Document JJrZ3dmGN9nDDqV1pYwjByvj6

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT WV-QI154 L# >> ! t>T ***** fi fnr *** C*ree- *? fctoMf l*. ||||( is JjuiAta * 4--Z-- fj 1, It.iuit tiOi OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ft HEALTH REPORTER inspections folowing death or serious injury, if the confidentiality requirement overrides the posting require ment, 00s would violate criterion under Pari 1902, Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations. There does not appear to be any provision for an inspector to obtain a court order to compel entry where it has been refused. If the director of the Department of tabor and In dustries assumes jurisdiction over avetation, there is apparently no explicit proviso" for further review of his ruling by the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals or by (be courts. If the director can decide what goes to the appeals board and ha< does not, this may yield an uneven administrative review process. Advance Notice Exceptions to the advance notice prohibition are cfeariy contemplated to the proposed state safety and health ad and to explanatory notes in the state plan. "We would point out that the director is not authorized to giant such exceptions. In tlx event that such author ization is found, its limitations, i.e,, conditions unde; which exceptions may be granted, must be spelled out." All public employees are to be treated the sme ex private employees, except that they cannot be fined for violations other than failure to abate. Lack of any kind of sanction upon discovery of a violation virtually precludes any incentive to abate a hazard before a citation is issued and an abatement period is set. Emergency standards may be adopted If the agency finds a hazard to public health or safety, interpretation of the term "public" could foreteeabiy be troublesome. In addition, there Is no provision that the director will adopt a permanent standard to replace the temporary standard before it expires. The state act would provide dial any employer or workman who knowingly removes, displaces, damages, or destroys a safety device or safeguard w3l be guilty of a misdemeanor, "it would be unconscionable to approve such a provision which .allows both the employer and that state to punish a worker for a violation of the statute," The general duty clause requires each employer to furnish a place of employment free from recognized hazardv The federal aet refers to employment and a place of employment in its general duty clause. To the extent of this distinction, a critical part of the enforcement program fails to be at least as effective as that provided in the Act. AGC Views Although penalty sections of OSHA and the sure act differ to some degree, the stale plan wit! be as effective at aod in some areas even more so than OSHA. R. Charles Short, director of safety, and Frank N. Young, chairman. Accident Prevention Committee. Associated General Con tractors of America, Inc., .aid. The &aftle Northwest Chapter of the AGC has worked closely for many years with the state Department of Labor and Industries, adopting effective safety and health rules and regulations., and these rules and legislations hive been acceptable to both labor and management. In all important areas labor and management are in agreement with the state program under the proposrd act. The state Workmen's Compensation Advisory Com mittee, composed of labor and management representalives, endorses the philosophy adopted in (he penalty section of (he proposed legislation for * oonmandatory penalty for serious violations and fuly endorses (he ntioflaie behind (his proviso, Philip T. Bork, chairman of the committee, said. The state Health Facilities Association recommends that at least 20 percent of the budget for the state program be devoted to providing education and technical consultation needed to help busnesses with the regula tions, Sharon Winn aid cm behalf of the Association. The proposed state law does not specify toformalion must be collected on the Increase and/or decrease of the incidence of accidents and Injuries as related to specific standards. U is imperative that some attempt be made to coSeet information on (he effectivouss. of qrariftc stand ards for reducing accidents. The proposed act does not .make it expfedi that die state fire mattital Is the min enforcer of fire safety standards. From testimony at the bearing on this subject, it appeared that the distinction had been made. This issue should be clarified to prevent later confusion. Litigation / are requests court to set aside LABOR SECRETARY'S ASBESTOS STANDARD The Secretary of Labor's standard for occupational exposure to asbestos dust docs ooc comply with the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Industrial Union Department, APL-CIO, argued in its brief to the US. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. in its suit against the Secretary of Labor, the 1UD requested that the court set aside the standard and remand the case to the Secretary with instructions to modify the standard. The standard's four-year delay to implementation of the two-fiber standard is unsupported by record evidence; the monitoring, recordkeeping. and medical examination provisions of the standard are inadequate; and the stand ard's labeling provisions fat! loutsfy the requirements ot the Act, according to the union's brief. The Secretary's four-year "feasrb-ity" delay was not supported by substantia! evidence, r, the tUD's opinion, because the National Institute few Occupational Safety and Health criteria which recommended a two-fiber stand ard stated that the recommended sizndard war "amend able to techniques that are valid, reproducible, and available to industry and official agencies and .., attainable with existing technology. In add-ipn. NfOSH recom mended a two-year delay to implerentation of the two fibei standard **to permit insialbi:;-' of nceesssr) engi neering controls." The Secretary'! Advisory Committee suggested a two-year delay in that ir-e standard No Harm Expected The Secretary's determination th>; "no harm is reason' ,'bly expected to result from expos*.res during ihe transs- Oeei/po-ieAo' ^e'et, & Boo-tf or 117 1087 ) PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT!', ', WZJ31154 Jar*tfgvae*d*XJ!t tinnSr* * !ntby. ecioe-f u, ms. u v, -r_..s. t at. J-tUJfl CURRENT REPORT (tonal period" of four years was also disputed by the WD. The effects of asbestos expowte on human lungs are cumulative and far too much w/Ferir^ w31 continue tinder the two-fiber standard, the fUf> id. Both NIOSH and the advisory committee recognised this and tecom* mended that methods of control be implemented to further reduce exposure regardfess of whether the twofiber standard was being met, the lift) added. The monitoring standard is deficient in that even where employees are confronted with grave danger to their health, the employer is not tequired to conduct follow-up monitoring on a periodic basis to insure that the compli ance program is producing the desired result of lowering the dust count, according to the IUD. Even if the Secretary is administering the standard to require moni toring once every six months (his is not frequent enough to provide at! employees - especially (hose in high risk areas subject to peak concentratHms - (he necessary protection which the Act entitles them to, the IUD argued. The recordkeeping provisions of die standard are also Inadequate In the lUD's opinion. The standard requires that "every employer shad maintain records of any per sonal or environmental monitoring required by this section ... for a period of at least 3 yean." With (his language, (he Secretary exempted from (he recordkeeping requirement the results of all monitoring other than that 'required** by this standard and placed his sanction on the deslruc tion of records more than three years old. the ftfO stated. On this subject, the IUD said: "But a 3-year rule for maintaining records of monitorir$ smacks of abdicating enforcement of OSHA. The practical effect a that records may not be available either to key Federal Government officials or employee repre sentatives for use in connection with their enforcement efforts or studies concerning occupational health hazards which the Act was designed to encourage .., It also means that for employees who frequently move from one employer to another, as in the construction industry, no one may ever be privy lo permanent records concerning their exposure to asbestos dust over extended periods.*' The standard's requirement that medical records need only be retained by emplayers "for at least TO years" limply docs not assure that the optimum quantity of dai and information will be available. (He IUD argued. Also, to assure that government researchers are accorded all the necessary data with which to work in their quest to understand the fatal diseases associated with asbestos, (he standard should include a requirement either that the employer or the government continue annua! physical examination*, as no cost to (he employee*, the fl'D satd. The labeling provisions of the standard far! lo satisfy the requirements of OSHA, according to lUD's brief. The required warning that "Breathing Asbestos Dust May Be Hazardous To You* Health" grossly understates the true nature of the threat, the IUD said. Ai the very least, some reference to asbestosis and cancer should he obliga tory, the JUD contended. "With respect to each of the five major component pails of the asbestos standard the Secretary ha' failed to meet (he mandate of the Act" the IUD said in eonclo- C fey TW 603 Arbitration ARBITRATOR APPROVES "DIRTY WORK" differential for exposure to chemical An employee who was exposed to a chemical known to have cardiovascular effects on human beings was entitled to a four percent dirty work differential for aft the time he worked and was not provided with overalls by the employer. Arbitrator Paul D. Hanlon ruled. The ruling Involved Naval Torpedo Slalton, Keyport, Wash, (59 LA 325). An employee of the nav*j station filed a grievance alleging that he was entitled to an "environmental pay" differential for working in an area in which he was exposed to high levels of Otto Fuel II. The employee also claimed that he was entitled to "dbiy pay" since he was not provided with protective equipment while working in the cleaning room. The unk>n presented several witnesses who had worked with the chemical, and who testified that they had experienced periodic headaches and mild nausea afterwards. However, the employer presented evidence ro show that its ventilation system had been improved so that tests just prior lo the arbitration bearing indicated that the level of Otto Fud I! in the air was below the threshold limit. The unconirsdicted evidence of the employer's medical experts established that the chemical cannot be removed from clothing completely by wash-injury, which was a prerequiste unde? the contract for an environmental pay differential, the arbitrator found. On the other hand, the evidence showed (hat Otto Fuel 1! cannot be removed from clothing completely by washing, Hanlon found. Therefore, the arbitrator ruled that the employer must pay the employee a dirty work differential. Research HEW ISSUES FINAL REGULATIONS FOR RESEARCH-DEMONSTRATION GRANTS Final regulations setting forth the conditions and pro cedures for awarding grants for research and demonstra tion projects under Section 20 fa) (1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act were issued by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on October 3b. The regulations will appear in a future supplement to the OSHR Reference File. The rules, proposed April Jb, 1972, were adopted without change, adding a new Part 87 to Title 42 of ihe Code of Federal Regulation*. industry submitted several comments on the proposed rules objecting to the prohibition on making grants to profit making organizations It HEW's policy thai profh making organizations are not eligible for grams exceoi where specifically permitted by sutute. Federal support of research activities by profit making organization* may be earned out by contract. Since the National Insiitute foi Occupational Safely and Health conducts a substantial contract research p?<>gtam. the government will not be deprived of the benefits ! be obtained from the expertise in the profitmaking at Nsiionot Al>sc. t*c. 01 117 1088