olson, 202/887-1283 OSHA DELAYS HAZWOPER OSHA has been forced to delay its safety standards for workers at hazardous waste sites and those involved in emergency response activities. The Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Rule (HAZWOPER), required by Title I of SARA,, is being subjected to further internal review by the Department of Labor. Originally scheduled for issuance in late 1987, the new delay means that the standard will probably not be published in the Federal Register until August or September. The regu lation will replace an interim final rule that has been in effect since December, 1986. CMA Contact: Kyle Olson, 202/887-1283 LAM 010341 13 DPMC-06743 TEXAS CHEMICAL COUNCIL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY COMMITTEE SAFETY AWARD PROGRAM The Texas Chemical Council's Occupational Safety Committee has established a safety award program based upon proactive safety results and support of established Texas Chemical Council programs. All facilities who submit for a safety award distinguished recognition must, as a minimum, completed the Tier I activities successfully by meeting the requirements of each of the six identified major activities in order to receive this distinguished recognition. Selection of the "Best in Texas" will be based upon all Tier I and Tier II items. It is felt this system will provide favorable recognition opportunities for the most plants, yet also serve as a distinguishment for those who achieve the opportunity to participate in the "Best in Texas" award system. This awards program is developed to encourage member companies to implement critical actions which have been developed, supported, or recommended by the Texas Chemical Council's Executive Committees in the past. Tier I 1. Zero work related employee fatalities during the reported year. 2. Zero CAER/LEPC plantsite incidences during the year which resulted in exposure to a member of the public through a chemical release or fire. 3. Involvement in the CAER/LEPC program (such as Level I or Level II recognition), active involvement or participation in CAER/LEPC simulations, etc. (Define activities.) 4. Established proactive drug abuse program such as the one recommended by the TCC Board of Directors. 5. Active involvement in TCC Occupational Safety Committee affairs. (Define involvement.) 6. Continuous improvement in the injury and illness incident rate for a given year in the facilities primary incident measurement system when compared to the previous three year average. LARA 010342 DPMC-06744 Tier II Tier II items are those items which will provide for recognition in the "Best in Texas" competition by distinguishing and further amplifying site programs for the purpose of competing by plant size for the "Best in Texas" award. 1. Be a participating member of the Texas Industrial Fire Training Board. 2. Representation at 75 percent of the quarterly TCC Occupational Safety Committee meetings. 3. Representation at the annual TCC Occupational Safety Committee seminars. 4. Have a contractor safety program following the intent of the Business Round Table Report A-3. >5. Any special community safety projects. 6. Involvement in other local, state, or national safety initiatives. 7. Participation in the annual safety statistical survey of member companies. 8. Development of an active off-the-job safety program which encourages the practicing of safety away from the plant site on the part of the employee and their families. 9. Any other plant programs which were designed to increase awareness and knowledge of safety which have not been covered by any of the above items. Safety committee members will submit their award program to a committee which will be formed to review applications, make decisions regarding the granting of the distinguished status, and awarding of the "Best in Texas" plaque and flag. This award will be determined based on plant size (1-250, 251-500, 501-750, and 751+ employees). RBS:mah 06/16/88 TCCAWARDS Safety Awards Committee LAM 010343 DPMC-06745 LAM 010344 CURRENT REPORT r>j^rv 503 parts of air from 1977 to 1987, when a standard setting a 1 ppm limit finally was established. The study was published as a letter to the editor in the "The Roie of Labor-Management Committees in Safe guarding Worker Safety and Health," prepared under con tract with the DOL Bureau of Labor-Management Relations June 18 issue of the British medical journal Lancet. Infante told BNA that the study points up a general need to regulate health hazards more quickly and efficiently. It also shows that other countries which have higher workplace benzene exposure limits than OSHA's should establish and Cooperative Programs, recommends that these joint committees be strengthened with full support and authority from senior management, as well as top-level union representatives. Most importantly, the role of joint committees should be stricter standards, he said. European Community leaders voted recently to tighten benzene exposure limits in a two-phase effort (see related defined, and they should be provided "with a structure and functions suitable to meet those expectations," author Ruth Ruttenberg wrote. "If committees are expected to directly article in this issue). Standards Basically 'Similar' impact the injury and illness statistics of a company, they need to be empowered. If they are not empowered to act, there is still much that they can accomplish, but the expec In 1977, OSHA issued an emergency temporary stand tations of both parties should be adjusted accordingly." ard-followed by a permanent standard in 1978--to reduce the permissible exposure limit for benzene from the existing Power To Inspect, Hire And Fire limit of 10 parts per million to 1 ppm. However, neither the The ideal joint committee would have full access to emergency standard nor the permanent rule ever went into company records and data, including planning, finance, and effect: both were stayed by federal court orders issued in new technology information. Members would meet regular response to industry lawsuits. Ultimately, the permanent ly during paid working hours and keep complete minutes, rule was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in a the report stated. The committee would inspect facilities landmark decision (8 OSHC 1586). OSHA successfully restored the 1 ppm limit only last fall after re-entering into a lengthy rulemaking process. The new standard "is similar in most respects" to the 1977 regularly and would be involved in monitoring programs and accident investigations. Members would have control of a budget, of the hiring and firing of company safety and health personnel, and of health and safety training, Rutten standard. Infante and DiStasio said in their study (Reference File, 31:8481). In their paper, Infante and DiStasio said they used OSHA- berg said. The committee also would have the authority to stop the use of any imminently dangerous equipment or process, she said. approved risk-assessment calculations which assume that In reality, joint committees in the United States common workers exposed to increasingly higher levels of benzene ly are advisory and serve as a forum for discussion. "Labor- will die from leukemia at increasingly higher rates. The management committees for occupational safety and health study correlates these risk estimates with average exposure in the United States are unlikely to have substantial power levels above 1 ppm that occurred in various industries between 1977 and 1987, according to data from the record or authority," the report stated. According to the report, some of the safety and health on which OSHA based its standard. issues and tasks that current joint committees are "well- Rates In Tire, Rubber Industries suited" to resolve are: Developing training programs, both for line employees Using these assumptions and estimates. Infante and Di and for committee members; Stasio calculated that the highest number of deaths would be Conducting regular joint inspections of the workplace: expected in the industries in which workers had the highest Serving as a "watchdog" for safety and health in the average exposures to benzene in the 10-year period. Workers plant; in the tire products and rubber manufacturing sector, they Reviewing plant injury and illness statistics; predicted, may suffer the largest single number of leukemia Being involved with accident investigations; deaths because of the 10-year delay in regulation: an esti Developing guidelines for air sample monitoring and mated 85 deaths. medical surveillance programs; Infante and DiStasio also predicted that 56 leukemia Developing a hazard recognition and labeling program. deaths may occur among workers in bulk terminals and bulk plant facilities, 35 in petrochemicals and petroleum refin Case Studies Examined ing, 13 in coke plants, and eight in tank truck transportation. The 49-page report reviews six case studies of existing The officials said that the process of reinstating the 1 ppm health and safety committees to explore different workplace limit "was lengthened considerably by lobbying pressure settings and the functions of the committees within different and argument about quantitative cancer risk assessments, organizations. "All six have experienced levels of success most of which indicated similar results." This "seemingly that may be instructive to others," Ruttenberg concluded. endless argument reflects the immaturity of our current The committees studied are: Wisconsin Bell and Local regulatory process," they stated. 5530 of the Communications Workers of America; Horace W. / ,/ jD r //f'? ?HCu DC^- Union DoUtu***. <,T General Po/il^icl/y^^ I ^ l / . J.__ t \ M /t P X . , . / Longacre Inc. (a Pennsylvania poultry processing plant); Georgia Power (the Vogtle, Ga., plant); General Motors /Crimo--rp . an ndJ fthLea TUT,nited Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricul- ______,, ......Lfitural Implement Workers of America; Eugene, Ore., Water LABOR-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES NEED POWER ^ pAePhzfan(J Board. an(j a tripartite committee of ASARCO, TO IMPROVE WORKPLACE, DOL REPORT STATES Xkltf the United Steelworkers of America, and the Occupational Unless joint labor-management committees lor occupa Safety and Health Administration. tional safety and health have "significantly more power in The report also includes sample contract language and the future," they are not likely to be an important force for other guidance in establishing effective joint committees. resolving workplace problems, according to a new Depart The report is free by writing BLMR-121, U.S. Department of ment of Labor report released July 11. Labor, Room N-5419, 200 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washing- 7-13-88 Occupational Safety 4 Health Reporter DPMC-0674! IU OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER erroneous. Failure to make specific findings violates OSHA's enabling statute, the brief argued. California JUDGE ORDERS BALLOT ARGUMENTS ON CAL/OSHA INITIATIVE CHANGED SACRAMENTO. Calif.--(By a BNA Staff Correspon dent)--Ballot arguments submitted by Gov. George Deukmejian (R) and other opponents of a proposal to restore California's job safety and health program (Cal/OSHA) were ordered changed Aug. 12 by a Sacramento County Superior Court judge. References made in two ballot arguments to reductions in workplace deaths and injuries since Cal/OSHA ended en forcement in the private sector July 1, 1987, were ordered changed by Judge Rothwell D. Mason during the Aug. 12 hearing in a suit filed by two state legislators (Green v. Eu, et al.. No. 359623. Sacramento SuperCt). The suit stems from Proposition 97, an initiative measure that will appear on the California ballot in November. Backed by organized labor and other groups, the measure would mandate restoration of the Cal/OSHA program in the private sector (18 OSHR 8. June 1, 1988). Decline In Illnesses, Injuries Claimed One of the arguments against Proposition 97 signed by Deukmejian. Robert Stranberg; chief of the state Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and, John Hay, a former president of the California Chamber of Commerce, claimed that since the federal Occupational Safety and Health Ad ministration assumed jurisdiction of private sector work places in California on July 1. 1987. "the rate and number of occupational injuries and illnesses has actually declined." Another argument asserted that the total number of injur ies, illnesses, and work-related deaths in California declined in the first six months under federal jurisdiction compared with the last six months under state jurisdiction. Rocky Saunders, an aide to Sen. Green, one of the plain tiffs in the suit, told BNA the action was filed Aug. 8 to challenge "inaccurate" information and statements in the arguments submitted by Proposition 97 opponents. He said Judge Mason's order deleted references in the arguments to numbers of deaths and rates of job fatalities and clarified that Cal/OSHA has authority to shut down imminent danger situations immediately, whereas OSHA requires a court order. Richard Simpson, chief deputy director of the state De partment of Industrial Relations, said the judge deleted references in the arguments to numbers of job fatalities, but not because the language was inaccurate or misleading. He said the judge ordered one phrase clarified by adding the words "work-related" to a claim by opponents that the rate of job injuries and illnesses has declined since OSHA as sumed jurisdiction. The revised ballot arguments will be printed in a booklet distributed to all registered voters in the state prior to the Nov. 8 election. Proponents of Proposition 97, including John F. Henning, executive secretary-treasurer of the Cali fornia Labor Federation and Michael Paparian, state direc tor of the Sierra Club California, contend in their ballot argument that OSHA has conducted fewer workplace inspec tions than Cal/OSHA did and does not regulate 170 toxic chemicals that were regulated under Cal/OSHA. Green said he is optimistic that the voters will reinstate Cal/OSHA in November by approving Proposition 97. A poll of 809 registered voters taken in the last week of July by the Field Institute showed that 59 percent of respondents fa vored Proposition 97. 24 percent were opposed, and 17 percent had no opinion. Report Claims Injury, Illness Increase In a related development, a report by the staff of the state Senate Industrial Relations Committee issued Aug. 10 claims that work-related deaths rose by 53 percent in the first six months after OSHA took jurisdiction of private sector workplaces in California, compared to the same sixmonth period a year earlier. The report, prepared by committee consultsi> Andrew Schaefer, said 101 work-related fatalities occurred in the private sector between July 1 and Dec. 31, 1987, compared with 66 in the same period in 1986, when Cal/OSHA still enforced state standards. In a telephone interview Aug. 15, Simpson labeled the report "unquestionably politically motivated" and said it was not based on complete information. Data he cited, comparing injuries and illnesses for all of 1986 to all of 1987, showed a slight decline in those numbers for 1987 and a decline in "standards-related" job fatalities in the first six months of this year to 24 in the private sector, compared with 36 in the same period of 1987. Schaefer said he was only able to get data from the department on injuries, illnesses, and fatalities through the end of 1987. His report said that 76 work-related deaths occurred in the last six months of 1986, under Cal/OSHA jurisdiction, compared with 107 in the same period of 1987, under OSHA enforcement. Work-related injuries and ill nesses also rose under federal jurisdiction by 2.210 to 171,964, his report showed. Using the calendar year data, Simpson said total occupa tional injuries and illnesses in California declined in 1987 to 400,344 from 406,276 in 1986. Private sector injuries and illnesses fell to 338.146 in 1987 from 341,530 in 1986. he reported. Those figures suggest that predictions of increases in injuries and illnesses under federal OSHA jurisdiction were not correct, he said. Simpson said Schaefer's study of work-related deaths is flawed because it uses figures that include fatalities not directly related to job safety or health standards, such as deaths from motor vehicle accidents on the job. In the first six months of 1988, under federal jurisdiction, standardsrelated deaths fell to 24, "an all time low," according to Simpson, compared with 36 between Jan. 1 and June 30, 1987, the last six months of Cal/OSHA enforcement in the private sector. v/ Chemicals LAM 010345 INDUSTRY OFFICIAL CALLS FOR SAFETY DRIVE TO PREVENT FURTHER GOVERNMENT REGULATION An "all-out safety drive" at chemical plant operations is needed to prevent further federal government intrusions into the industry, the president of a chemical trade associ ation said Aug. 12. Speaking to workers at a Vulcan Chemicals plant in Port Edwards, Wis., Robert G. Smerko, president of the Chlorine Institute, urged the chemical industry to adopt voluntary programs to monitor for chemical emissions, conduct annu al safety audits, and prepare hazard evaluations. Smerko told the group that despite the industry's "exem plary" safety and environmental-protection records, the U.S. chemical industry is "on track to be regulated like the 8-17-86 Copyright C 1988 by The Bureau of National Affairs. Inc. 0098-3237 /88/SO- 50 DPMC-06747 CURRENT REPORT 715 nuclear industry.' The industry `simply has no choice but to perform better ' to avoid additional government interven tion in the form of regulations, he said. Society increasingly is demanding that congressional lead ers work to prevent future chemical accidents like that which occurred in Bhopal. India, in December 1984. accord ing to Smerko. If the chemical industry does not respond to these concerns by improving safety, lawmakers may re spond to political pressures exerted on them, he said. "The chemical industry may be saddled with additional laws that could put [chemical industry] jobs in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington." he told the Vulcan employees. Industry Initiatives Public confidence in the chemical industry can be rebuilt, and government intervention can be prevented. Smerko contended, through a combination of legislation and industry safety initiatives. Smerko urged the chemical industry to adopt programs and policies similar to those developed by the Chlorine Institute to prevent all chlorine emissions. Under that pro gram. each institute member must sign a safety commit ment to perform annual safety audits and emission and hazard evaluations. Safety has been redefined in the last 20 years, according to the trade association president. While safety in the past meant the prevention of workplace accidents, it now also means "freedom from human sickness due to long-term exposure to a toxic substance both inside and outside the plant fence." In addition, safety means "freedom from any human harm from a catastrophic release of chlorine or other potentially hazardous material." according to Smerko. Smerko was in Port Edwards to present Vulcan's chloralkali plant with a Chlorine Institute award for operating 20 years without a lost-workday accident. The institute repre sents companies involved in manufacturing, distributing, handling, or using chlorine, caustic soda, and caustic potash. AIDS COC COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT GRANTS AVAILABLE TO NATIONAL NON-PROFIT GROUPS To help prevent the spread of the human immunodefi ciency virus, the Centers for Disease Control Aug. 10 an nounced the availability of about $1 million in funding to support non-profit organizations and consortia to implement national AIDS health education and risk reduction programs (53 FR 30099). Between eight and 12 educational projects will be funded under the CDC cooperative agreements, and the range of awards will be between $25,000 and $150,000, CDC said. The initial awards will be made on or about Nov. 15 and will initially be funded for a 12-month budget period with a project period of up to five years. According to the notice, consideration for the grants will be given to national projects directed toward the general population or toward one or more target groups including high-risk individuals, such as intravenous drug users and homosexual and bisexual men; disadvantaged women; young adults; health-care employees; and racial and ethnic minorities. "The only means currently available to control the epi demic is through effective education about the behaviors that spread the virus from an infected person to an uninfect ed person, the consequences of infection, and how to prevent becoming infected," CDC said. Non-Profit Groups According to the announcement, two types of organiza tions are eligible for the education grants--established na tional non-profit organizations, which may be health, educa tion. social service, professional, or voluntary; and established or newly formed national non-profit consortia or a group of organizations which demonstrates a capacity to operate and centrally administer a regionally or nationally coordinated AIDS information or education program. The role of CDC will be to provide technical assistance and guidance in planning and implementing the programs; assist in the identification and acquisition of appropriate educational materials; provide technical assistance in devel oping and implementing evaluation efforts for the program; and provide access to the National AIDS Clearinghouse database of AIDS programs and materials, the notice said. Those interested must submit the original and two copies of the application to Chief. Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, CDC. Room 321, 255 East Paces Ferry Road N.E., Atlanta. Ga. 30305 on or before September 26. A full description of the program, including criteria for review of applications, application format, application pro cedures, copies of the application forms PHS 5161-1, and other materials may be obtained from Terry Maricle, Grant Management Specialise Grants Management Branch, Pro curement and Grants Office. Centers for Disease Control, Room 321. 255 East Paces Ferry Road N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30305; (404) 842-6511. Technical information may be obtained from Beverly Schwartz, National AIDS Information and Education Pro gram, CDC, Atlanta, Ga. 30333; (404) 639-2384. Grants LAM 010346 OSHA AWARDS SI.4 MILLION TO 13 GROUPS TO CONTINUE `NEW DIRECTIONS' INITIATIVES Thirteen non-profit groups were awarded a total of $1.4 million in grant money by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop and improve job safety and health training and education programs in the agency's latest round of "New Directions" grants, according to an Aug. 15 announcement. The groups, which include nine labor organizations and four employer associations, were awarded the grants for fiscal 1989. Labor organizations winning funding are the Alaska La borers Training School, $71,000; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, $98,000; the Arkan sas State AFL-CIO, $146,000; the Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO, $171,000; the National Training Fund, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Industry, $102,000; the Orlando Build ing and Construction Trades Council, $87,000; the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, $108,000; the Unit ed Steelworkers of America, $76,000; and the West Virginia Labor Federation. AFL-CIO, $197,000. Employer recipients were the Master Builders of Iowa, $86,000; the National Association of Steel Pipe Distributors, $117,000; the National Constructors Association, $138,000; and the New York State Association of Fire Chiefs, $20,000. With these latest awards, the agency has distributed more than $75 million to 213 groups over the 10-year "New Directions" program, OSHA said. The program was begun in 1978 to help non-profit groups develop permanent, seif-sufficient programs to continue 8-17-88 Occupational Safety & Health Reporter 0Q9S-3237 -50 DPMC-06748 LAM 010347 OCCUPATIONAL SAFn i Y & HEALTH REPORTER Whether ''Qualified" employees should be required to stay 10 feet or more from overnead power lines, unless those employees are working for electrical utilities, communica tions companies, or line-clearance tree-trimming contractors: Whether lockout and tagging requirements contained in the proposal are reasonable and appropriate for the protec tion of employees. Concerns Reiterated Questions posed to OSHA staffers at the hearing echoed comments on the proposal received in February (17 OSHR 1483) Commenters offered varying degrees of support, but many asked the agency to clarify provisions on training, atrisk personnel, and scope. OSHA proposed in November 1987 to reduce the risk of electrical accidents by requiring the de-energization of elec trical equipment and other safety practices (17 OSHR 997). Scheduled to testify were the National Institute for Occu pational Safety and Health. National Arborist Association Inc.. National Fire Protection Association. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. National Electrical Con tractors Association. Union Carbide Corp.. and Edison Elec tric Institute. Lockout/Tagout OSHA EXTENOS COMMENT PERIOD ON PROPOSAL, SETS SEPTEMBER DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS The Occupational Safety and Health Administration Aug. 9 reopened the comment period on a proposed rule for the control of hazardous energy sources--or "lockout/tagout" -- and set public hearings on the proposal for September, according to an agency announcement (53 FR 29920). Public comments on the proposal will be accepted by the agency until Sept. 22. the agency said. An earlier comment period closed June 28. Public hearings will begin Sept. 22 at 9:30 a.m. in the auditorium of the Frances Perkins Department of Labor Building, 200 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington. D C. The hearing will reconvene Sept. 27 at 9:30 a.m. at the Guest Quarters Suite Hotel, 5353 Westheimer Rd., Houston. Tex. The agency proposed in April to require equipment and machinery to be locked, tagged, or both to prevent operation during service or maintenance (17 OSHR 1766). Notice of the extended comment period and public hear ing is published in the Full Text section of this issue. Action Based on Earlier Comments Extension of the comment period and scheduling of public hearings were based on information and comments received by the agency during the previous comment period, the OSHA notice stated.. Comments should be sent in quadruplicate by Sept. 22 to the Docket Office. Docket No. S-012A, OSHA. Room N-2439 Rear. U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington. D C. 20210. In addition, notices of intention to appear, and testimony and evidence to be presented, should be sent in quadrupli cate by Sept. 8 to Tom Hall. OSHA. Room N-3647, at the same address. For further information on the hearings, contact Tom Hall, at the above address; (202) 523-8615. For further information on the proposal, contact James F. Foster, OSHA Office of Information, U.S. Department of Labor. Room N-3647. at the same address: (202) 523-8148. General Policy REAGAN ADMINISTRATION POLICIES ON SAFETY CRITICIZED IN REPORT BY HOUSE DEMOCRAT GROUP Budget cuts and 'overly vigorous deregulation" have cre ated an environment that is "not as safe as it was eight years ago." according to a House task force report on safety released Aug. 9. The Reagan administration has "gone beyond economic deregulation begun in the previous administration, in effect removing regulations and enforcement resources designed to protect the public safety and health." Rep. Dan Glickman (D-Kan) told a press conference. Glickman chaired the task force, which also included 22 other Democratic members of the House who chair relevant committees and subcommittees. "The American public does not want an intrusive govern ment. but the vast majority wants a government that seeks to provide peace of mind." Glickman said, adding that there is an expectation that the government will "ensure certain fundamental safety protections." The report covers 11 subject areas ranging from transpor tation and financial security to the environment, workplace, and food safety issues. The task force findings are the result of congressional testimony heard by various committees dealing with public safety and security. Workplace Safety During the 1970s, critics charged that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was "nit-picking and overregulating the workplace," but under the Reagan adminis tration. OSHA has "clearly undermined the concept of the [Occupational Safety and Health] Act and is endangering the nation's most precious resources--its working men and women." the task force asserted. The report said "it is an ongoing tragedy that between 7,000 and 10.000 workers die each year in their workplaces, 3 million suffer serious injuries yearly, as many as 100,000 die each year from exposures to hazardous workplace sub stances. and as many as 400.000 are newly disabled each year from workplace exposures to toxic materials." During the past seven-and-a-half years, the task force said, workplace safety and health regulation. iave been "systematically undermined." and regulations developed by the Carter administration have been "delayed or watered down." Health standards have been established only as the result of pressure from petitions initiated by workers and their advocates, court orders, and political pressure, the report said, noting that despite continued pressure, OSHA has yet to respond to a 1985 petition for a standard on wood dust, a 1983 request for a standard on cadmium, and a number of other requests for standards. The report also criticized OSHA's voluntary compliance policy adopted during the Reagan administration. Under that policy, which was modified in recent months (17 OSHR 1591), if a company maintains an injury/illness rate below the national average for manufacturing, the OSHA inspec tion consists only of a review of the company's own records. In this way, the task force said, OSHA increased the number of inspections dramatically while reducing inspector levels by 25 percent. `Very Inadequate Inspections' Rep. Joseph M. Gaydos (D-Pa), chairman of the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Health and Safety and a member of the task force, said that the Reagan administration policies have resulted in "very inadequate 8-10-88 Copyngni 1988 by The Bureau of National Affairs. Inc 0095-3237/88/50* 50 DPMC-06749 574 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER and Mortality Weekly Report as part of recommendations for controlling influenza during the 1988-1989 flu season. According to the report, individuals attending high-risk persons can transmit influenza infections to them while they are themselves incubating infection, or working despite the existence of symptoms. High-risk persons include the elder ly, transplant recipients, or persons with AIDS who have relatively low antibody responses to the influenza vaccine. "Efforts to protect [high-risk patients] against influenza may be improved by reducing the chances that their care providers may pose them to influenza." the report said. The influenza vaccine also protects the health-care work er who is exposed to numerous diseases in health-care facilities. Suzanne Gaventa, a researcher in CDC's viral disease division, told BNA July 25. Making sure that health care workers receive the influenza vaccine "is a reasonable recommendation" since the vaccine causes no negative side effects, she added. Job Categories To Be Vaccinated Health-care workers who should be vaccinated include physicians, nurses, and personnel such as primary-care and certain specialty clinicians and staff of chronic-care facili ties and intensive care units, particularly neonatal intensivecare units, the report said. CDC also recommended that home-care providers to highrisk persons, such as visiting nurses and volunteers, be vaccinated. The influenza vaccine should be offered beginning in September, since high levels of influenza activity generally do not occur in the continental United States before Decem ber. the report said. The report suggests that administrators and infectioncontrol staff of health-care facilities should establish proce dures for offering vaccines to patient-care staff that take into account barriers to vaccination. For example, the re port said that more staff members will be vaccinated if the vaccine is available at the work site. Lockout/Tagout PROPOSAL CALLED INADEQUATE BY UNIONS WINS QUALIFIED SUPPORT FROM NIOSH, INDuoTRY Numerous labor organizations, in written comments to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, criti cized as inadequate the agency's recent proposal to require locks and/or tags to prevent worker entry to equipment temporarily stopped for servicing or maintenance. But the proposal, which OSHA said is intended to prevent deaths and injuries due to the unexpected re-energization of such equipment, drew support from several industry groups, conditioned on the agency's clarification of certain proposed provisions. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health also supported the agency's proposal, saying it should lead to "better organized, more systematic control" of maintenance and servicing hazards. The need for such a rule is evidenced by high numbers of injuries and fatalities; lack of compliance with existing related standards; and evidence that maintenance, repair, and servicing injuries most frequently occur not to mainte nance personnel, but to machine operators and feeders, NIOSH told the agency. Comments came in response to OSHA's April 29 proposal lo require that equipment and machinery be locked, tagged, or both to prevent their operation during maintenance or M-rvicing when workers may be inside or near moving parts (17 OSHR 1766). The proposal is designed to prevent employ ee injuries from the accidental re-plugging or switching-on of stopped equipment, the restarting of equipment by an employee at controls separate from the macninery, and hazardous movements of machinery parts that may contain residual energy, such as spring or hydraulic pressure. Com ments were due June 28. `Most Prominent Issue1 Energy lockout is "the most prominent safety issue" for the United Auto Workers, the union told OSHA. Despite the deaths of 71 union members in accidents involving hazard ous machinery operation--one as recently as May 27 --the hazard "continues unabated," UAW President Owen Bieber stated in comments to the agency. Another union, the United Steelworkers of America, has lost 30 members since 1980 because of inadequate lockout procedures, the agency was told. OSHA's performance-oriented proposal, the Steelworkers contended, is too vague and would exempt too many indus tries that are "in desperate need of a strong standard." The Auto Workers, the Steelworkers, and several other unions said that OSHA's proposal fails to incorporate the basic element of an effective lockout program, the doctrine of "one person, one lock, one key." Because the proposal's provisions are not as protective as current work practices, "this proposal is a step backward for many workers," Steelworkers health and safety specialist Frank Grimes told the agency. Also criticized by the unions was the use of tags, as allowed under the proposal, to warn workers of machinery being serviced or repaired as an alternative to physically locking out equipment. Temporary Tagging The Chemical Manufacturers Association and the Synthet ic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association lent their support to the proposal, but recommended that "energy isolating devices"--valves and similar devices that control energy sources--be marked with temporary tags, rather than permanently marking them as the proposal specifies. SOCMA argued that permanent labeling of these devices would be "impractical, costly, and of limited utility." CMA also recommended that a final rule covering energy lockout exempt servicing and maintenance that occurs dur ing emergencies and other situations where compliance with the standard would increase workers' risk. The American Petroleum Institute, while supporting the need for an effective lockout standard, said that the propos al's coverage of petroleum pipelines is "inappropriate." Safe operation of petroleum pipelines, API maintained, already is ensured under other federal regulations. In supporting OSHA's proposal, NIOSH recommended that the agency clarify its definitions of "normal production operations" and "servicing and maintenance." The research institute questioned whether certain routine operations such as changing a power saw blade or clearing a jammed press die would be considered normal production operations not requiring equipment lockout, or service or maintenance operations. Regulatory Reform LAM 010348 EVALUATION METHODS TO VALUE HUMAN LIFE SHOULD BE DISCLOSED, ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL URGES A committee of the Administrative Conference of the United States approved recommendations July 19 that Copyright C 1988 by The Bureau of National Affairs, tnc. 0O9S-aZ37/88/S0+.5O DPMC-06750 CURRENT REPORT Air Contaminants TEXTILE WORKERS CALL FOR LOWER OSHA LIMIT TO PROTECT DRY CLEANING WORKERS FROM SOLVENT More than 100.000 workers in the dry cleaning industry need protection from chemicals "that threaten their health, their livelihood and their families." officials of the Amalga mated Clothing and Textile Workers Union told the Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration Aug. 3 in asking for reduced exposure limits for perchloroethvlene. a solvent used in that industry. The union, however, was unable to recommend a specific "protective and feasible" limit when asked to do so by OSHA officials. The union said that the accelerated rulemaking process that OSHA has followed in proposing reduced per missible exposure limits for perchloroethvlene and more than 400 other air contaminants has not given interested parties enough time to prepare such information. But Eric Frumin. director of occupational safety and health for the union, said that a limit under 10 parts per million appears to be feasible, based on available exposure data. The remarks came in testimony during OSHA hearings on a June 7 proposal to change or reduce exposure limits for 428 chemicals and other air contaminants (18 OSHR 19). The agency intends to complete the rulemaking by the end of the Reagan administration. Monitoring, Surveillance Requirements Needed Ernestine Thomas, an ACTWU member from Local 124 in Detroit. Mich., testified that she was exposed for 10 years to "extremely high" levels of perchloroethylene while operat ing "transfer-type" machines at a dry cleaning facility. Transfer machines require workers to remove chemicalsoaked clothes from a cleaning machine to another machine for a separate drying process. The union contended that "dry-to-dry" machines, which perform the whole dry-cleaning process in one machine, are much safer and limit workers' exposures to hazardous chemicals. Thomas said that as a machine operator she was not provided with gloves or aprons, and that her hands routinely were covered with perchloroethylene and her clothes soaked with the chemical. During those 10 years of exposure to perchloroethylene, she suffered headaches, irritation of the eyes and nose, and nausea, the machine operator testified. Based on her experiences, Thomas told the hearing that OSHA should ban transfer-type dry cleaning machines and incorporate medical monitoring requirements in any regula tion of perchloroethylene. Frumin agreed, saying that there is "no excuse" for the agency not proposing medical surveillance and exposure monitoring provisions along with the reduced exposure lim its. The agency is working on generic surveillance and monitoring standards (17 OSHR 1729). Productivity At Issue An official of the International Fabricare Institute sug gested during his cross examination of the ACTWU wit nesses that workers could improve productivity with trans fer machines because simultaneous operation of both cleaning and drying machines produces twice as many clean clothes as one dry-to-dry machine. William Fisher, the insti tute's vice president, also questioned data on which was based the union's assessment that a 10 ppm limit is feasible. When asked by Labor Department attorney Charles Gor don whether she believed she felt better and was more productive using the dry-to-dry equipment, however, Thom as responded "yes." Currently, the agency requires that worker exposures to perchloroethylene not exceed 100 ppm averaged over an eight-hour work shift, with short-term exposures not to exceed 200 ppm. and five-minute peak exposures not to exceed 300 ppm over a three-hour period. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health classifies perchloroethylene as a carcinogen and recom mends that exposures to the chemical be kept to "the lowest feasible limit." OSHA's proposal would adopt the 50 ppm xpnsure limit and 200 ppm short-term limit recommended d> the Ameri can Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. AC- GIH's recommended exposure limits provided the basis for all but 35 of the rulemaking's proposed limits. The agency said in the proposed rule that it "preliminarily concluded" that the ACGIH levels would protect workers against eye irritation, headaches, and other adversp hoaim effects. v/ LAM 010349 Electrical Safety OSHA HEARINGS ON WORK PRACTICES OPEN; PARTICIPANTS REQUEST SCOPE CLARIFICATION While its proposed standard for electrical safety-related work practices is expected to prevent more than 100 deaths and 1.500 injuries annually, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration acknowledged Aug. 9 that it often is difficult to determine what electrical equipment wouid be covered under the rule. In public hearings on the proposal, the agency said that it hoped to receive information from participants to help it make those determinations. OSHA's acknowledgment of the difficulty of the scope issue was underscored by questions posed by representatives of industries where coverage still is unclear. Steven R. Semler, counsel for the National Arborist Asso ciation Inc., asked OSHA for specific guidance cn when treetrimming operations, and specific personnel involved in such work, would be covered by the rule. Edison Electric Institute, represented by Steven Yohay, similarly asked the agency whether it intended the proposal to cover electrical utility plants. OSHA's proposal would cover electrical "utilization" equipment such as that found in office buildings, garages, and warehouses, but would not cover work performed by "qualified" persons at electrical generation, transmission, and distribution installations. In opening remarks, Barry J. White, OSHA director of safety standards programs, said that the agency is "well aware" that power plants can contain both types of installa tions and that it is difficult to distinguish sometimes wheth er a specific piece of equipment is part of a "utilization" system or part of the "generation" system. Issues To Be Addressed Based on comments on the proposal, OSHA said it will address a number of issues regarding electrical safety in developing a final rule, including; Whether existing general industry requirements are in fact more protective than corresponding provisions in the proposed electrical safety-related work practices rule; Whether the scope of the proposal is appropriate; Whether proposed training requirements are adequate to protect workers; 8-10-88 Occupational Safety & Health Reporter 009S-3237/8arS0 SO DPMC-06751 LAM 010350 CURRENT REPORT e6 i BR Group also was cued for 45 other alleged serious violations, including 12 instances of failing to provide ma chine guarding for punch presses. OSHA inspected the facility in February in response to an employee complaint about the lack of machine guarding, according to the agency. Similar alleged violations were cited by the agency in 1986 when BR was owned by a different company. OSHA said that those violations were never corrected even though the rirm remained under the same management. OSHA said its investigation also found that the company failed to adopt recommendations from the state's safety consultation service and an insurance carrier on complying with federal machine guarding requirements. BR Group declined to comment on the citations. The company has 15 working days to contest the citations before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Litigation RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF OHIO TORT LAW TO WORKER DEATH SUIT HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL An Ohio statute governing the assessment of damages in intentional-tort actions filed in workplace injury cases may not be applied retroactively, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled Aug. 1 (Pratt v. National Distillers A- Chemical Corp,, CA 6. No. 86-3971/3972. 8/1/88). The appellate court reinstated a jury's verdict in favor of, and award of damages to, plaintiff Patricia L. Pratt, whose husband died from burns received in a work-related explo sion at National Distillers & Chemical Corp., also known as Emery Industries. Although a jury had returned verdicts on March 5, 1986, for $100,000 in punitive damages and $1,003,028 in compen satory damages, post-trial motions still were pending when the Ohio statute in question became effective on Aug. 22. 1986. Under the law. once an employer is found guilty of intentional harm to an employee under the tort system, the case must be referred to a state panel, the Ohio Industrial Commission, which then assess damages. In accordance with the statute, the trial judge vacated the damage awards and referred the case to the industrial commission. Court Finds Application Unconstitutional Because the statute affected Pratt's substantial rights, the appellate court ruled that such application of the law violat ed Ohio s constitution, which forbids the general assembly from enacting retroactive laws. The statute, the court found, redefined "intentional tort" from its common-law definition. Under the state law. as opposed to common-law practice, an employee suing his employer for an intentional tort cannot infer from the employer's conduct and surrounding circumstances that the employer intended to cause the employee injury, the court analyzed. Instead, the employee must prove that the em ployer acted with deliberate intent to cause injury, the court said. The statute, therefore, affected Pratt's existing right to recover under the common-law definition of an intentional tort, the court ruled. Furthermore, the court found that the statute affected Pratt's right to a jury trial, which under the Ohio constitu tion is a fundamental and substantial right. Smoking LAWMAKERS IN NEW YORK CLOSE TO AGREEMENT ON RULES TO LIMIT SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE ALBANY. N.Y.--(Bv a BNA Staff Correspondent!--New York state lawmakers and Gov. Mario M. Cuomo are close to agreement and could enact a bill as eariv as September to limit smoking in the workplace and other public places. Cuomo and legislative leaders failed to iron out their differences before the state Senate adjourned its reguiar session Aug. 2. but officials close to negotiations told BNA that a compromise bill could be drafted and approved when the Legislature reconvenes. The state Assembly, which ad journed in mid-Julv, is expected to reconvene later this month and the Senate is expected to return lo Albany in September. One of the key issues preventing agreement on the bill was pre-emption. The Senate supports a measure that would pre-empt local laws, while the Assembly and governor favor a bill that would allow tougher local laws to supersede the state law. New York City and some five other counties in the state have enacted laws to regulate smoking in public places. John McArdie. a spokesman for Deputy Senate Majority Leader John R. Dunne (R-Garden City), the chief sponsor of the Senate bill, told BNA that Dunne has toughened up his bill so that the pre-emption issue is effectively moot. He said no local law would supersede the state law because no local law would be as stringent. Consent Would Be Needed Under Dunne's bill (S 7959-C). smoking in the workplace would be permitted only if all workers routinely assigned to the area give their consent. Employers would be required to use their "best efforts" --including the use of ventilation, partitions, and other devices--to meet a non-smoking em ployees needs. If the non-smoking employee's needs cannot be met after such steps, the employer would have to desig nate the area as non-smoking. Under the bill supported by Cuomo and the Democratic majority in the state Assembly (A 8961), smoking would be prohibited in all common work areas, unless the area is occupied exclusively by smokers. Both bills would prohibit smoking in the workplace in auditoriums, gymnasiums, rest rooms, elevators, classrooms, employee medical facilities, and the immediate areas around a photocopying machine or other shared office equipment. While the Dunne bill would require that employers, if unionized, negotiate the specific terms of their smoking policies through collective bargaining, the Assembly bill makes no mention of collective bargaining. Contracts would have to contain the minimum protections set forth in the legislation, under Dunne's proposal. Russell A. Hinz, a spokesman for the New York State Coalition on Smoking or Health, told BNA he feared that provisions regarding collective bargaining might leave the door open for a legal challenge and should, therefore, be struck from the bill. He said such provisions might be deemed as a violation of the Taft-Hartley Act because they attempt to mandate the content and scope of a subject of collective bargaining. / v /triefher Display Terminals u* 5 lo . NEW YORK UNION LEADERS ORGANIZE J TO SPUR LOCAL, STATE VDT LEGISLATION NEW YORK--(By a BNA Staff Editor)--Following the implementation of a law protecting video display terminal 8-10-88 Occuoationai Safety 4 Health Reporter 0O95-3237/88/SO* 50 DFMC-06752 _652 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER operators in Suffolk County. N.Y.. state labor leaders met Aug. 5 to coordinate a campaign to enact video dispiav terminal legislation in other New York counties as well as state-wide. The "end goal " of the VDT coalition is to pass state legislation regulating the use of VDTs. "but for now we have to chew one county 3t a time.' Arthur Wilcox, director or the public employee division of the state AFL-CIO. told the labor representatives. Since the Suffolk County law took effect June 18. New Yorx s Putnam County has passed a law protecting county VDT workers. Westchester County has introduced legislation similar to Suffolk County's, and Albany County and Rock land County legislators have shown an interest in similar measures. Wilcox said. However, business opposition to the law has not subsided, and a number of towns within Suffolk County are taking action to exempt themselves from the law (see related article in this issuer Big Business Threats Despite proponents' support for VDT legislation in those counties. Joel Shufro. executive director of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, a labor and public-interest activist group, said that big business inter ests pose a great threat to VDT legislation because "their resources are unlimited." "We are facing the Fortune 500 in passing this legisla tion." he said. "The victory of the Suffolk County legislation puts mo mentum on our side for the moment, but business is trying to figure out how to kill" such efforts. Shufro said. "Our task is to see how to pool our resources to go forward and develop materials or campaigns for the local or state level. We can only move forward if we do so in a united fashion." he added. Agreeing with Shufro. Communication Workers of Amer ica official Lisa Reardon said CWA's effort to pass legisla tion in Suffolk County "was all-out war with business." Representatives from "businesses all over the country flew in to fight the legislation" and testify at local hearings, she said. "Our grass-roots effort made [the VDT legislation] possi ble. If we lose sight of that we lose the thrust and the momentum" needed to push legislation in other counties, she said. Rallying Point For Unions According to Wilcox. VDT legislation is important for a number of reasons. First, legislation can protect workers from safety and health hazards, such as musculoskeletal and stress problems and possible reproductive risks. Second. VDT legislation has political ramifications for enabling unions to rally behind a law covering all workers, not just those organized in unions. According to Wilcox, New York has about 1.5 million VDT operators, the majority of whom are unorganized. The Suffolk County law demonstrated the ability of union ized and unorganized workers to work together for a com mon goal, he said. Six Committees To organize their efforts, the union leaders created six committees to work on different aspects of the VDT legisla tion campaign. The committees will report on their actions at a meeting of the New York AFL-CIO later this month in Albany. The committees were given the following assignments Develop collective bargaining language regarding VDT use for union contracts. Develop model bill language for county and state laws. Create a communication networx to keep union leaders and workers apprised of local developments regarding VDT measures. Track national and county-level legal activity relating to VDT legislation and the Suffolk County suit. Create a campaign to increase public awareness of the need for VDT safety and health legislation. Examine political support for VDT legislation from the Democratic and Republican parties on the local, state, and federal levels. Those attending the meeting, in addition to the CWa and New York State AFL-CIO representatives, included mem bers of the Civil Service Employees Association: Citizen Action of New York: the Motion Picture Editors Union: the Professional Employees International Union: the United Auto Workers: the Retail. Wholesale, and Department Store Employees Union: and the Service Employees International Union. LAM 010351 AIDS STUDY SAYS BETTER MEDICAL DEVICE DESIGN COULD LOWER INCIDENCE OF NEEDLE-STICK INJURIES The risk of needle-stick injuries for health-care workers-- a potential avenue for AIDS infection--could be reduced by improving the design of medical devices and providing safer methods for covering contaminated needles, according to a study in the Aug. 4 edition of The New England Journal of Medicine. In conducting the study, "Rates of Needle-Stick InjuryCaused By Various Devices in a University Hospital." re searchers examined characteristics of medical devices that caused 326 needle-stick injuries in the University of Virginia Hospital over a 10-month period, and interviewed hospital employees who reported such injuries, to discuss the types of devices used and the circumstances surrounding the injuries. According to the researchers, the needle-stick study was conducted because the acquired immune deficiency syn drome epidemic "has led to intense concern among health care workers about the risk they face in the hospital envi ronment. Needle-stick injuries have drawn attention, for despite safety guidelines and employee education, there is little evidence that their incidence is abating." Needle-Stick Devices According to the study, 35 percent of the 326 needle-stick injuries were caused by disposable syringes, although dis posable syringes had the lowest needle-stick rate per 100,000 items purchased. Of the other injuries caused by accidental sticks. 26 percent were caused by intravenous tubing and needle assemblies, 12 percent by prefilled cartridge sy ringes. 7 percent by winged steel-needle intravenous sets. 5 percent by phlebotomy needles. 2 percent by intravenous catheter stylets, and 13 percent by other devices. Researchers found that devices requiring disassembly had rates of injury of up to 5.3 times the rate for disposable syringes, and that one-third of all 'injuries were related to recapping. Only 17 percent of the incidents occurred while workers were using the items, while 70 percent occurred when workers were preparing the devices for disposal. Injuries from recapping occurred most often in three ways, according to the report --when the employee missed 6-10-68 Coovngni C 1988 by The Bureau of National Affairs. Inc 0095 - 323 7/86/SO 50 DPMC-06753 LAM 010352 726 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER updates and clarifies provisions of a Jan. 19 directive by incorporating recently revised Centers for Disease Control guidelines for protecting health-care workers from exposure to blood-borne infectious diseases (17 OSHR 1332: 18 OSHR 461: Reference File 21:96071. The full text of the directive will be published in a future Reference File supplement. Hepatitis B Vaccine Reversing its previous stand, the final directive requires employers to provide workers the hepatitis B vaccine, but not free of charge--a provision that has been criticized by labor representatives who say the vaccine will be unafforda ble for many health-care workers (18 OSHR 6541. OSHA's January directive required that employers provide the vac cine for free. Bill Borwegen. head of the Service Employees Interna tional Union's occupational safety and health department, told BN A Aug. 23 that OSHA's decision to omit the require ment that employers pay for the vaccine `stinks of Office of Management and Budget involvement." and is a reversal of the recommendations of the agency's own technical staff. "Clearly the free vaccine is the most integral part of control [ling]," hepatitis B infection. Borwegen said. "It is a political decision that workers will have to die from," he added. An OSHA compliance official told BNA the agency prob ably will require that the vaccine be provided for free in a proposed rule on AIDS scheduled to be published in December. Inspection Goals Omitted The final directive also omits regional inspection goals specifically outlined in the January and draft directive. According to the draft, the 10 OSHA regions were to conduct a minimum of 200 inspections. An OSHA health compliance official told BNA Aug. 23 the inspection goals were omitted in the final version to "let the regional administrators set [inspection] goals" since they know how many inspectors they have and are better able to set schedules. However, Borwegen told BNA the inspection goals were important since they "set benchmarks and reflected com mitment" on the part of the agency to conduct inspections. "Regional administrators need guidance" in setting inspec tion goals, Borwegen said, adding that he would "be happy to provide OSHA regional administrators with copies of the OSHA draft directive" that included the inspection goals. Changes Taking into account the CDC guidelines, OSHA's directive expanded the list of bodily fluids linked to the transmission of HIV and AIDS by adding cerebrospinal fluid; synovial fluid, secreted by the membranes of joints and tendons; pleural fluid, secreted from the membrane that covers the lungs and lines the chest cavity; peritoneal fluid, from the membrane covering the abdominal cavity; pericardial fluid, from the membrane surrounding the heart; and amniotic fluid. A May draft of the directive listed only blood, semen, blood products, and vaginal secretions as potentially danger ous body fluids (18 OSHR 485). Another difference between the draft and final version is that the final version lists workers such as housekeeping personnel, laundry workers, paramedics, medical examin ers, research laboratory workers, orderlies, and morticians as workers who may be directly exposed to potentially dangerous bodily fluids. Previously, OSHA said those workers "may rarely come into contact with body fluid" and that their risk of contract ing blood-borne diseases was low. OSHA aiso said those emplovees were "at no greater risk of contracting bloodborne diseases than other members of the general population." Gloves The final directive adds a new section defining when an employer may be cited for failing to provide protective gloves to phlebotomists. whom OSHA defines as "any health care worker who draws blood samples." For example, an employer who does not make gloves available can be cited for failure to provide equipment under 29 CFR 1910.132(a). Employers who make gloves available, but discourage or prohibit their use can be cited for failure to use equipment under 29 CFR 1910.132 (a), if in fact the gloves are not being used, the directive said. Incorporating the CDC guidelines, OSHA's directive also updates a section on protective glove materials. In particu lar, OSHA added a provision saying that gloves must be of "appropriate material, usually intact latex or intact vinyl, of appropriate quality for the procedures performed, and of appropriate size for each health-care worker." OSHA added three other stipulations regarding gloves, including the requirement that employers not wash or disin fect surgical or examination gioves for reuse; that general purpose rubber gloves used by maintenance, housekeeping, laundry or other non-medical personnel may be decontami nated and reused; and that no gloves be used if they are peeling, cracked, discolored, or if they have punctures, tears, or other evidence of deterioration. The OSHA directive also specifies that protective gowns, including surgical gowns, be made of or lined with impervi ous material and should protect all areas of exposed skin. Multi-Employer Worksites Unlike the draft of the directive, the final version contains a section offering guidelines for citing multi-employer work sites. For example, OSHA said health-care facilities will be cited for violations of safety and health standards to which their own employees are exposed. However, under the directive, health-care facilities can not be cited under the general duty clause for violations to which employees of other employers on. their premises are exposed, to the extent that they control the hazards. For example, OSHA said, health care facilities can not be cited for not providing personal protective equipment to unpro tected employees of other employers on their premises. Also, according to OSHA, physicians who are members of professional corporations generally are considered to be employees of that corporation and therefore the corporation may be cited for all violations affecting those physicians. Hospitals where the physicians work also may be cited for standards violations, but not for violations under the general duty clause. . / CcJg TZ> 'I General Policy 7^***-^. Ze< J2- Hep. henry looks at osh act retorm, CONVENES INFORMAL LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE The ranking minority member of the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Health and Safety has assem bled an informal task force to develop legislation that would amend portions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 identified as obsolete or impediments to the reguia- / 8-24-08 Copyrignt 1908 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. 0095-3237/M/*0- .50 DPMC-06754 CURRENT REPORT 727 tory mandate of the Occupational Safety and Health Admin istration. memoers of the task force told BNA. The five-member group, which is to meet in Washington. D.C.. for the first time Aug. 26. was assembled at the behest of Rep. Paul B. Henry (R-Mich). Henry has asked the group to provide suggestions for legislative changes by January for use in the next Congress. Members of the task force, chosen as non-employer and non-employee representatives, were selected for their range of previous experience with occupational safety and health, Dottie L. Strunk, committee senior legislative associate on the minority staff, told BNA. The members are: Patrick R. Tyson, attorney with Constangy, Brooks & Smith in Atlanta and former acting assis tant secretary of labor for OSHA; Henry' Chajet. attorney with Doyle and Savit and former senior counsel with the American Mining Congress; Charles A. Hurley, vice presi dent for policy with the National Safety Council; Robert Stranberg, chief of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health; and Dr. Marcus M. Key, professor of occupational medicine at the University of Texas School of Public Health. The scope of the group's meetings will be broad and flexible. Strunk said. "They're supposed to be brainstorming sessions." Time For Reforms? The task force members, who agreed to cover their own expenses, said in interviews with BNA that they come together with no rigid blueprint for reform of the OSH Act, but rather a sense that the time has come after 18 years to reopen the law for the first time. Henry, who took an active role during the subcommittee's oversight of OSHA in the last year and opposed worker disease notification legislation sponsored by subcommittee Chairman Rep. Joseph M. Gaydos (D-Pa), hopes to introduce constructive legislation to improve the regulatory function of OSHA, Strunk said. Some areas that might be addressed by the task force, according to Tyson, are OSHA's glacial standards-setting process, which he called "a total failure"; aspects of the agency's enforcement authority, including the maximum penalties the agency can propose against violators of federal requirements; and the rights of employees, including their participation in OSHA's enforcement decisions. Chajet. whose occupational safety and health experience primarily has been with the Mine Safety and Health Admin istration, said he hopes the group will take a broad view of government regulation of workplace safety and health, rath er than approaching legislative reform from a micro perspective. "Each person in the group brings with them the exper ience to know what they see needs to be addressed," he said. "It won't be very difficult to sit around and bring to light those common problems and things that need improving." Lessons In OSHA's Experience Hurley, who has worked on transportation, rather than workplace issues for the National Safety Council of late, said the occupational safety and health law is "a fine act." The law, however, "has never received the consistent lead ership it deserves." Hurley concurred with Tyson that, "There appears to be a consensus that it's time to take a look at OSHA, at the lessons of the last 17 years." Areas he hopes to see the task force discuss are education, enforcement, standards-setting, cooperative efforts among organized labor, management and the federal government, and the roles of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, he said. Stranberg said it was premature to speculate about the parameters of the group's work until it meets. "I'm happy to be a part of this group and until I see what they have in mind, I really can't comment." he told BNA. Although no one was selected by Henry to represent the points of view of organized labor, task force members interviewed by BNA said they hoped to avoid any sense of bias in discussion of OSHA's difficulties. Perspectives skewed to any viewpoint or proposals overtly political in nature are destined for certain failure. Hurley oosarved. "If the product is unbalanced, then it's not going to fly," he said. "It's got to be above that level. OSHA was born of conflict and always has been affected by that. ... But we really have to take a look at the safety and health issues, not the conflict issues," Hurley added. LAM 010353 Right-To-Know HOUSE SMALL BUSINESS SUBCOMMITTEE TO STUDY OSHA HAZARD STANDARD SEPT. 28 The effect of the Occupational Safety and Health Adminis tration's expanded hazard communication standard on small businesses will be examined Sept. 28 during a hearing before the House Small Business Subcommittee on Exports, Tour ism and Special Problems. Rep. Norman Sisisky (D-Va), chairman of the subcommit tee, called the hearing in response to letters from employers concerned that the OSHA standard, newly expanded to cover all workplaces, is burdensome to small employers, who need additional guidance from OSHA in order to comply, an aide told BNA. The subcommittee has contacted business associations who have been involved with OSHA in the expansion of the standard to invite their testimony, an aide said. The witness list for the hearing will be compiled in September, she added. Of potential interest to small business employers and to the subcommittee will be an Aug. 19 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in response to an April petition from the United Steelworkers of America and Public Citizen Inc. (see related story in this issue). Legal And OMB Challenges The court ruled that provisions of the expanded standard disapproved by the Office of Management and Budget last year must immediately be reinstated by OSHA and not reopened for new rulemaking. The appeals court also ap peared to rule against a petition for a stay of the standard as it applies to the construction industry, despite the court's earlier order for such a stay. The hazard communication standard, which originally covered the manufacturing sector, was expanded by OSHA to cover all workers a year ago in response to a court order (17 OSHR 507, 520). In October 1987, OMB disapproved three provisions of the rule and ordered OSHA to conduct new rulemaking. The agency responded Aug. 8 with a proposed rule requesting public comment on OMB's concerns and scheduling a public hearing (18 OSHR 651, 668). In addition, the expanded standard as well as OMB's actions under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act, have been chal lenged by various parties and are being sorted out in the Third Circuit court of appeals (18 OSHR 499). 8-24-86 Occupational Safety & Health Reporter 0095-3237/ee/ttH 50 DPMC-06755 492 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER Roy Rutz. program supervisor in the department's worker health and saietv brancn. In the 1987 proposal, the department suggested 14-day re entry intervals for fields treated with the fungicides Captan, Captafol. Bravo, and Folpet. Rutz said. At the same time, the department proposed to reduce re-entry intervals for several other pesticides, based on research work performed for the Environmental Protection Agency. The department decided to defer any action on the latter group when questions were raised about the research work. Rutz told BNA. and it decided to postpone changes in the fungicide re-entry intervals until risk assessment data are available on two of them. Concern By Growers Most of the comments on the 14-day re-entry interval for the four fungicides came from growers who feared that the proposed periods would prevent any activities in fields treated with the chemicals, Rutz said. The department will return to the issue in the future, Rutz said, adding that one of the fungicides, Captafol, is off the market in California and that another, Folpet, "basically is off the market." In other provisions, the 1987 proposal would expand the scope of worker safety and health rules for pesticides to cover industrial and structural pest control operations, en hance medical surveillance requirements for workers ex posed to pesticides, and strengthen respirator management programs. Rutz noted. The department's worker safety rules presently cover only agricultural uses of pesticides, the official said, and the proposed changes would expand that scope to cover all workers who handle pesticides, including mixers, loaders, applicators, and those who handle chemicals in structural and industrial pest control. The proposed changes to the medical surveillance rules would require monthly blood testing for new field workers exposed to pesticides, for the first three months, Rutz said, with bimonthly testing thereafter if exposure to pesticides is regular. Employer respiratory protection programs would be strengthened by adding new rules for respirator selec tion, maintenance, and training of employees, Rutz said. The June 24 revision spells out how employee medical problems, such as asthma or heart disease, are to be handled by employers under a respiratory protection program. Washington LABOR AGENCY WARNS AGAINST USE OF PLASTIC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE IN COMPRESSED AIR PIPING OLYMPIA, Wash.--(By a BNA Special Correspondent)-- The Washington state Department of Labor and Industries has issued a warning that plastic polyvinyl chloride pipe cannot be used in compressed air piping systems without the risk of explosion. Citing accidents involving PVC pipe in the past year, the department said only one type of pipe, Acrylonitrile-Butadi ene-Styrene, is approved for use with compressed air. Last year a section of PVC pipe being used for com pressed air exploded 27 feet above a warehouse floor, and a fragment of the pipe flew 60 feet and was embedded in a roll of paper. Nobody was in the area at the time of the explosion, the department said. A PVC pipe explosion in a new plant in Selah broke an employee's nose and cut his face. PVC piping buried three feet underground at a Yakima manufacturing plant exploded, opening a crater about four feet deep and three feet wide. "We're seeing more incidents of explosive failure, and we're citing more employers for using PVC air system piping," according to Paul Merrill, senior safety inspector in the department's Spokane office. The department said employers must protect their work ers by avoiding the use of unapproved PVC pipe in com pressed air systems. Existing compressed air systems that use PVC piping must be completely enclosed, buried or adequately guarded according to specifications by a profes sional consulting engineer, the department said. NEWS BRIEFS LAM 010354 Jury Instructions In Asbestos Case Proper Instructions given to a jury in an asbestos-related injury lawsuit must be examined as a whole rather than individual ly in order to determine if an erroneous instruction was given, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled (In Re: Asbestos Cases, Chang v. Johns-Manvide Sales Corp., CA 9, Nos. 85-1912 and 85-1913, 5/23/88). In upholding the jury's verdicts for Hoo Kin Chang and Charles Chun, former workers at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, the appellate court ruled that the appeals made by the asbestos manufacturers, including Raymark Industries Inc., were totally frivolous. The fact that one jury instruc tion asked for a determination of when Chang should have known his disease was caused by the defendants' products was not prejudicial in light of other interrogatories given to the jury asking them to determine whether the asbestos manufacturers were negligent, the court said. Smoking May Not Defeat Bronchitis Claim A worker in a fiberglass manufacturing plaht may claim total disability for his occupational bronchitis and emphyse ma if he can show that non-occupational factors such as cigarette smoking did not equally contribute to his condition, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled June 2 (Hall v. Indus trial Claim Appeals Office of Colorado., Colo CtApp, No. 87CA1345, 6/2/88). The court's ruling reversed an earlier decision by a state claim appeals office that dismissed a claim by Arthur Hall on the grounds that Hall's disorders "probably" were mild and resulted from "heavy" smoking, and that any workrelated "aggravation" was temporary. The court based its reversal on an opinion by a physician testifying on Hall's behalf, who said that Hall's condition need not be wholly work-related for the purposes of validating his claim, as long as smoking was not as important a causal factor as his workplace exposure to irritants. Drug Use Relevant In Environmental Case Evidence that a chemical plant employee used drugs was relevant to his suit charging his employer with exposing him to hazardous chemicals on the plant site, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled June 15 (O'Dell v. Hercules Inc., DC EArk, No. LR-C-86-435, 6/15/88). In denying Steven O'Dell's motion for a new trial, the court rejected O'Dell's argument that the evidence preju diced the outcome of the trial. O'Dell's drug use was rel evant to the question of his risk of serious harm from prolonged exposure to toxic chemicals around the plant site, 7-5-88 Copyright 1968 by The Bureau of National Aflairs. Inc. 0095--3237/88/50+ .50 DPMC-0S756 531 Current Report Right-To-Know NON-MANUFACTURERS EXCEPT CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO OSHA HAZARD RULE INSPECTIONS The Occupational Safety and Health Administration plans to enforce its hazard communication standard in non-manu facturing sectors of industry--with the exception of the construction industry--beginning Aug. 1, an agency spokes woman said July 14. However, the agency plans only to respond to complaints of alleged violations as long as a court-ordered stay of the standard in the construction industry remains in effect, agency spokeswoman Claire Austin told BNA. The agency expects to issue an enforcement directive to its inspectors by the second week of August, she said. OSHA made its decision about enforcement procedures following a clarification July 8 from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit of its June 24 stay of the expanded standard. The court specified that the stay per tains only to employers in the construction industry and remains in effect until it rules on the merits of an industry challenge to the expanded hazard standard (18 OSHR 499). The standard continues to cover the manufacturing sector of industry, to which it applied originally, and enforcement in this sector by OSHA continues unchanged. OSHA's interpretation of those employers that fall within the construction industry, and are not subject to agency enforcement, will likely be based on Standard Industrial Classification codes for construction, Leo Carey, OSHA di rector of field programs, told BNA. OSHA Administrator John A. Pendergrass said July 13 that the agency was "very pleased that we got that question resolved" through the Third Circuit's clarification. "That stay applies only to construction employers," Pen dergrass told members of the Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health. "So we will be enforcing the expanded hazard communication standard everywhere but in the construction industry." Asbestos OSHA EXTENDS STAY FOR ADDITIONAL YEAR; MINOR AMENDMENTS MADE TO FINAL STANDARD A partial stay of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's asbestos standards as they apply to three non-asbestiform minerals was extended an additional year, until July 21, 1989, according to a July 20 announcement by the agency (53 FR 27345). In addition, the agency made minor amendments to the 1986 final asbestos standards to reflect the extended stay and appropriate references to other standards. OSHA said it expects to publish a proposal addressing the three non-asbestiform minerals--tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite--in October. The stay extension is necessary, the agency said, to allow it to collect and analyze sufficient health and feasibility data, draft the proposal, and complete the rulemaking. The stay first was granted in 1986 in response to a petition from R.T. Vanderbilt Co. Inc., a Connecticut company that mines and mills talc. The company contends that the stand ard inappropriately covers the non-asbestiform minerals, two of which are found in its talc. As with the previous stay, the 1972 asbestos standard for general industry remains in effect for non-asbestiform tre molite, anthophyllite, and actinolite (Reference File. 31:8801), the agency said. OSHA's notice extending the stay and amending the final revised asbestos standards is published in the fuli text section of this issue. NIOSH Information OSHA had no immediate comment on whether a July 12 letter from National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Director J. Donald Millar would affect the stay, or whether Millar's comments would be considered by OSHA staffers in making a decision about the regulation of the three minerals. In the letter, addressed to OSHA Administrator John A. Pendergrass, Millar noted that the stay was based to some extent on internal NIOSH memoranda disclosed by Vander bilt, in which staff members in the institute's Division of Respiratory Disease Studies disputed evidence from earlier NIOSH studies supporting inclusion of the company's talc in the asbestos standard. Millar said he had just been informed that a Vanderbilt industrial hygienist had been in contact with a NIOSH researcher in June 1986 in an "effort... apparently to try to influence the decisions of our respective agencies with re spect to issues in this rulemaking." Millar said the institute stands by its earlier determina tion that the three minerals should be regulated as asbestos. A revised asbestos standard for general industry and a new asbestos standard for the construction industry were published in June 1986, lowering permissible exposure limits tenfold (Reference File, 31:3116, 31:8121). OSHA granted a partial stay of the standards in July 1986 in response to a petition filed by R.T. Vanderbilt, a Norwalk, Conn., supplier of industrial talcs. The company contested the agency's inclusion of the three minerals in the standards on the grounds that they are "non-asbestos" (16 OSHR 134). The stay was extended in April 1987 to allow the agency additional time to conduct supplemental rulemaking limited to whether the three non-asbestiform minerals should con tinue to be regulated in the same standards and to the same extent as asbestos, or whether they should be treated in a different manner (16 OSHR 1352). For further information, contact James F. Foster, direc tor, Office of Information and Consumer Affairs, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210; (202) 523-8151. Oversight LAM 010355 LABELING, REGULATION OF COSMETIC-PRODUCTS NEEDED TO REDUCE HAZARDS IN SALONS, HOUSE TOLD Victims of occupational exposures to hazardous chemicals in a beauty salon and a cosmetology school told a congres sional panel July 14 that more stringent regulation of cos- 7-20-88 Occupational Safety & HealUi Reporter 0095-3237/6&ft0+ .50 DPMC-06757 LAM 010356 CURRENT REPORT 713 The siuay found significantly higher-than-expected rates of death from iung cancer and other causes among'Vander- bilt miners. NIOSH Deputy Director Edward L. Baker had said in an eariier letter to the company (18 OSHR 565). In that letter. Baker said the findings supported an existing NIOSH position that Vanderbilt talc should be regulated under the workplace asbestos standard: a position disputed by the company. Several current and former scientists from NIOSH's Divi sion of Respiratory Disease Studies, including a former director of the division. Robert E. Glenn, are being ques tioned about the past contacts with Vanderbilt. No charges or allegations have been leveled against any of the researchers being questioned. `Scientific Credibility' In his memorandum to NIOSH managers. Millar said the contacts bring "the scientific credibility" of the study re sults into question, even though the results appeared to support an official NIOSH position. The study was an update of a 1980 NIOSH research project that also found higher-than-expected death rates among Vanderbilt miners. Key aspects of the 1980 study, which was performed by researchers in NIOSH's Cincinnati offices, were questioned by the respiratory disease division researchers in internal agency memoranda at the time they were working on the new study. In comments to BNA. company officials acknowledged that Vanderbilt was in contact with the division in 1985 and 1986. and provided information used in the new study. But they denied that anything improper either was intended or occurred. Millar said in his memorandum that he has asked Dr. James Whittenberger, chairman of the NIOSH Board of Scientific Counselors--an independent panel that advises the institute on scientific issues--to appoint a subcommittee of the board to evaluate all NIOSH studies that have concerned Vanderbilt employees and make recommendations on the "disposition of data emerging from these studies." Dennis M. Race, an attorney for Vanderbilt, Aug. 9 criti cized NIOSH's actions on the new study as "finger pointing." He told BNA that the company wants an "unbiased" evalua tion of the NIOSH data, that it would "welcome" the Board of Scientific Counselors' review "if the ^anel is independ ent," but that it would prefer to see a "mutually agreeable" review group named. Health Hazards IwCvU. * DIESEL EXHAUST MAY BE CARCINOGENIC, EXPOSURE SHOULD BE CONTROLLED, NIOSH SAYS Diesel exhaust should be regarded as a potential occupa tional carcinogen on the basis of evidence from available studies, and employers should take steps to limit worker exposure to the greatest extent feasible, the National Insti tute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends in a new current intelligence bulletin. The bulletin, currently in pre-publication form and ex pected to be available from NIOSH shortly, says that expo sure to diesel emissions as a whole--both their gaseous and particulate components--should be controlled because sci entists have not yet determined exactly what cancer risks may be posed by the individual components. The bulletin also recommends further research to (1) clarify what specific agents in diesel exhaust are associated with lung tumors found in laboratory animals exposed to the emissions. (2) improve the efficiency of known controls and monitoring procedures. (3) evaluate the combined effects of various engineering controls, and (4) identify which controls are appropriate for various uses of diesel-powered equipment. Some 1.35 million workers are exposed to diesel emissions in approximately 80.000 U.S. workplaces, according to the bulletin. Those most likely to be exposed include mine, bridge and tunnel, railroad, loading dock, and garage work ers, and truck and forklift drivers, the bulletin says. Mice and rats exposed to diesel emissions in laboratory studies have developed lung tumors at significantly higher rates than unexposed control animals, according to data summarized in the bulletin. Also, results from two recent epidemiologic studies have indicated an increased risk of death from lung cancer among railroad woi kers exposed to diesel emissions, the bulletin reports. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters applauded the bulletin July 26, and urged the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and employers to "eliminate unnec essary exposure of workers" to diesel exhaust. Copies of the bulletin will be available from NIOSH Publications Dissemination, Robert A. Taft Laboratories, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. Right-To-Know SECRETARY OF LABOR HAS FAILED TO JUSTIFY EXPANDING RULE, CONSTRUCTION GROUP ARGUES The secretary of labor has continuously failed to justify expansion of the hazard communication standard to the construction industry by failing to make any findings of reasonable necessity, appropriateness, and significant risk with regard to the industry, the Associated Builders and Contractors told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in its Aug. 4 reply brief (Associated Builders and Contractors Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, CA 3, No. 883345). The secretary of labor's and the United Steelworkers of America's reliance on a previous decision by the Third Circuit (United Steelworkers of America v. Pender grass, 13 OSHC 1305) to justify the expansion does not satisfy the Occupational Safety and Health Act's require ment of making a specific finding as to the significant harm which will be reduced in the construction industry by ex panding the standard, the brief stated. The respondents' argument that the court's previous order "actually prohibited OSHA from making the statutorily required findings is ... specious," the industry argued. Such an interpretation of the court's order would require that OSHA not perform a regulatory impact or flexibility analy sis, or an environmental impact analysis, nor comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the brief argued. The court did not order OSHA to promulgate an illegal standard, the brief stated. The Third Circuit's previous ruling cannot be held to be controlling in the present case because the issue presented was not posed or really decided the first time, ABC argued. The brief stated that construction industry representatives were not parties to the previous court action, and that the court has not been informed of the regulations and practices of the industry. Furthermore, the brief argued, the court was not presented with an actual proposed standard applica ble to the construction industry when it made its earlier decision. ABC also argued that the secretary's use of "general" findings to satisfy the significant risk requirement is clearly 8-17-88 Occupational Safety 4 Healtti Reporter 0O9S-3Z37/88/SO+ SO DPMC-06758 CURRENT prove it. The state s hignest court affirmed the appellate court, unu remanded the case for trial (18 OSHR 486V. But six ot the nine justices dissented from the "majority'' holding, written by Justice Fred H. Dore. that "the employ er s common iaw duty to provide a safe workplace includes a duty to provide a working environment reasonably free from tobacco smotce." Dore maintains, however, that because the six justices voteo to reinstate the case, and because they concurred with the fact section of the majority opinion, which stated that McCarthy's condition was indisputably caused by smoke in her workplace, the only possible common law action would be for breacn of a duty to provide a reasonably smoke-free environment. Actions Speak Louder Than Words? "If their holding is that there is no duty, they should have voted to affirm.1 Justice Dore told BNA. "They said by their action if not by their words that there is such a duty." Justice Robert F. Brachtenbach. joined by five other justices concurring in part and dissenting in part, specifical ly dissented from the holding that an employer has a duty to provide a reasonably smoke-free workplace because the issue was not raised in the petition for review or briefed at any stage of the proceedings. "Not a single authority, whether it be cases or literature relied upon by the majority was cited by either party." Justice Brachtenbach wrote. "The majority has truly gone off on a frolic and detour of its own making." "The majority's holding may well be correct, but the issue is of great significance to the entire public and private work force of this state." Brachtenbach wrote, calling for proper briefing. According to Assistant Attorney General Gregory F. Brunson and Washington Reporter of Decisions Richard Jones. Dore s holding on the employer's duty to provide a smoke-free workplace is not a part of the ruling of the case, because court action may only be taken by a majority. Drug Abuse OSHA AUTHORITY SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO COMBAT DRUG ABUSE, SENATE REPUBLICANS SAY The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's au thority should be expanded to ensure drug-free workplaces, according to a Senate Republican working paper recom mending provisions for an omnibus anti-drug bill. The position paper, released by the office of Senate Minor ity Leader Robert Dole (R-Kan), includes proposals address ing national anti-drug issues such as reducing the national demand for drugs, youth education programs, policies for stopping drugs from entering the workplace, criminal jus tice. and law enforcement provisions for combating drug abuse. The paper also outlines policies that would be required from a number of government agencies, including the de partments of Labor. Health and Human Services, Transpor tation. and Education. An aide to Dole told BNA Aug. 2 that the paper contains provisions that may be incorporated into an omnibus anti drug bill currently being developed by Senate leaders. The aide said that Senate proponents hope to introduce legisla tion by the end of this year. OSHA Powers With regard to OSHA. Senate Republicans suggest ex panding OSHA's authority to ensure drug-lree workplaces by allowing the agency to designate drug use in the workplace as an occupational safety or health hazard, and to collect data on the use of drugs in the workplace. The working paper also recommended that "as a compo nent of OSHA accident investigations, the agency could conduct mandatory drug tests to determine wnether drug abuse contributed to the accident." and suggested authoriz ing $15 million for OSHA enforcement and investigation in this area. A legislative aide from Dole's office told BNA he was not sure how OSHA would conduct the data collection, or from what type of records that information would be gathered. He said the details of the recommendations were still being discussed with Labor Department officials. A Labor Department official told BNA "the [Reagan] administration is in the process of formulating its position on ail the provisions of [proposed] drug bills, including the provisions on OSHA." Workplace Provisions Other Republican proposals for provisions to be included in a Senate anti-drug bill include the following: That legislation condition the receipt of any federal contract or assistance upon maintenance of a drug-free workplace. That legislation authorize HHS, DOL. and the Justice Department to develop non-binding guidelines for employers and employees who desire drug-free workplaces. That such legislation eliminate federal legal hurdles which prevent private employers from conducting drug tests and disciplining workers who fail drug tests. The paper also suggests that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 be amended to specify that, for the purposes of employ ment protections, the illegal use of a controlled substance be considered sufficient evidence of a danger to the worker using the drug and to the employee's coworkers. Explaining that provision, the paper said that under cur rent law, drug addiction is considered a handicap, and employees cannot be discriminated against because of it. However, in employment, those protections do not apply if the person's addiction endangers himself or others. "Rather than remove drug addiction altogether from the coverage of the Rehabilitation Act, illegal use of drugs would be prima facie evidence of endangerment of self or coworkers." This provision would shift the burden of proof toward the person who is using illegal drugs to show that his usage is not endangering anyone in the workplace, the paper said. Right-To-Know LAM 010357 UNIVERSAL LABELING IN EFFECT FOR 220,000 PENNSYLVANIA COMPANIES PHILADELPHIA--(By a BNA Staff Correspondent)--The universal labeling provision of Pennsylvania's Worker and Community Right to Know Act went into effect Aug. 2, requiring the labeling of all chemical containers that enter or leave the workplace. The provision is the final phase of the law, which was implemented in stages beginning Dec. 1, 1986, covering 220,000 employers with a total of approximately 5 million workers. Labeling and information requirements for hazard ous chemicals went into effect a year ago (17 OSHR 413). "With this final requirement for employer compliance the Right to Know law is now fully in effect," Pennsylvania Labor and Industry Secretary Harris Wofford said. "By 8-3-8B Occupational Salary & Heallfi Reporter 0095-3Z37/88/S0+ 50 DPMC-06759 CURRENT REPORT The worKsnoD is aimed toward agencies and individuals concerned with reducing the number of occupationai fatali ties. and wiil be open to attendees at no charge, according to NIOSH. The session will be heid at the National Mine Safety and Health Academy in Becklev. Interested persons were asked by the institute to preregister by contacting either Jan Mainwaring or Dwayne Smith at NIOSH. 944 Chestnut Ridge Road. Morgantown. W.Va. 26505-2888. (304) 291-4811 or (304) 291-4804. respectively. Chemicals FINAL RULE REQUIRES STUDIES ON CUMENE: TESTS COULD COST S1.5 MILLION. EPA SAYS Makers and processors of cumene, a production chemical, must perform health effects, environmental effects, and chemical fate tests that the Environmental Protection Agen cy estimated will cost as much as $1.5 million, under a final rule issued July 27. EPA issued the rule under Section 4 of the Toxic Sub stances Control Act. saying thal workers are among those people potentially exposed to cumene, also known as isopro pyl benzene. Cumene is used primarily in the production of phenol and acetone, and a small amount is exported. EPA said. Cumene also is used to make a-methylstyrene and as a high-octane component in aviation fuel, according to the agency. The tests specified in the rule are: Oral and inhalation comparative pharmacokinetics; Subchronic inhalation toxicity; Developmental toxicity; Neurotoxicity. If the reproductive tissues in animals exposed to cumene in the subchronic inhalation tests show adverse effects. EPA might require a two-generation reproductive effects study, the rule said. The agency would hold a public review before requiring the reproductive study, it said. EPA said between 700 and 800 workers are exposed to cumene during manufacturing and processing. U.S. produc tion of cumene in 1984 was a reported 3.35 billion pounds, with an additional 339 million pounds imported, according to the agency. The Interagency Testing Committee in November 1984 designated cumene for a number of studies. The committee includes representatives from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Occu pational Safety and Health, as well as EPA. For further information, contact Michael Stahl, acting director. TSCA Assistance Office (TS-799), Office of Toxic Substances. Environmental Protection Agency, Room EB44. 401 M St. S.W.. Washington. D C. 20460; (202) 554-1404, or (202) 554-0551. Worker's Compensation REDUCTION IN RATES. OTHER CHANGES IN ALASKA PROGRAM TAKE EFFECT TEMPORARILY JUNEAU, Alaska--(By a BNA Special Correspondent)--A :oc y-~ percent reduction in worker's lompensation insurance rates in AlasKa went into effect Juiy 1 and will last at least 18 months. Gov. Steve Cowper said. The reduction is a result of passage by the state Legisla ture of a bill (SB 322) that raises minimum weekly benefits and lowers maximum weekly benefits for injured workers, reduces vocational rehabilitation benefits, and limits the ability of workers to file claims for stress-reiated injuries. Extremely high wonter's compensation insurance rates in Alaska prompted the Legislature s actions, said Don Koch, chief of market surveillance for the Alaska Division of Insurance. "The premium level went up an average of 14.5 percent on Jan. 1. 1987. and 25.1 percent on Jan. 1. 1988." Koch said. The new law decreases the maximum weekly benefit from $1,094 to $700. increases the minimum from $110 to $154. and increases maximum permanent partial disability benefits from $60,000 to $135,000. Under vocational reha bilitation benefits, the law makes a rehabilitation program voluntary, rather than mandatory, and changes the intent of rehabilitation, aiming to make the beneficiary "employable" rather than the current goal of "employed." It removes the presumption of compensability for mental injuries caused by stress and establishes that work stress must be extraordinary and unusual, and that the work stress must be the predominant cause of mental injury. The 5.7 percent rate reduction will be reviewed after 18 months. Koch said. The legislature has not specified what action will be taken then, he said. Display Terminals TIPS ON REDUCING EYE FATIGUE INCLUDED IN 12-PAGE BOOKLET ON VDTs A booklet recommending methods for reducing eye fa tigue resulting from working with video display terminals is available from the Center for Office Technology, a national clearinghouse for information on the use of automated office technology. The 12-page booklet. Working with Displays: VDTs and Vision, contains tips on the appropriate screen distance, viewing angle, and task lighting needed to reduce eye fa tigue and glare, according to a notice from the clearinghouse. For example, the booklet recommends that workers use an adjustable document holder to place materials close to the screen and within the same general viewing distance. It also recommends that the top of the screen be slightly below eye level when the worker is sitting at the keyboard. To reduce glare, the booklet recommends the use of shielded lighting and anti-glare screens, and suggests posi tioning the terminal away from direct sunlight. "Eye fatigue is both normal and temporary, but it can be minimized with a little care, good work practices and attention to your work environment," according to the booklet. Up to 10 copies of the booklet are available for free from COT. Additional copies are available for 25 cents each. For more information, contact COT, Suite 900, 1130 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D C. 20036; (202) 828-7189. 8-3-88 Occupational Safety 4 Health Reporter 009S-3237/88/S0- 50 LAW! 010358 DPMC-067 60 ~r. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER ton. DC 2021 b. The title of the publication and a self- aadressed mailing label must be included. ' State Plans FUNDING FORMULA TO APPLY TO `NEW MONEY'; OSHA TO EXAMINE ALTERNATE SOURCES OF FUNDING A new formula for allocating federal funds to state-plan programs will be used by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration starting in fiscal 1989. but it will not affect basic funding levels for those programs and indeed may not have any effect at all. according to observers. OSHA Administrator John A. Pendergrass, announcing the new scheme in a June 6 memorandum to state-plan direc tors. said the formula wouid be applied only to any "new money" provided to the state-plan programs by Congress in a fiscal 1989 appropriations measure, above the level of funding requested by the Reagan administration. The amount of funding requested by the administration, including a cost-of-living increase that would give the state programs 2 percent more than the amount they received in fiscal 1988. still would be allocated under OSHA's long-time distribution formula. However, the OSHA administrator added that the agency will continue to examine alternative ways to find additional funding for state-plan operations. Decision Reflects `General Consensus' Some sources told BNA that the new formula announced by Pendergrass may have no real effect at all in fiscal 1989. Although the House and the Senate Appropriations Commit tee both have called for extra funding for state plans above the administration's requested level in their respective ver sions of the pending fiscal 1989 appropriations bill, both also have stipulated that the additional amount must be distrib uted evenly among the stales, the sources note (18 OSHR 97, 4631. State-plan funding has been a long-time source of contro versy for OSHA and state plan designees. Some state pro grams have urged OSHA to develop new funding allocation strategies, while others have urged that the current alloca tion formula remain unchanged and have criticized the new funding formula. According to the memo, Pendergrass said his decision to apply the formula only to new funding was the result of a "general consensus" of the states that cost-of-living in creases should be evenly distributed among them. "The formula as revised allows, at a minimum, states to maintain their existing programs while at the same time adhering to the agency's commitment to more fairly appor tion state plan funding," Pendergrass said. In July 1987, Pendergrass announced he would implement the formula due to the "heightened interest" of the Office of Management and Budget and other oversight agencies in the way OSHA funds the state programs (17 OSHR 1003). The formula, drafted by a joint federal-state task force, bases the allocation of funds on a comparison of state employment records and Bureau of Labor Statistics' data on national lost-workday injury rates. The two sets of numbers would be used to determine the percent of the total funding each state should receive. Currently, funding is based on a state's ability to match federal funding, and the first states that entered into state plan agreements with OSHA are given about the same proportion of funds they originally received although the number of states plans has grown and the agency has gone through budget cuts (16 OSHR 1112). Matching Funds The memo by Pendergrass said that if a stale is unable to match the federal funds available to it. the unmatched funds will return to the "new money" pool and be reapportioned to other "below parity" states --those that receive less than the "ideal" amount they would be entitled to under the new formula, an OSHA official explained. If none of the remaining "below parity" states can match the funding, the funds would be made available to other states for one-time-onlv projects, but would not increase their funding base, the memo said. Bruce Hillenbrand. director of OSHA's division of federalstate operations, told BNA that a state that cannot match federal funding would not necessarily lose all additional funding, and could be offered a lesser amount that it could match. He also said that any "one-time-only project" pro posed by a state would need approval by an OSHA regional office. OSHA To Examine Other Sources Other potential sources of funding that OSHA intends to study. Pendergrass said in his memorandum, could include realigned, unexpended state grant funds; unmatched funds for cost-of-living increases: and disallowed funding requests from states for updating or buying equipment and programs for OSHA's Integrated Management Information System. Pendergrass also said the agency would "look more close ly" at certain programs and activities within each state that may not be "strictly within the appropriate scope of an approved safety and health plan." Hillenbrand said an example of such an activity is a state licensing or permit program for certain types of construc tion work, or inspection targeting programs that are not mandated bv OSHA. / Litigation LAM 010359 BRIEFS FILED IN APPEAL OF DECISION EXCUSING REFINERY FROM FIRE SAFETY STANDARD The U.S. Department of Labor filed arguments July 8 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, appealing a hearing judge's decision to vacate a citation charging Unocal Corp. with failure to adequately train and protect employee firefighters in connection with a 1984 refinery explosion in which 17 workers died (Secretary of Labor v. Union Oil of Calif., CA 7, No. 88-1374). The secretary of labor argued that the judge's decision defeated the worker-protection purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The judge found that the personal protective equipment requirement of the standard did not apply to the Unocal (then Union Oil Corp.) fire brigade, and that Unocal did not violate the standard by failing to give adequate fire training to employees who were not members of the fire brigade (17 OSHR 1493, 1867). General Standard Applies To All Firefighters The secretary contended that the judge erred in holding that the standard did not apply to Unocal fire brigade members because they did not fight indoor fires. While the standard specifically requires protective equip ment to be worn by indoor firefighters, the secretary ar gued, it does not address the hazards faced by. or require ments for, outdoor firefighters such as those involved in the 1984 refinery explosion 7-13-88 Copyright 1988 by The Bureau of National Affairs. Inc OO9S-3S37/88IS0- SO DPMC-06761 CURRENT REPORT Therefore, the secretary concluded, the existence, of a specific standard for "interior'' fires cannot be understood to excuse Unocal from failure to protect its "exterior' fire fighters from the hazards of fire fighting. All Unocal Employees Expected To Fight Fires In challenging the decision to vacate the charge of inad equate training of certain employees, the secretary empha sized one witness's testimony that oil refinery fires can escalate rapidly from small to extremely large fires. This circumstance proves the need for all of Unocal's employees to be adequately trained to handle major oil-fire emergen cies. according to the secretary. Under the training standard, all employees that are ex pected to fight fires are required to be adequately trained to do so. the secretary contended. The decision to vacate the citations regarding fire train ing and protective gear, the secretary asserted, would per mit Unocal to focus on employee titles, rather than duties, with respect to safety protection. In that way, Unocal could avoid protecting the safety of those employees who. while not members of the fire fighting brigade, are nonetheless expected to actively participate in hazardous fire fighting in emergencies, the brief stated. Possible criminal charges stemming from the 1984 explo sion are currently under investigation by the U.S. attorney in Chicago (17 OSHR 1867). Voluntary Protection OSHA CLARIFIES REQUIREMENTS FOR VPP, SPECIFIES ENFORCEMENT REFERRAL POLICY The Occupational Safety and Health Administration an nounced changes to its voluntary protection programs July 12 in an effort to clarify requirements and specify its policy on enforcement referrals prompted by information received as part of the programs. The changes went into effect June 29 (53 FR 26339. 7/12/88). Although OSHA said it had not handled an enforcement referral related to voluntary protection program participa tion since establishing the programs in 1982, the agency outlined its planned response in such a case. If management refuses to correct unsafe working conditions, OSHA first will try to resolve the dispute and then transfer all available information to the agency head, who will decide whether an enforcement referral is appropriate. In addition. OSHA has clarified a portion of the VPP requirements to specify its ability to waive some formal requirements for small businesses based on a case-by-case assessment. Other changes are clarifications that do not include sig nificant alterations to the programs. The VPPs are voluntary programs that recognize quali fied employers whose safety and health programs exceed federal requirements, thus making regular inspections un necessary, according to OSHA. Those who are recognized by the federal agency for their efforts are removed from OSHA's programmed inspection lists. The agency s VPPs include two programs. Merit and Star, in addition to a demonstration program to explore experi mental approaches. General industry and the construction industry have some separate requirements. 505 Grants PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE PROPOSES CHANGES TO RULES GOVERNING APPEALS OF ADVERSE ACTIONS The U.S. Public Health Service July 8 proposed certain changes m regulations governing disputes between PHS agencies such as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on one hand, and recipients of grants from those agencies on the other (53 FR 25631. 7 '8/88). The regulations at 42 CFR Part 50 pertain to disputes created when PHS agencies deny further funding to grant recipients--for example, in cases where an agency such as NIOSH terminates a grant, or declines to pay an expense charged to the grant. The regulations require grant recipients, in cnallenging such decisions, to try to resolve their disputes with the PHS in certain situations before appealing them further to the Department of Health and Human Services, of which the PHS is a component. Under one of the proposed changes, these requirements now would pertain to recipients of previous grants who are denied new. non-competitive funding to continue their earli er work, when PHS determines that a recipient has failed to comply with the terms of the previous award. Such disputes previously were not covered by the requirements. Proposed Exemption Under a second proposed change, a type of dispute cur rently covered by the preliminary-appeal requirements would be exempted, cases in which the grantee is denied a written request for advance permission to incur a particular expense during the course of the grant. The proposal also would require the grant recipient, in appealing an agency decision, to provide a copy of the adverse determination, plus documentation supporting the recipient's claim, to the review committee designated to evaluate the appeal. The proposed changes would bring the PHS procedures into conformance with separate rules in 45 CFR Part 16 governing disputes heard at the departmental level, the notice of proposed changes said. Comments on the proposed changes should be submitted to the Director, Division of Grants and Contracts, Office of Resource Management, Public Health /Service, Room 17A39, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Md. 20857. For further information, contact Theodore J. Roumel, (301) 443-1874. LAM 010360 Pesticides EPA PLANS FIRST PUBLIC HEARING JULY 18 TO DISCUSS FARM WORKER SAFETY PROPOSAL The Environmental Protection Agency will hold a public hearing in Washington, D C, July 18 on proposed standards to protect farm workers from hazardous exposure to pesti cides, the agency announced July 8. The hearing is the first of a series of meetings to be held in each of EPA's 11 regions to explain and answer questions on its pesticide proposal. Dates for the following meetings have not yet been set. The plan, announced June 29, would revise EPA regula tions to expand existing requirements for warnings about 7-i 3-BE Occupational Safety & Health Reporter 009S-3237/88/S0- SO DPMC-067 62 1 Mobil Chemical Company June 27, 1988 c4 petrochemicals DIVISION WORLD TOWERS ONE SUITE 900 IS00 ORUMUET BOULEVARO HOUSTON TEXAS 77032 2343 TELEPHONE (7131 590 7700 Mr. James V. Woodrick Gulf Coast Regional Manufacturing Services E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company One Kingwood Place, Suite 116 Kingwood, Texas 77339 Dear Mr. Woodrick: For your information, please see the attached completed document that will be submitted by the Texas Chemical Council on OSHA's proposed regulation on Lockout/Tagout. The ad hoc committee, composed of Ed Harris, Walter Trebig, Wayne Wright and the undersigned met and prepared a draft. After review by the committee and a DuPont representative, minor modifications were made. I would like to thank the committee for their effort and completion of this project in such a short time frame. Sincerely, WDM/r.s W. D. Mitterlehner, CSP Mgr. Safety, Health and Loss Prevention Petrochemicals Division cc: E. Harris, Jr. - Quantum W. B. Trebig - PDG Chemical, Inc. W. E. Wright - CXI S. E. Anderson - Rohm & Haas R. E. Sybert - Mobil Chemical Co. L. E. McMakin - Mobil Chemical Co. lam 010361 DPMC-06763 1.(C)(G)(i)(A&B) OSHA should not require employers to label energy isolating devices to identify the equipment being supplied and the typ and magnitude of energy being controlled. Labeling of energ; isolating devices in this manner is not necessary for the implementation of an effective lockout/tagout program. In addition, it could be confusing and would needlessly increase the cost of compliance at facilities where large numbers of valves serve an energy-isolating function. 2.(C)(1) & (D)(3)(ii) Energy Isolating devices: Add the words "double block (valves) and bleed; line separation. 3. TCC recognizes that the inherent energy in process systems or piping networks presents a potential hazard to workers servicing or maintaining the systems. In fact, the hazard is well recognized, and addressed by employers throughout our industry by "work authorization procedures," frequently referred to as safe work permits or pipe entry procedures. Just as lockout/ tagout practices were developed within industry to deal with the hazardous energy of machinery and equipment, so too have work authorization procedures (controls) been developed in our industry to safeguard workers maintaining process systems and piping networks. TCC urges OSHA to revise the scope and application of this proposed rule to address only machinery and mechanical equipment. and to eliminate the attempt to "force fit" a lockout/tagout control on process systems and piping networks. In addition to arguments already advanced, TCC is convinced that OSHA has significantly underestimated the costs of applying the lockout/tagout control to the process industries. 4. TCC's concern on implication on the terms of certify and/or certification - should be changed to read "document and or documentation. (C)(4)(ii) & (C)(5)(iii)." 2- - lam 010362 DPMC-067 64 5.(C)(4)(ii) There is no more need to require certification of these periodic inspections than there is to require certification of compliance with a host of other requirements (such as periodic exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and employee training) that are set forth in a wide variety of OSHA standards without a certification requirement. 6.(C)(5)(iii) We strongly disagree, however, with the provision of Section (c) (5)(iii) requiring employers to certify that employee training has been accomplished and is being kept up-to-date. As in the case of periodic inspections, we recognize the need to maintain records of employee training, showing the name of the employees who received the training and the dates on which it was provided. Written records of this sort will enable the employer to keep track of the training program and will assist OSHA compliance officers in determining whether the employer has complied with the training requirements of the standard. But there is no need to embody these records in a certification, just as there is no need for a certification relating to the performance of periodic inspections or to compliance with a host of similar requirements in a broad array of OSHA standards. Accordingly, Section (c)(5)(iii) should be revised to read as follows: "The employer shall maintain records showing the names of the employees who have been trained and the dates of training." 7.(C)(5)(ii) Periodic retraining - paragraph (c)(5)(ii) - is generally satisfactory, except for the overly broad requirement to retrain all employees when a periodic inspection reveals deviations or inadequacies. The retraining should be restricted to those authorized and affected employees in the area, craft, or department in which the deviations or inadequacies are revealed. To require retraining of all authorized and affected employees in a large establishment (hundreds, even thousands of employees) basis a deviation in a single area is unnecessary, wasteful, and essentially punishes good performance. Revise this item to limit the retraining to the area, craft, or department where deviations or inadequacies are revealed. -3- LAM 010363 DPMC-06765 \ 8. Revise (f)(2)(ii) to state, "The plant or facility employer shall require that the lockout/tagout ..............." 9. Shift or personnel changes - paragraph (f)(4) TCC agrees that the OSHA regulation must ensure the integrity of the control procedure across shift change. This is particularly important in the process industries which operate around the clock, 365 days per year, and for which many machines, mechanical equipment, or process and piping systems remain de-energized for long periods of time. One way that this problem is handled efficiently and effectively in the process industries is the "operations lock tag or tags". The lockout device is put in place by the operating personnel who have shut down and de-energized the machine. The "operations lock" is the first lock on, and it stays on, across shift changes, ensuring that the machine or equipment is always controlled in a de-energized condition. Craftsmen come and go, placing their lock tag or tags on - and taking their lock tag or tags off - as they complete their tasks or leave for the day. The operations lock does not come off until all craftsmen' lock tag or tags are off. This system is extremely effective, extremely efficient and extremely protective. OSHA has not yet seemed to recognize the importance of this approach for the process industries. The provisions o f (f)(4), and particularly of the Appendix, do not seem to permit this procedure. TCC strongly urges OSHA to revise this section to specifically auchprize the use of operations lock tag or tags as an effective and efficient wav to control energy hazards across shift change in the process industries. -4- LAM 010364 DPMC-067 66 /bhh?c(Wj4' j/jZT State Firemen's and Fire Marshals' Association of Ifexas Texas Industrial Fire Training Board P.O. Box 525 Pasadena, Texas 77501 (512) 441-7388 May 13, 1988 Society of Fire Service Instructors 30 Main Street Ashland, Mass. 01721 Attention Mrs. Mary McCormick LAM 010365 Dear Mrs. McCormick: T appreciated the opportunity to visit via telephone with you on May 12 con- " ning your society's upcoming meeting in Los Angeles. I regret that I will not be able to attend, but do appreciate the opportunity to provide input and share our organizations concerns about the upcoming attempt to write perfoi-- mance standards for the industrial fire service leading to eventually a "certificat ion" process. It is my understanding that the May 17 meeting is an organizational meeting to initiate this process. Until that task force finishes their assignment, we will reserve final judgment on how it might impact the industrial fire service in Texas. We think there are alternatives to the "certification" process. The Texas Industrial Fire Training Board was formed in 1978 and has been quite suc cessful at administrating and improving the industrial fire service in Texas. I am attaching a copy of our brochure for your information. We would be glad to share our experiences and detail to your societys task force our mission and our accomplishments. We are of the opinion that the certification process is not the universal answer to problems that you addressed. Because the industrial segment of the fire service is so varied and unique, we feel that it would be impractical, ineffective, and inefficient to impose a lot of generic criteria on any indus try. Responsible companies in each industry have always addressed the need for protecting its employee's and its community neighbors. Today, the constraints and responsibilities placed on industry far exceed those that the private and governmental sectors must address. The effectiveness for many of these rules, regulations, certifications, programs, etc. is questionable. The cost for attainment can be prohibitive. Liabilities created are prohibitive. These type of concerns can be counter productive to our mutual goal of effective, efficient, and responsible fire suppression training to meet the reasonable needs for the facility. The Texas Industrial Fire Training Board has been able to assist Texas's indus try in meeting the criteria established by the board to improve performance and proficiency. We have accomplished this without the certification process. I DPMC-06767 Society of Fire Service Instructors Page 2 May 13, 1988 feel certain that the major industry associations will support this approach. Who better knows the peculiar fire training needs for the industry, than the industry itself? I hope that our organization or organizations that we are affiliated with may supply input to your society's task force. Our concerns are genuine and well founded. Our input should be valuable to your task force so that major por tions of the industrial fire service are not alienated and burdened by yet further unnecessary constraints on our business. Sincerely, THO/jb Attachment cc: Mr. M. S. Hildebrand American Petroleum Institute 1220 L St. N.W. Washington, O.C. 20036 Mr. James Woodrick Texas Chemical Council c/o El DuPont 1 Kingwood Place Suite 116 Kingwood, TX 77339 Ms. Alex Haynes NPRA Suite 1000 1899 L St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Thomas H. bearing. Chairman Texas Industrial Fire Training Board DPMC-067 66 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/38 Mr. Joe A11en (REP) Director, Corporate Government ENRON CORPORATION P, 0. Box 1188 Houston, TX 77251-1188 713/853-3024 Mr. S. E. Anderson Risk Analysis Manager ROHM AND HAAS TEXAS INCORPORATED P. 0. Box 672 Deer Park, TX 77536 713/476-8144 Mr. D. N. Arrington Safety Manager CAIN CHEMICAL INC. P. 0. Box 10940 Corpus Christi, TX 78410-0940 512/242-8064 Mr. Tom Bailey Vice President, Production AMERIGAS, INC. 17304 Preston Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75252-5613 214/380-5600 Mr. Greydon G, (Grady) Baldwin E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. P. 0. Box 1089 Orange, TX 77630 409/886-6344 Mr. Maurice' H. Bard GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY P. 0. Box 669 La Porte, TX 77572-0669 713/474-4441 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/38 Mr. R. D. Barnes General Superintendent MOBAY CORPORATION 8500 West Bay Road Baytown, TX 77520-9730 713/383-2411 (x 5300) Mr. David Barnett Safety Director DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A. P. 0. Box 685 La Porte, TX 77571 713/476-3202 Mr. Gary M. Barrere Safety Supervisor UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION Linde Division P. 0. Box 250 Deer Park, TX 77536 713/478-1543 Mr. James M. Bentley AMOCO CHEMICAL CO. P. 0. Box 1488 Alvin, TX 77511 713/581-3488 Mr. John A. Biggers Texas Operations DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A. APB Building Freeport, TX 77541 409/238-7297 Mr. James E. Borden Safety Superintendent E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY P. 0. Box 2626 Victoria, TX 77902-2626 512/572-1232 LAM 010367 DPMC-067 69 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/83 Mr. Jake Bourgeois Safety Manager HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION BAY PORT WORKS P. 0. Box 58160 Houston, TX 77258 713/474-6725 Mr, Lucas W. Brandt W. R. GRACE & COMPANY P. 0. Box A Deer Park, TX 77536 713/479-9525 Mr. John G. Brau Human Resources Manager BP CHEMICALS AMERICA P. 0. Box 659 Port Lavaca, TX 77979 512/552-8218 Mr. Dave Bremer HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION P.0. Box 509 Bay City, TX 77414 409/245-4871 x 4050 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/88 Mr. Daniel J. Buchanan Safety Supervisor MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY P. 0. Box 1191 Texas City, TX 77592-1191 409/945-2331 (x 209) Mr. Robert D. Burg Group Leader - Environmental QUANTUM CHEMICAL CORPORATION USI DIVISION P. 0. Drawer D Deer Park, TX 77536 713/478-1415 Mr. T. E. (Tom) Burns Safety Department Superintendent TEXAS EASTMAN COMPANY P. 0. Box 7444 Longview, TX 75607 214/236-5000 (x 5219) Mr. Robert Church PENNWALT CORPORATION P. 0. Box 1427 Beaumont, TX 77704 409/838-3981 Mr. T. M. (Tom) Brooks Safety Supervisor UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION P. 0. Box 186 Port Lavaca, TX 77979 512/553-2209 Mr. Frank J. Bryant MONSANTO COMPANY P. 0. Box 711 Alvin, TX 77512-9888 713/393-4011 Mr. Russell Clark EXXON CHEMICAL AMERICAS P. 0. Box 4004 Baytown, TX 77522 713/425-5704 Mr. Sherri 1 Coker Safety Manager ROHM AND HAAS BAYPORT INC. P. 0. Box 1330 La Porte, TX 77571 713/474-4495 x 508 LAM 010368 DPMC-06770 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/13/88 Mr, L. C. Courtney AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY P, 0. Box 568 Texas City, TX 77592-0568 409/948-1601 x-296 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/88 Mr. C. R. DeRose HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION P, 0. 'Box 428 Bishop, TX 78343 512/584-3511 Mr. Charlie P, Craig Safety & Environmental Protection MOBAY SYNTHETICS CORPORATION P. 0. Box 87220 Houston, TX 77287 713/477-8821 Mr. Joe A. Curtis Manager, Risk & Reg. Affairs BAKER PERFORMANCE CHEMICALS, INC. P. 0. Box 27714 Houston, TX 77227-7714 713/599-7400 Mr. Barry M. Day Manager-Fire, Safety, Security LYONDELL PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY P. 0. Box 2451 Houston, TX 77252-2451 713/475-4507 Mr. T. H. Dearing PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY P. 0. Box 866 Sweeney, TX 77480 409/491-2306 Mr. John N. Dermit Industrial Hygienist UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION P. 0. Box 186 Port Lavaca, TX 77979 512/553-2776 Mr. James F. Dietz Operations Manager STANDARD OIL CHEMICAL COMPANY P. 0. Box 659 Port Lavaca, TX 77979 512/552-8214 Ms. Carol E. Dinkins (GC) VINSON & ELKINS 1001 Fannin, Suite 2820 Houston, TX 77002-6760 713/651-2528 Mr. Bob Dorazio AMERICAS, INC. 17304 Preston Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 214/380-5600 Mr. D. L. Doyle Safety Superintendent AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY P. 0. Box 568 Texas City, TX 77592-0568 409/948-1601 x 310 Mr. David M. Dunnmon (REP) Plant Manager REICHHOLD CHEMICALS, INC. P. 0. Box 9608. Houston, TX 77213-9608 713/453-5431 LAM 010369 DPMC-0677 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/88 Mr. G. F. Eddington Plant Manager LINDE DIVISION (UNION CARBIDE) P. 0. Box 250 Deer Park, TX 77536-0250 713/478-1500 Mr. David B. (Dave) Edwards PENNWALT CORPORATION 18000 Crosby-Eastgate Road Crosby, TX 77532 713/328-3561 Mr. Jack Erskine Government Affairs Representative AMOCO COMPANIES 1122 Colorado, Suite 208 Austin, TX 78701 512/477-3901 Mr. Jack Flynn Safety & Training Coordinator MERICHEM COMPANY 1914 Haden Road Houston, TX 77015-6498 713/455-1311 Mr. Bruce Foerster Manufacturing Manager ROHM AND HAAS BAY PORT INC. P. 0. Box 1330 La Porte, TX 77571 713/474-4495 Mr. Joe S. Foster (REP) President-Plant Manager ROHM AND HAAS TEXAS INCORPORATED P. 0. Box 672 Deer Park, TX 77536 713/476-8200 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/88 Mr. David Fritz General Manager AIR PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 10202 Strang Road LaPorte, TX 77571 713/479-5901 Mr. 'Keith A. Fulton Plant Manager EXXON CHEMICAL AMERICAS P. 0. Box 4004 Baytown, TX 77522-4004 713/425-1009 Mr. W. F. Gafford Manager, Administration & Control ETHYL CORPORATION P. 0. Box 472 Pasadena, TX 77501-0472 713/920-5137 Mr. John H. Gamble Director of Safety and SOLTEX POLYMER CORPORATION P. 0. Box 27328 Houston, TX 77227 713/522-1781 Mr. R. Debs Gamblin (REP) Senior Vice President, Operations VISTA CHEMICAL COMPANY P. 0. Box 19029 Houston, TX 77224 713/531-3586 Mr. Robert L. Garcia STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. 8615 Manchester Houston, TX 77012 713/928-3411 LAM 010370 DPMC-06772 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/88 \ Mr. G. E. Gearhart Plant Hanaaer PENNWALT CORPORATION P. 0. Box 1427 Beaumont, TX 77704 409/338-3981 Mr. Pat Getter Director Public Relations CONOCO MA-3008 P. 0. Box 2197 Houston, TX 77252 713/293-5355 Mr. W. G. (Bill) Gibson Safety/Loss Prevention Supervisor BASF CORPORATION 602 Copper Road Freeport, TX 77541 409/238-6226 Dr. Charles L. (Gil) Gilmore 308 College View Bryan, TX 77801 409/846-8275 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/88 Mr. Gary C. Griesbach Safety Manaaer ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA P. 0. Box 472 Rockdale, TX 76567-0*72 512/446-8302 Mr. Thomas G. Grumbles, C.I.H. Environmental Quality Manager VISTA CHEMICAL COMPANY P. 0. Box 19029 Houston, TX 77224 713/531-3584 Mr. A. D. Guillory Environmental/Safety Manager SOLTEX POLYMER CORPORATION P. 0. Box 1000 Deer Park, TX 77536 713/476-3433 Mr. Robert T. Hammann AMOCO OIL COMPANY P. 0. Box 401 Texas City, TX 77592-0401 409/945-1756 Mr. L. D. (Corky) Godfrey Supervisor of Safety & Security HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION P. 0. Box 937 Pampa, TX 79066-0937 806/665-1801 (x 4348) Mr. George F. Golden Safety Coordinator EXXON CHEMICAL AMERICAS P. 0. Box 4004 Baytown, TX 77522-4004 713/425-1005 Mr. M. L. Harrington Safety Supervisor HIMONT, INC. USA 12001 Bay Area Blvd. Pasadena, TX 77507 713/474-4481 Mr. Ed Harris QUANTUM CHEMICAL CORPORATION USI DIVISION P. 0. Box 848 Port Arthur, TX 77641 409/724-3816 LAM 010371 DPMC-06773 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/13/38 Mr. P. Sherrill Harris Manager-Employee Relations ALLIED-SIGNAL INC. P. 0. Box 640 Orange, TX 77631-0640 409/886-7445 (x 267) Mr. C. B. Hart Safety Coordinator EXXON CHEMICAL AMERICAS P. 0. Box 1653 Mont Belvieu, TX 77580-1653 713/428-9435 Mr. Edward Hawthorne Manager Health and Safety SHELL OIL COMPANY P. 0. Box 100 Deer Park, TX 77536 713/476-6902 Mr. Theodore C. Heisig Safety Manager, Houston Plants LUBRIZOL CORPORATION P. 0. Box 158 Deer Park, TX 77536-0158 713/479-2851 Mr. Larry Hensley B. P. CHEMICALS AMERICA P.0. Box 659 Port Lavaca, TX 77979 512/552-8278 Mr. Wally Hladky Plant Manager DIXIE CHEMICAL CO. 10701 Bay Area Blvd. Pasadena, TX 77507 713/474-3271 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/88 Mr. Robert P. Holton (REP) Director of Manufacturing W. R. GRACE & COMPANY P. 0. Box A Deer Park, TX 77536 713/479-9525 X-400 Mr. Jim Horn Safety Superintendent TEXAS PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION Two Park West Plaza Baytown, TX 77520 713/475-7708 Mr. John W. Hougland (REP) Plant Manager BP CHEMICAL AMERICA P. 0. Box 659 Port Lavaca , TX 77979 512/552-8213 Mr. W. F. (Buddy) Howard Supervisor, Safety & Training ARCO CHEMICAL COMPANY 10801 Choate Road Pasadena, Texas 77507 713/474-4191 Mr. Charles B. Hunt (REP) Resident Manager ETHYL CORPORATION P. 0. Box 472 1000 N. South Street Pasadena, TX 77501-0472 713/920-5165 Mr. Tom Huntebrinker Chocolate Bayou Plant AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY P. 0. Box 1488 Alvin, TX 77511 713/581-3254 LAM 010372 DPMC-06774 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/88 Mr. W, E. (Buddy) Irby Health, Environmental, Safety MOBAY CORPORATION 8500 West Bay Road Baytown, TX 77520-9730 713/383-2411 (x 5104) i Mr. H. J. Janssens Plant Manager AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY P. 0. Box 1488 Alvin, TX 77511 713/581-3201 Mr. Calvin Johnston Safety Supervisor PENNWALT CORPORATION 18000 Crosby Eastgate Road Crosby, TX 77532 713/328-3561 Mr. R. N. (Bob) Jones (REP) PI ant Manager MONSANTO COMPANY P. 0. Box 711 Alvin, TX 77512-9888 713/581-2161 Mr. John B. Judice FINA OIL & CHEMICAL P. 0. Box 849 Port Arthur, TX 77640 409/962-4421 Mr. Todd J. Karasek Safety Superintendent SOLTEX POLYMER CORPORATION P. 0. Box 1000 Deer Park, TX 77536 713/479-2381 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/88 Mr. Edward A. Konderla (REP) General Manager GEORGIA GULF CORPORATION P. 0. Box 1959 Pasadena, TX 77501 713/920-4301 Mr. Steve Krivan Manager, Safety & Loss Prevention HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION 1250 W. Mockingbird Lane Dallas, TX 75247-0320 214/689-4025 Mr. Larry Lapple (REP) Site Manager ICI AMERICAS INC. 5757 Underwood Road Pasadena, TX 77507 713/474-5151 x-300 Mr. D. R. Larned TEXAS ALKYLS, INC. P. 0. Box 600 Deer Park, TX 77536 713/479-8411 Mr. B. J. Lentz Environmental Supervisor ETHYL CORPORATION P. 0. Box 472 Pasadena, TX 77501-0472 713/920-5176 Mr. Melvin E. Lewis Houston Synthetic Rubber Plant GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY P. 0. Box 5397 Houston, TX 77262 713/475-5491 LAM 010373 DPMC-06775 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/88 Mr. Paul Lieck HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION P. 0. Box 9077 Corpus Christi, TX 78469 512/242-4115 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/38 Mr. David J. Mannina OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL'CORPORATION P. 0. Box 500 Deer Park, TX 77536 713/476-2675 Mr. Earl F. Lowe (REP) Plant Manager PETROLITE CORPORATION 13200 Bay Park Road Pasadena, TX 77507 713/474-5166 Mr. Gene Lowe Training Coordinator DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A. Texas Operations, Building C-110 Freeport, TX 77541 409/238-7169 Mr. L. A. (Larry) lucchesi Plant Manager CHEVRON CHEMICAL COMPANY P. 0. Box 509 9500 IH 10 Baytown, TX 77522 713/421-6200 (REP) Mr. Francis Lyons Supervisor-Fire & Safety CHEVRON CHEMICAL COMPANY Chemical Row Orange, TX 77630 409/886-7491 Mr. Robert L. Mack Safety Supervisor ETHYL CORPORATION P. 0. Box 472 Pasadena, TX 77501-0472 713/920-5148 Mr. Robert F. Martien Safety Health -Environmental Manager AIR PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION P. 0. Box 3326 Pasadena, TX 77501 713/477-6841 Mr. Donald K. Martin Safety Director ROHM AND HAAS TEXAS INCORPORATED P. 0. Box 672 Deer Park, TX 77536 713/476-8145 Mr. Dave Mayard PETROLITE CORPORATION 13200 Baypark Pasadena, TX 77507 713/474-5166 Ms. Doris 8. McGraw Safety Engineer ICl AMERICAS INC. 5757 Underwood Road Pasadena, TX 77507 713/474-5151 Ms. Paula J. McLemore Regulatory Compliance Supervisor ETHYL CORPORATION P. 0. Box 472 Pasadena, TX 77501-0472 713/920-5157 LAM 010374 DPMC-0677 6 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/88 Mr. Roger F. Nelson (RE?) Plant Manaoer - Sherwin Plant REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY P. 0. Box 9911 Corpus Christi, TX 78469 512/643-6531 (x 2326) Mr. Tom Neuder Harrisburg Station STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY P. 0. Box 5275 Houston, TX 77262-5275 713/928-3411 Mr. J. R. (Jim) Nierman Refinery Manager SHELL OIL COMPANY P. 0. Box 2352 Odessa, TX 79760 915/335-7621 Mr. P. W. Nieschwietz Corpus Christi Plant E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY P. 0. Box JJ Ingleside, TX 78362-0920 512/643-7511 Dr. Marcel A. Olbrecht (REP) Plant Manager LONZA INC. P. 0. Box 1400 La Porte, TX 77571-1400 713/474-4100 (xlOO) Mr. Jim L. Oliver Safety Manager OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION P. 0. Box 849 Pasadena, TX 77501-0849 713/884-4064 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/13/33 Mr. George A. Orun Superintendent-Safety & Industrial STERLING CHEMICALS, INC. P. 0. Box 1311 201 Bav Street South Texas City, TX 77592-1311 409/942-3696 Mr. J. D. Parker UNION CARBIDE P. 0. Box 471 Texas City, TX 77592-0471 409/948-5141 Mr. D. G. Pausky Plant Manager HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION P. 0. Box 428 Bishop, TX 78343 512/584-3511 Mr. Howard Peters (REP) Plant Manager FERMENTA PLANT PROTECTION COMPANY P. 0. Box 9637 Houston, TX 77015 713/453-4000 Mr. F. Charles Phinney Safety Director UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION P. 0. Box 471 Texas City, TX 77592-0471 409/948-5335 Ms. Kathy Pierpoline Safety Coordinator AKZO CHEMICALS INC. 13000 Bampark Pasadena, TX 77507 713/474-2864 LAM 010375 DPMC-06777 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/13/83 Mr. R. 0. (5od) Porter Plant Manaoer E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS a COMPANY P. 0. Box 247 La Porte, TX 77571 713/470-3211 Mr. R. A. Posey Manufacfjrino Manaoer BAKER PERFORMANCE CHEMICALS, P. 0. Box 1590 Davton, TX 77535 713/599-7400 INC. Mr. Norm Pres son Safety Enaineer NALCO CHEMICAL COMPANY P. 0. Box 87 Suaar Land, TX 77487-0087 713/491-4500 Mr. Philip G. Rasch Senior Process Safety Engineer HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION P. 0. Box 9077 Corpus Christi, TX 78469 512/241-2343 (x 4191) Mr. Carl R. Rasor Safety Engineer AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY P. 0. Box 568 Texas City, TX 77592 409/948-1601 Mr. Mark A. Reynolds KANEKA TEXAS CORPORATION 6161 Underwood Road Pasadena, TX 77507 713/474-7084 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS., 10/13/33 Mr, J. L. (John) Rivarc Peculations & Safer.' Services SHELL OIL COMPANY P. 0. Box ^320 Houston, TX 77210 713/241-0028 Mr. Russell K. Robinson GEORGIA GULF CORPORATION P. 0. Box 1959 Pasadena, TX 77501 /- Mr. C. L. Roy Plant Manaoer MERICHEM COMPANY 1914 Haden Road Houston, TX 77015-6498 713/455-1311 Mr. T. L. Royal! PHILLIPS 66 CO. Jefferson Rd. Pasadena, TX 77501 /- Mr. Leslie G. Rucker, Jr. Director, Safety & Health TEXAS CITY REFINING, INC. P. 0. Box 1271 Texas City, TX 77592-1271 409/948-7296 Mr. Frank C. Rydzewski (REP) Plant Manager AIR PROOUCTS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION P. 0. Box 3326 Pasadena, TX 77501 713/477-6841 LAM 010376 DPMC-06778 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/13/83 Dr. N. S. Saaa Plant Manacer EXXON CHEMICAL COMPANY 8230 Stedman Street Houston, TX 77029-3999 713/671-3651 i Mr. Dean Saunders Human Resource Manaaer FERMENTA PLANT PROTECTION COMPANY P. 0. Box 9637 Houston, TX 77015 713/450-6390 Mr. Lee 0. Shamburger SOUTHWEST CHEMICAL SERVICES INCORPORATED P. 0. Box 478 Seabrook, TX 77586 713/474-2831 Ms. J. E. Shiveley Plant Manager QUANTUM CHEMICAL CORPORATION USI DIVISION P. 0. Box 1038 Latexo, TX 75849 409/544-4044 Mr. Jeff A. Shockey Safety Manaaer ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA Point Comfort, TX 77978 512/987-6257 Mr. Paul Shoup OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION P. 0. Box 15727 Dallas, TX 75215 214/371-2367 ' OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/38 Mr. Fred L. Sicmon HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION Clear Lake Plant P. 0. Sox 58190 Houston, TX 77258-0190 713/47^-6387 Mr. M, M. Simer Safety Supervisor TEXACO CHEMICAL COMPANY P. 0. Box 847 Port Neches, TX 77651 409/724-4518 Mr. Barney E. Smith Safety Engineer GAF CH Oil CALS CORPORATION P. 0. Box 2141 Texas City, TX 77592-2141 409/942-1806 Mr. Dan F. Smith (REP) Sr. Vice President-Manufacturing LYONDELL PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY P. 0. Box 777 Channelview, TX 77530 713/452-8100 Mr. Don E. Smith Plant Manager, Bayport GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY P. 0. Box 669 La Porte, TX 77572-0669 713/474-4441 Mr. L. R. (Roy) Smith Occupational Health Supervisor E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY P. 0. Box JJ Ingleside, TX 78362 512/643-7511 LAM 010377 DPMC-06779 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/13/83 Mr. Ronald 3. Starcher Safety Coorainator EXXON CHEMICAL COMPANY P. 0. Box 100 Baytown, TX 77522-0100 713/428-5177 ' Mr. W. C. (Bill) Stoltz Staff Environmental Director PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY P. 0. Box 792 Pasadena, TX 77501-0792 713/475-3606 Mr. Arvid L. Sundbeck (REP) Plant Manager SOUTHERN IONICS INC. 12901 Bay Park Road Pasadena, TX 77507 713/474-4826 Mr. Ron Taylor LA PORTE CHEMICAL PLANT 2400 Miller Cutoff Road La Porte, TX 77571 713/476-8004 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/18/38 Mr. W. A. Thomas GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY P. 0. Box 3637 Beaumont, TX 77704-3637 409/794-5255 Mr, N. R. (Reese) Tillery Cedar Bayou Plant CHEVRON CHEMICAL COMPANY P. 0. Box 509 Baytown, TX 77522 713/421-6358 Mr. George R. Toman TEXAS BRINE CORPORATION 2000 West Loop South, Suite 990 Houston, TX 77027 713/877-2700 Mr. Joe Tombrella DIXIE CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. 3635 West Dallas Houston, TX 77019 713/526-2604 Mr. H. J. (Hugh) Thibodeaux (REP) Vice President 4 Plant Manager KANEKA TEXAS CORPORATION 6161 Underwood Road Pasadena, TX 77507 713/474-7084 Mr. W. E. Thomas Sabine River Works E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY P. 0. Box 1089 Orange, TX 77631-1089 409/886-6065 Mr. Walter B. Treybig Senior Safety Engineer CAIN CHEMICAL INC. PD GLYCOL PLANT P. 0. Box 3785 Beaumont, TX 77704-3785 409/838-4521 Mr. Eloy G. Valdes Supervisor, Personnel 4 Safety STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY RHONE-POULENC GROUP P. 0. Box 3331 Baytown, TX 77522-3331 . 713/427-7413 law 010378 DPMC-06780 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/13/83 Dr. W. T. Was nan Texas Med cal Director ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA P. 0. Box 472 Rockdale, TX 76557-0*72 512/445-8407 Mr. Arnold J. Webre (REP) President TEXAS BRINE CORPORATION 2000 West Loop South, Suite 990 Houston, TX 77027 713/877-2700 Mr. James B. Wehmeyer Safety Superintendent CAIN CHEMICAL INC. P. 0. Box 2100 Bay City, TX 77414 409/244-7136 Mr. Richard A. Wiederstein Safety & Security Director PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY P. 0. Box 792 Pasadena, TX 77501-0792 713/475-3696 Mr. John Wilbeck Chocolate Bayou Plant MONSANTO COMPANY P. 0. Box 711 Alvin, TX 77512-9888 713/393-4333 Mr. A. H. Williams (REP) Plant Manager PENNWALT CORPORATION 2231 Haden Road Houston, TX 77015 713/455-1211 (x244) OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MEMBERS, 10/13/30 Mr. Steve Williams PEUNWALT CORPORATION 2231 Hacen Read Houston, TX 77015 713/455-1211 Mr. John C. Wilson Community Relations/ LUBRIZOL CORPORATION P. 0. Box 158 Deer Park, TX 77536 713/479-2851 Mr. Joe L. Woods OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1100 Lenway St. Dallas, TX 75215 214/421-7607 Mr. Glenn A. Work Production Superintendent CAIN CHEMICAL INC. PD GLYCOL PLANT P. 0. Box 3785 Beaumont, TX 77704-3785 409/838-4521 Mr. Wayne E. Wright Safety Manager CHEMICAL EXCHANGE INDUSTRIES, INC. 101 Concrete St. Houston, TX 77012 713/923-9136 Ms. A. P. (Peri) Yalcinkaya Industrial Hygiene Director UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION P. 0. Box 471 Texas City, TX 77592-0471 409/948-5123 LAM 010379 DPMC-06781 ^ rv r " i I x `j / .0/00 Mr. Ralph L. Youngblood (REP) Vice Presiaenx:, Refining TEXAS CITY REFINING, INC. !\ 0. Box 1271 Texas Citv, TX 77592-1271 409/948-7291 Ul___ -1 'I j.'IAL ir.f- .'{ p. LAM 010380 DPMC-06782