Document OE6y7v567gKzdDp0xvyGK9xKM

FILE NAME: Colgate (COL) DATE: 1970 DOC#: COL039 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Articles from National Safety Congress Transactions Labor Safety iber Order Form 9 7 0 Congress Transactions luantlty Stock Voi. ifdered________ No. No 1-9 10 or Title___________________________ Copies more. 022.22.1 1 General Sessions &Index to all Volumes $ .95 $ .75 022.22-2 2 Aerospace; Air Transport .95 .75 022.22-3 3 Automotive 4 Machine Shop; Power Press 4 Forging .95 .75 022.22-4 4 Cement, Quarry & Mineral Aggregates .55 .50 022.22-5 5 Chemical; Fertilizer; Research & Development .95 .75 022.22-6 S Civic Leadership; Church, Women, Youth, Farm .95 .75 022.22-7 7 Coal Mining .95 .75 022.22-8 8 Construction; Public Employee 125 1.10 022.22-9 9 Electronic 4 Electrical Equipment .55 .50 022.22-10 10 Food 4 Beverage; Meat 4 Leather Industries; Trades 4 Services .95 ' .75 022.22-11 11 Class 4 Ceramics; Rubber & Plastics .95 .75 022.22-12 12 Industrial Subject Sessions; Associations , . 1.25 UO 022.22-13 13 Labor 1 .95 ,75 022.22-14 14 Marine i .95 .75 022.22-15 15 Metals .55 .50 022.22-16 16 Mining ] .95 .75 022.22-17 17 Motor Transportation 1 .95 .75 022.22-18 18 Occupational Health Nursing; Hospitals 1 .55 .50 022.22-19 19 Petroleum 1 .95 .75 022.22-20 20 Public Utilities I .95 .75 022.22-21 21 Pulp 4 Paper; Printing &Publishing ; -ss .75 022.22-22 22 Railroad ; .55 .50 022.22-23 23 School 4 College 11.25 1.10 022.22-24 24 Traffic; Driver Improvement ' SS .75 022.22-25 25 Wood Products; 4 Textile SS .75 022.22-2 26 Early Morning Sessions . .55 .50 022 22-27 27 Public Safety i .95 .75 022.22-28 28 Home Safety ; -95 .75 022.11 COMPLETE SET OF 28 VOLUMES $14.50 Autom atic 2 0 % discount to NSC members; 10% to U. S . Federal Government A gencies. Paym ent m u st accom pany all orders of $ 5 .0 0 or le s s . SHIP TO: j Organization_________________________________________ \_______ Add ress_______________________________________________________________ City________________________________ State______________ Zip Code_______ to Attention of________________________________________________ I________ BILL TO: Organization_____________________________________ _______________________ Address___________ ________________________________________________ _ _ City.________________________________ State______________ Zip Co'Je_______ to Attention of_________________________________________________________ Customer's Purchase Order Number_______________________________________ MAIL TO: NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 425 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 6Q611 022. 22-- 13 1970 n - /~r *- tl'TMy,.-'' .r T " ? I- /- \ j rf Bb library VOLUME 13 NATIONAL SAFETY CONGRESS TRANSACTIONS LABOR SAFETY NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 425 North Michigan Avenue Chicaao, Illinois 6067 7 1970 National Safety Congress wherever. T hat is, at changing- the insti tutional conditions and jolting the built-up myths of decades that have deluded the public into thinking that these losses are unavoidable and a necessary price of oper ating a highway system and owning cars. It won't happen without heat, unfortu nately. The track record of self-induced change in the auto-higtwvay construction field is poor, and there's no reason to think it will improve. If it was better, we'd have had collapsible steering columas decades ago, and passive restraints before 1970. As for the road builder--$820 million just to correct non-major safety deficiences along already opened Interstate! It is much too early to say tHat pressing highway loss problems are solved or even that mechanisms have been put in operation to solve them dependably without sometimes abrasive but stiJl vitally needed public in tervention. Assistant POLLUTION--A COMMUNITY AND OCCUPATIONAL PROBLEM By THOMAS F. W ILLIAM S to the Administrator, Environmental H ealth Service, Public H ealth U. S. Dept, of Health, Education and W elfare, Rockville, Md. Service The-current wave of interest in environ mental problems, which has already proved more lasting than many predicted, suggests that we are beginning to re member that the safety of people is the m ost important factor in the complicated ecological equation. I am sure that many of you were work ing for environmental improvements long before anti-pollution themes were being worked into soap operas and into adver tising campaigns for every kind of prod uct from soup and soap to cais and cos metics. I am sure also that you welcome this long delayed b u rst of sanity and that you see m any other indications that the public is finally demanding that the in stitutions of our society, both public and private, begin to constructively work to ward solving these complex problems. W e who erve these institutions are caught sh o rt T hat same public demanded so little of us a short while ago that we are poorly prepared to meet their expecta tions. Under such circumstances it is to be expected th at representatives of Gov ernment at all levels, representatives of industry, labor, and of other private or ganizations wiU sometimes complain th a t we cannot overnight rectify the errors of hundreds of years. Yet we must be pa tient with those who are impatient with us. Their impatience means that a real and profoundly important re-ixamination is taking place. This re-examination cover* n o t only man's relationship to nature, ju t also to his institutions, and to his fellor?v m an. I t 's taking place at the highest levels of Goveminent, and among our young people, among intellectuals, and in t i e growing consumer movement, and, I'm glad to say, in labor and industry, too. People are questioning w hether rights of private property are so sacred th at they include the right to untrarc melled exploitation of natural resource*, T hey are questioning--indeed th ey have already re jected--the validity of an indi;st rial costaccounting system th at rega.'ds the air and water as free resources for waste disposal. They are beginning to understand that concern for the environment is essentially a concern for man. W e m ay [legitimately be concerned about the fate pf the bald eagle or the grizzly bear o | the giant redwoods. And we should indeed question a human ethic that callous y destroys other life forms. But in the final analysis, the question is: W hat is happening: to man in an environment in which these tilings which share his delicately balanced eco system ar already threatened with de struction ? N ot only are stream s and lakes dying Labor Sessions before their time, and birds, fish, and other wildlife threatened with extinction, but human health is affected by the barrage of microbiological, chemical, and physio logical insults th a t m an has injected into his environm ent. W e know something about the effects of environmental pol lutants on human health--the relationship between some urban air and occupational pollutants and respiratory disease or can cer, for example. B ut we have barelybegun. to explore some of the m ore subtle, long-range hazards, including pre-natal and genetic effects and the psychological and sociological impact of unwholesome environments. People are also beginning to appreciate the fact th at w hat is commonly termed "pollution" is n o t the whole of the en vironm ental problem. T h e environm ent of life is m ore than open land, air, and w ater. IPs also the special environment w here we live, work, and play. President Nixon made this very clear in a message to the Congress in which he called for new oc cupational safety and health legislation: "T here has been much discussion in recent m onths about the quality of the environm ent in which Am ericans live. It is im portant to note in this regard that during their working years most American workers spend nearly a quarter of their time at their jobs. F or them, the quality of the workplace is one of the m ost impor tant of environmental questions. The pro tection of that quality is a critical m atter for G overnm ent attention." Since I plan to discuss community air pollution first, let me describe briefly the important Government attention was has been given, to the question of protecting not the workplace per se, but of our total environment. Last December Congress passed the En vironmental Policy Act. When President Nixon signed the measure into law as his first official action on New Year's Day, he stated that the need to arrest the deteriora tion of our environment is the '`now or never" issue of our time. In his State of Jh e Union Message, the President said: "The great question of the seventies is, shall we sur render to our surroundings, or shall we make our peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done to our air, our land, and our w ater?" Pursuant to the Environmental Policy Act, the President appointed a three-man Council on Environmental Quality to coordinate Federal policy and action in the environ mental field, in much the same way the Coun cil of Economic Advisers guides and advises in financial and economic policy. The Coun cil's first report, issued in August, shows the breadth of the Government's activities, which have been fragmented throughout many agen cies, making a trttly coordinated strategy difficult. In an effort to end the peacemeal approach, the Administration is now establishing two new Federal agencies to bring together the m ajor environmental activities of th e Federal Establishment. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is in operation, and the En vironmental Protection Agency is to begin operations in a few weeks. The Environmental Protection Agency will be a separate executive agency, outside the Cabinet, reporting directly to the Presi dent. I t will bring under one organizational roof the Federal programs dealing with, air and water pollution, solid wastes, pesticides, and radiation. It will be responsible for establishing and enforcing standards, moni toring pollution in the environment, research and demonstration, and assistance to State and local Governments. The E P A then, will handle the front-line attack on environmental damage to health and property. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will be respon sible for long-range research on pollution problems of the future, especially the trends we suspect are taking place on a global scale in the oceans and in the atmosphere. NOAA is a new agency in the Department of Commerce, expanding the Department's Environmental Sciences Services Administra tion. E very year toxic m atter from industrial, municipal, and domestic sources is being re leased into the air oyer the United States at a rate of about 200 miUion. tons--or, if you prefer your share, dose to a ton for every American, T h e to st to the Nato of th e effects of air pollution is estimated to be 10 to 20 bll- 1970 National Safety Ccngtess Hon dollars annually. These figures include damage to buildings, equipment, fabrics, land values, farm crops and animals. They do not take into account the valuable resources that are spewed out in the air as waste. As to the impact an human health--acute episodes of pollution in London., New York, Tokyo, and other cities have clearly been as sociated with soaring death and illness rates, especially among the elderly and those with weakened hearts and lungs. It is also wellestablislied that air pollution contributes to the incidence of such chronic diseases as em physema, bronchitis, and other respiratory ailments. There are other hazards that can be identi fied but are perhaps even more difficult to quantify. The levels of carbon monoxide in heavy traffic, for example, often reach levels that can affect human Judgment and be havior. This factor, together with impair ment of visibility, undoubtedly contributes to our automotive accident toll. W hat is even more disturbing--science is only beginning to explore the possible effects this chemical pollution may have on die pre natal stage of life, or on the genetic endow ment we pass on to future generations. As for the long-range planetary effects-- some scientists believe that increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will soon begin to demonstrate a "greenhouse" effect, hastening the melting of the polar icecaps and raising the level of the oceans. Others speculate that on the contrary, atmospheric pollution will usher in a new Ice Age. You may have it either way you want it--neither prospect has much appeal. In the Environmental Health Service, we are presently engaged in an effort to control air pollution under 1967 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Briefly, to control stationary sources, we publish criteria on health and welfare hazards and related documents on control techniques. States develop air quality standards and establish implementation plans which are applied on a regional basis throughout the country. W ith regard to motor vehicles, the Federal Government has direct standard setting and enforcement au thority. The House and the Senate have now passed new and stronger air pollution legis lation. The bills differ widely in many re spects and are now being sub; ected to the conference procedure in an effort to iron out these differences. i First, with regard to automoiile emissions. The Secretary of H E W was <uthorized by 1965 legislation to establish Fideral stand ards limiting the emission of pcllutar/ts from auto exhaust. Federal emission standards for motor vehicles went into effect' with, the 1968 model cars for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, with more restrictive standards being effective with the 1970 model and fur ther restrictions proposed for 1972 and 1975. Standards for nitrogen oxides are anticipated in 1973 with further Testrictiofis anticipated in 1975; standards for particulate m atter are also anticipated in 1975, Furthermore, last July, aft< r we found that 1970 cars were not as dean as the standards intended, we announ :ed new and more accurate test procedures assure that new cars in 1972 and later would fully meet the intent of the exhaust emission standards. The House bill would continue the present standards-settmg procedure, while the Sen ate version would prescribe, ai part of the statute, specific standards for exhaust emis sions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons which must be met by 1975, and for nitrogen oxides which must be met by 1976. Both pieces of legislation world strengthen Federal authority by authorizing productionline testing to insure compliance. Testing is now limited to prototype vehicles. The Sen ate bill includes a 50,000-mile warranty for satisfactory emission control. So far, our National A ir Foil jtion Control Administration has published criteria on sul fur oxides, particulate matter, photochemical oxidants, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons --together with information on effective and practical control techniques. W ithin a short time, we expect to publish cribiria and con trol information on nitrogen oxides, lead, fluorides, and polynuclear organic matter. During the last year and a half, we have drawn the lines around 61 air quality control regions, and expect to bring ii e total to 90 by the end of the year. These will embrace all the major metropolitan areas of the coun try, some of them lying wholly within a single State, others involving two or more States, ( The States affected have bee!a engaged m Labor Sessions the process of establishing- their own air quality standards, for these designated re gions, based on our criteria, and in develop ing approved implementation plans, in accord ance with an established timetable. A total #of 19 States have adopted air quality standards for their air quality re gions--and 15 of these have been accepted by the Secretary of HE-W as sufficiently protective of public health and welfare. Plans for implementing the standards have been submitted by seven States and are now under review. The legislation proposed by the Adminis tration for passage this year, and the bills passed separately by the House and Senate, all are aimed a t strengthening our control efforts by the establishment of uniform Fed eral air quality standards. There seems to be little doubt that any legislation enacted will result in our National A ir Pollution Control Administration defining national air qualify standards, which as a minimum must pro tect human health, at least for those pollut ants which are most pervasive. For those pollutants considered to be im mediately hazardous to health, the Federal Government would be empowered to curtail or eliminate discharge into the atmosphere. In addition, it appears that the Federal agency will be empowered to establish emis sion or performance standards for new sources of pollution, and possibly for modi fied, existing sources. This would mean that a new power generating plant, for example, would have to comply with Federal standards limiting its emission of pollutants or pre scribing the effectiveness of its control devices. As for implementation of air quality stand ards: under the Senate-passed bill, States would have a year and a half to develop approved implementation plans and another three years to achieve compliance with the standards. The House bill is less specific-- a "reasonable time" would be allowed. The question naturally arises then--if we have uniform Federal standards and State wide implementation plans, what happens to the air quality control regions already desig nated? Under the House bill, all regions al ready marked out would remain in effect and others could be designated by the Fed eral Government. Under the Senate bill, inter state regions embracing parts of more than one State would be continued, but designation of regions within, the States would be part of the States' responsibility. In any case, the States, in implementing the standards, would be required to approach the control process on an effective regional basis which would, of course, be in accord with present procedures and would build on progress already achieved. Interested and concerned citizens have played an important role in our progress so far--for, as I am sure most of you know, the Clean A ir Act has specifically required that States must hold public hearings in develop ing State standards for their a ir quality re gions. I am glad to say that an opportunity for citizen views to be heard is included in the legislation now under consideration. Although the Federal Government would now establish the standards, the States will be required to hold public hearings in de veloping their implementation plans. Citizens will have an important role to play in making vital decisions about the methods--and the timetable -- by which clean air will be achieved. The occupational health problem, like the community air pollution problem, is an un desirable by-product of progress. As the President pointed out in the message I cited earlier, many industries have made progress in protecting worker health and safety on their own. Many professional organizations such as the National Safety Council have worked to promote better working conditions, but the overall record is still uneven and unsettling In our industrial society, i t is in the fac tory or on the farm or in the mine that the very contaminants that finally become pollu tants of the natural environment are first encountered. It is a high-risk environment-- from the standpoint of both safety and health ---and yet some of the very people who are understandably concerned about the industrial waste that is poured into our air and water have not yet taken their first clear look at the environmental problem of 80 million American workers. Each year thousands of persons are killed in occupational accidents; 3,600 persons die from occupational diseases; more than 2 million persons are injured seriously enough 1976 National Safety Congress While -we may be Justified in complaining: that we cannot overnight rectify the errors of hundreds of years, we must, at the same time, move purposefully aad swiftly toward a new standard of ecological excellence, in consonance with the scientific anc technologi cal realities of today. We mu t take this giant step here on earth for all mankind, for as President Nixon has said, this is the "now or never'5 issue of our time WHAT'S BUGGING YOU? A PA N EL DISCUSSION Presiding: Edward ] 7.egax, Interna tional Representative, International Brother hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIG, Washington, D, C I n c o m i n g Vice-Chmn, Labor Conference, N.S.C, Moderator: Dale Mask, Vice President, Local No 3, International Union of Oper ating Engineers, San. Francisco, Calif. Panel: Charles T. Greene, Director, Industrial Safety Div., District of Colum bia, Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board, Washington, D. G ; J oseph Leon ard, Safety Director, International Long shoremen^ Assn, New York; N . Y .; Stanley P Ocitmansxi, Customer S er vices, Safety Services, Eastern A ir Lines, Inc., Miami, F la.; M arco V estich Assistant Director, Safety Dept, United Steelwork ers of America, Pittsburgh, P a ., N athan W illens, Industrial Hygiemst, Illinois De partment of Labor, Chicago, III. (Previously submitted questions are pre sented to the panel by Mr. Marr.) Mask: Why are the heads of big indus trial union departments such as apprentice ship, safety, workmen's compensation, and insurance noticeably absent from these types of safety sessions? Vestich* Speaking for the United Steel workers Union, Safety Director Paul Schremp could net he here because of per sonal reasons. H e was so anxious to he here that he waited until Monday, October 26 before he decided that he definitely could not come and that he would send me in his place Make . It may be that this questioner was thinking about heads of other depart ments than the safety department when he asked this question. If this is the case, I believe we all must admit that heads of departments other than safety have other conventions and commitments to handle, and since they do have safety people, the safety people are the ones designate i to attend these sessions. Actually, most o:: the safety directors of unions which have safety di rectors are here. If local union representa tives feel that other department heads from large industrial unions should be here, it is up to them to indicate this at their various meetings, conferences, and conventions. M ark O ur local union has just started a safety program and we wculd like to know what advice and assistance we can obtain, to be certain w e do the rr ost effective job possible O c h m a n s k i: F irst of all, I would sug gest that you outline objectives which will reflect what you want to do with your safety program, Then, develop a policy statement which will be endorsed from the top officials of the union down to the grass roots membership. Then follow your ob jectives as closely and as efficiently as you possibly can. Leonard: I would like to add that you be sure you do not appoint any politicians to conduct your safety program. Appoint only dedicated and interested people to this responsibility. V estich: Be sure that you hhve contract language that establishes andj endorses a labor-management safety corrjmittee. No program can succeed without this type of authority, This kind of contract language should include right of entry to any work area, right to a copy of an) inspector's report, the right to bring in ycur own ex perts for consultation, the right to refuse to work at a job you believe is unsafe, etc. Greeks: Y ou must remember that if you expect management to assist and comply with policies and objectives, y?u must he Labor Sessions certain, that the union also complies and respects the objectives of the program. This is definitely a two-way street. Especially, the membership of the union must definitely understand that the officers of the company and the union are going to demand that everyone follows die requirements and ob jectives of the program. WiLt-ENS I agree with Marco Vestich that the union ` should have the right to reports of inspectors, and I as a state in spector would welcome being permitted to provide a copy of my report to the union. However, as the Illinois state law indicates, I cannot do this. In relation to the question as asked, assistance can be obtained fa set ting up a safety program from U. S . De partment of Labor representatives, State Labor Department representatives and, naturally, the National Safety Council. Mark: During many past years, a lot of safety people said that safety and health is management's responsibility. Actually, this is true but, unfortunately, if management does not accept the job, it is the union per son or worker who gets hurt. Therefore, many unions find that they will have to exert the initiative to start a safety pro gram. Our union has found that training the membership on safety and health haz ards and what to do about them when they are identified has been very effective in reducing accidents. Naturally, during this training many foremen and other manage ment people can be taught if they are not already inclined to follow effective safety and health principles. A safety program is useless if our members are not wearing personal protective equipment that is pro vided and if they are breaking safety rules that have been established. This is why the educational process is so necessary. Leonard: As I have mentioned before, we have included the wearing of personal protective equipment m our safety contract, and as far as I am concerned the raea are going to wear the equipment o r they're not working. I am willing to put zny job on the line for this purpose. As long as the per sonal protective equipment, such as hard hats in our case, are necessary and are fitted properly, the men have to wear them. Greene: I would like to add one thing, and that is whether it's wearing personal protective equipment or installing mechani cal safeguarding, none of it is of any -value if these requirements aren't properly and thoroughly enforced. Naturally, to make a regulation o r an agreement enforceable, it must be worded properly, and it should not include exemptions which make enforce ment practically impossible. Therefore, I suggest that you keep enforcement in. mind when you word your agreements and regu lations. Delegate : O ur union has a labor-man agement safety committee at one of the Monsanto plants and we work together superbly. W e have three union members and three supervision members on the com mittee and we meet once a month. W e also investigate accidents. O ur union representa tives on the committee are elected by the members, and this works best. As long as the union representatives do a good fob and realy represent the membership, they are reelected. This keeps these positions out of politics because of appointments. Delegate from Local 185, United Steel workers of A m erica: W e are having a problem with, our contracted company be cause they insist on purchasing safety spec tacles from a certain company. Our union safety committee and many of our members would like to be able to use spectacles from another company because they are more comfortable and provide a better fit. Our members are even willing to pay the dif ference in the cost, but the company refuses to cooperate. Also, our company only re quires hard hats in certain areas of the plant, which makes it practically impossible to enforce this rule. In addition, many of the foremen and plant protection, personnel will not wear the hard hats even in those areas where they are required. Naturally, this kills the hard h at safety program. Marr: In support of what the delegate Just said, since the safety spectacle indus try is progressing so fast and coming out with so many new innovations, it is only common horse sense that labor and man agement should periodically review their safety spectacle program to determine if more effective and/or more comfortable spectacles can be purchased. The other day I went to my eye doctor and informed him I wanted a pair of safety spectacles ground to my prescription. T he doctor spent quite a bit of time trying to talk me out of the safety spectacles. Naturally, I informed him 1970 National Safety Congress to lose time from their work; and more than $2 billion is paid out in compensation claims. And we must remember that these figures are probably understated, because occupa tional illnesses are often improperly diag nosed or not reported. Certain toxic fumes, dust and vapors -- cadmium, mercury, nitrogen dioxide, for ex ample--may strike a swift and deadly blow, or, on the other hand, other contaminants of the workplace at lower levels of concentra tion can do their harm insidiously over a long period of time* Three and a half million American work ers are exposed to asbestos in the course of their daily work. After some years, they have a good chance of succumbing- to asbestosds, the dust disease of their trade, that is, H lung cancer doesn't get them first Mesothe lioma, a malignancy of the lung or pleura, which is so rare that it strikes only 1 in 10,000 of the general working population, was found to be the cause of 1 death in 10 in a study of insulation workers. Can we write this off as a special and limited prob lem? I don't think we had better--for asbes tos is something that is increasingly present throughout the environment--ahd there is some evidence that long or massive exposures are not needed to produce mesothelioma Ccal tar pitch can cause skin cancer, and some chromium compounds are suspected cancer agents. Arsenic and lead, and hundreds of new and modified chemicals, are every day pollutants of the industrial environment. And many of these same poisons flow into our streams cr air as industrial wastes or are released at the burning dumps which become the final resting place of the products of our industry. Among soft coal miners, the death rate from respiratory disease is five times that of the general working population. Two weeks after the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 was enacted, 42,200 former coal miners had applied for disability compensation for the "black lung" disease which has been the scourge of miners for generations. We thought for many years that byssino- sxs---the "white lung" disease of cotton tex tile workers -- was cot a problem in this country, although it was known to be a. problem elsewhere. Recent studies suggest that we were wrong---that "white lung" does in fact disable and shorten the lives of thou sands of textile workers In other vrords, many of us ire being ex posed to a double or triple dosb of environ mental pollution--in the work environment, and in the community- environment as well. The only real distinction is that the oc cupational setting is a limited ani more easily controllable environment than the natural " one. While Federal occupational health and safety programs axe not to be housed in either of the two new Agencies I discussed earlier, interest in this problem has virtually paral leled rising interest in the environment This is related in part, I am sure, tc something I said earlier--that in our industrial society it is in the workplace that contaminants and some of the other stresses of cur urban en vironment arc first encountered It is note worthy in this regard that virtually all of the pollutants on which we are developing Na tional community^air quality criteria are gen erally found at even more haza: -dous concen trations in certain working environments. The two Federal departments most directly concerned with occupational health and safety are Health, Education, and Welfare and Labor. We may he sure that the new En vironmental Protection Agency will be work ing closely with both of them in the years ahead. I believe that enactment, in 1969, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act marked the beginning of a nevf era in deal ing with occupational health problems. As you probably know, the Act |established a Federal standard fox dust levels in coal mines, based on HEW recommendations and authorized the Department o:: Interior to promulgate any additional or ,-evised stand ards necessary to protect the iracers' health and safety. The Bureau of Occupational Health, which is part of our Environmental H ealth Service, has responsibility for developing improved health standards for mines. It als6 must in sure that all underground coal miners in the U. S. receive regular medical examinations to detect occupationally-caused disease and is charged with finding techniques for the pre vention and control of occupational diseases among miners and others working with or around coal mine products. The Bureau has been moving ahead under Labor Sessions these new authorities, both in research and in the House and in the Dominick bill in the in the establishment of a system to insure Senate, both of which call for a National regular physical examination of miners. Board to set uniform standards deriyed from Earlier this year, State medical teams tinder the criteria developed by H E W and to be contract to the Bureau began examining enforced by the Department of Labor. The miners in seven States, while Bureau medical Board would include representation from in teams are continuing comprehensive medical dustry) labor and other concerned groups. studies begun earlier. Bureau staff are optim While neither of the bills which have been istic that they can meet the requirement of reported out of*committee contains this pro the Act that first-round medical examinations vision, inclusion of such a board is apt to be for all active miners (some 90-100,000) be reconsidered when the bills reach the floor. completed by next July. Whether new legislation will be enacted and Special instrumentation is being developed for the necessary medical tests and dust sampling. The Bureau has also published regulations governing dust sampling techniques and has promulgated recommendations for potable signed by the President in this session of Congress is still in doubt. There is no doubt, however, about the fact that legislation for the protection of the worker from occupa tional hazards has finally risen to its proper place among our National priorities. water aad sanitation, in mines and for medi The two problems I was asked to discuss cal assistance in mine emergencies. today fall within a number of legislative During the past two years a great number of bills pertaining to occupational health and safety of other workers have been introduced in the Congress. This is an unprecedented occurrence. Never in our history has there and organizational initiatives that the Gov ernment is taking to insure that our basic institutions can respond m a timely way to compelling challenges for change and re newal. existed anything restrebling comprehensive Industry, too, is today showing signs of a Federal legislation in this field. Bills have new understanding of its responsibilities, not been reported out of committee in both houses only for the health and safety of workers of Congress, and are due to come up for and for the products it offers to the con floor debate when Congress reconvenes in sumer, but also for its impact on the en November. While the bills differ in some re vironment spects, their basic similarities suggest that real improvements in occupational health and safety are at last on the horizon. Both bills would cover all businesses engaged in inter state commerce. They provide that the De partment of Health, Education, and Welfare establish a National system for gathering occupational disease and safety data and de velop criteria for healthful working condi tions, on which National uniform standards could be based. The Department would, for And labor is extending its interest to in clude the fight for a livable environment for all. Union members, for example, have be gun to play an important role in the public demand for effective community air pollu tion standards in several states. Steel workers, auto workers, and chemical workers have taken the first, unprecedented, steps to work pollution control into the col lective bargaining system. the first time, be allowed right of entry so W hat has been so often lacking to date in that such data would be meaningful. Both our efforts to save the environment , . . bills provide that the Department of Labor lacking on the part of industry and labor, could set standards and enforce them. These and on the part of Government as well is the i standards would apply uniformly to like in willingness to tackle these problems as a fun dustries across the country. Both bills would damental part, not just a side issue, of provide States with the opportunity to en American life. force these standards, provided they could qualify to do so. If States failed, the Federal Government would provide the necessary backup. In our present situation, I think all of us are coming to realize that some hallowed `^!ghts', and `'privileges" may have to be placed on the line if the rights of all--and As you know, the Administration's recom of the generations that come after us--are to- mendations are contained'in the Steiger bill be preserved. 1970 National Safety Congress While -we may be Justified in complaining that we cannot overnight rectify the errors of hundreds of years, we must, at the same time, move purposefully and swiftly toward a new standard of ecological excellence, in consonance with the scientific anc technologi cal realities of today. We m int take this giant step here on earth for all r unkind, for as President Nixon has said, this is the "now or never" issue of our t: WHAT'S BUGGING YOU? A PA N EL DISCUSSION Presiding: Edward J. Legan, Interna tional Representative, International Brother hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Washington, D. C ; Incoming Vice-China, Labor Conference, N S.C. Moderator ; Dale Marr, Vice President, Local No. 3, International Union of Oper ating Engineers, San Francisco, Calif. Panel; Charles T. Greene, Director, Industrial Safety Div., District of Colum bia, Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board, Washington, D, C..; J oseph Leon ard, Safety Director, International Long shoremen's Assn, New York, FT. Y .; Stanley P Ochmanski, Customer S er vices, Safety Services, Eastern A ir Lines, Inc., Miami, Fla.; Marco V estich Assistant Director, Safety Dept, United Steelwork ers of America, Pittsburgh, Pa.; N athan WlLLENS, Industrial Hygienist, Illinois De partment of Labor, Chicago, 111. (Previously submitted questions are pre sented to the panel by M r. M arr.) Mask: Why are the heads of big indus trial union departments such as apprentice ship, safety, workmen's compensation, and insurance noticeably absent from these types of safety sessions7 VssTicfi * Speaking for the United Steel workers Union, Safety Director Paul Schrerap could not be here because of per sonal reasons. H e was so anxious to be here that he waited until Monday, October 26 before he decided that he definitely could not come and that he would send me in his place Mare: It may be that this questioner was thinking about heads of other depart ments than the safety department when he asked this question. If this is the case, I believe we all m ust admit that heads of departments other than safety have other conventions and commitments to handle, and since they do have safety peopk, the safetypeople are the ones designate [ to attend these sessions. Actually, most o:: the safety directors of unions which hav< safety di rectors axe here. If local union representa tives feel that other department heads from large industrial unions should be here, it is up to them to indicate this a t their various meetings, conferences, and contentions. M ark: O ur local union has just started a safety program, and we wcuid like to know what advice and assistance we can obtain to be certain we do the rr ost effective job possible. OcHiiANSKi: First of all, I would sug gest that you outline objectives which will reflect what you want to do with your safety program. Then, develop a policy statement which will be endorsed from the top officials of the union down :o the grass roots membership. Then follow your ob jectives as closely and as efficiently as you possibly can. Leonard: I would like to aId that you be sure you do not appoint any politicians to conduct your safety program. Appoint only dedicated and interested people to this responsibility. V esitcit : Be sure that you hhve contract language th at establishes and i endorses a labor-management safety committee. N o program can succeed without this type of authority* This kind of contrajct language should include right of entry to any work area, right to a copy of an) inspector's report, the right to bring in ycur own ex perts for consultation, the rig lt to refuse to work at a job you believe is unsafe, etc. Greene: Y ou must remember! that if you expect management to assist end comply w ith policies and objectives, y:u must be Labor Sessions certain that the union also complies and respects the objectives of the program. This is definitely a two-way street. Especially, the membership of the union must definitely understand that the officers of the company and the union are going to demand that everyone follows the requirements and ob jectives of the program. WrLLENS I agree with Marco VesticH that the union should have the right to reports of inspectors, and I as a state in spector would welcome being permitted to provide a copy of my report to the onion. However, as the Illinois state law indicates, I cannot do this. In relation to the question as ashed, assistance can be obtained in set ting tip a safety program from U. S . De partment of Labor representatives, State Labor Department representatives and, naturally, the National Safety Council. M a r r : During many past years, a lot of safety people said that safety and health is management's responsibility. Actually, this is true but, unfortunately, if management does not accept the job, it is the union per son or worker who gets h u rl Therefore, many unions find that they "will have to exert the initiative to start a safety pro gram. Our union has found that training the membership on safety and health haz ards and what to do about them when they axe identified has been very effective in reducing accidents. Naturally, during this training many foremen and other manage ment people can be taught if they are not already inclined to follow effective safety and health principles. A safety program is useless if our members are not wearing personal protective equipment that is pro vided and if they are breaking safety rules that have been, established. This is why the educational process is so necessary. Leonard : As I have mentioned before, we have included the wearing of personal protective equipment in our safety contract, and as far as I am concerned the men are going to wear the equipment or they're not working. I am willing to put my job on the lme for this purpose. As long as the per sonal protective equipment, such as hard hats in our case, are necessary and are fitted properly, the men have to wear them. Greene: I would like to add one thing, and that is whether it's wearing personal protective equipment or installing mechani cal safeguarding, none Of it is of any value if these requirements aren't properly and thoroughly enforced. Naturally, to make a regulation or an agreement enforceable, it must be worded properly, and it should not include exemptions which make enforce ment practically impossible. Therefore, I suggest that you keep enforcement in mind when you word your agreements and regu lations. D elegate: Our union has a labor-man agement safety committee at one of the Monsanto plants and we work together superbly. W e have three union members and three supervision members on the com mittee and we meet once a month. W e also investigate accidents. O ur union representa tives on the committee are elected by fixe members, and this works best. As long as the union representatives do a good job and realy represent the membership, they are reelected. This keeps these positions out of politics because of appointments. Delegate from Local I&5, United Steel workers of America: W e are having a problem with our contracted company be cause they insist on purchasing safety spec tacles from, a certain company. Our union safety committee and many of our members would Like to be able to use spectacles from another company because they are more comfortable and provide a better fit. Our members are even willing to pay the dif ference in the cost, hut the company refuses to cooperate Also, our company only re quires hard hats in certain areas of the plant, which makes it practically impossible to enforce this rule. In addition, many of the foremen and plant protection personnel will not w ear the hard hats even in those areas w here they are required. Naturally, this kills the hard hat safety program. Maur: In support of what the delegate ju st said, since the safety spectacle indus try is progressing so fast and coming out with so many new innovations, it is only common horse sense that labor and man agement should periodically review their safety spectacle program to determine if more effective and/or more comfortable spectacles can be purchased. The other day I went to my eye doctor and informed him I wanted a pair of safety spectacles ground to m y prescription. The doctor spent quite a bit of time trying to talk me out of the safety spectacles. Naturally, I informed him