Document QRvJRV8y4BDBEBY2a6okw5ZR

REVISED 3:00 p.m. 3:00-3:45 3:45-4:10 REVISED REVISED CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 3:00 p.m., Monday, January 13, 1992 Board Conference Room, CMA Offices Washington, D.C. AGENDA TAB 1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes of October 27, 1991 Meeting -- Frank P. Popoff Chairman 12 2. Board Action Items (Those requiring Executive Committee review and action): Summary Presentations (unless additional detail is requested). a. Trade and the Environment -- Nancie S. Johnson, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.; Chairman, International Trade Committee 4 b. Responsible Care Employee Health and 5 Safety Code -- Stephen B. Kemp, Occidental Chemical Corporation; Chairman, Code Drafting Group c. OSHA Reauthorization -- Thomas F. Evans, Monsanto Company; Chairman, Ad Hoc OSHA Reform Group 7 d. Environmental Audits -- Charles D. Malloch, 8 Monsanto Company, Chairman, Environmental Management Committee; R.M. Julie Archuleta, Occidental Chemical Corporation; Chairman, FGRC Audit Task Group and David F. Zoll, CMA General Counsel 3. Executive Committee Action or Discussion Items a. 1991/92 Budget Amendments -- Robert A. Roland 2 c. International Harmonization of Hazard Classification -- Claudette M. Cofta, CMA Associate Director. Health Programs 13 CMA 063761 o <r oi "TH 4:40-4:50 4:50-5:00 5:00 p. m. CMA 1/13/92 4. New Business and Related Discussions 5. Association Activities a * Treasurer's Report -- Gary C. Herrman b. Committee Nominations -- Charles W. Van Vlack c. President's Report -- Robert A. Roland 6. Optional Review of Other Board Agenda Items (CMA Staff will respond to any questions raised on these issues) o Product Stewardship Code Preview o Trade Negotiations Report o Public Outreach Report o Nominating Committee o Tax Issues 7. Adjourn 10 14 11 6 3 1 9 CMA 063762 CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, January 13, 1992 CMA Offices, Washington, D.C. Minutes of Meeting 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chairman Popoff. There were present: Members: Frank P. Popoff, Chairman Elwood P. Blanchard, Jr. J.A. "Fred" Brothers Earnest W. Deavenport, Jr. Ernest W. Drew Michael H. Gras ley Earle H. Harbison Secretary: Charles W. Van Vlack Treasurer: Gary C. Herrman General Counsel: David F. Zoll Peter R. Heinze J. Roger Hirl Robert D. Kennedy John E. Peppercorn Robert A. Roland M. Whitson Sadler J. Lawrence Wilson By Invitation: Charles A. Aldag, Sherex Chemical Company, Inc./CMA R. M. Julie Archuleta, Occidental Chemical Corporation Robert D. Bradford, Olin Corporation Kenneth E. Davis, Rohm and Haas Company J. Brian Ferguson, Eastman Chemical Company Clyde H. Greenert, Union Carbide Corporation Charles B. Hargett, BASF Corporation Nancie S. Johnson, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Jon C. Holtzman, CMA Stephen B. Kemp, Occidental Chemical Company Charles D. Malloch, Honsanto Company James D. Mclntire, CMA Morton L. Mullins, CMA Michael A. Pierle, Monsanto Company William M. Stover, CMA Gordon D. Strickland, CMA Ben Woodhouse, The Dow Chemical Company * Part time only 2. Minutes of Last Meeting. The minutes of the October 27, 1991, meeting were approved as distributed. 3. Trade and the Environment. Ms. Johnson presented the proposed policy on trade and the environment which had been jointly developed by the International Trade and International Affairs Committees. Key events linking trade and the environment were being driven by NAFTA, UNCED, OECD and GATT/MTN negotiations and Senator Baucus's call for a "Green Round" of negotiations under the GATT. After discussion of the positions of other major business organizations, it was agreed to CMA 063763 2 approve and recommend for Board concurrence the proposed policy (Exhibit A), but with the request that the two committees clarify the language and intent in bullet point No. 6 relating to "highest applicable and appropriate environmental standard". A, Responsible Care* Employee Health and Safety Code. Mr. Kemp presented the proposed code for final action and highlighted the following key areas: contractor safety, employee participation, inclusion of site "visitors", occupational injury and illness reporting, job safety analysis, and entry/exit of personnel materials. The Executive Committee approved and recommended for Board concurrence the proposed Responsible Care* Employee Health and Safety Code as set forth in Exhibit B-l as further defined by the self evaluation form (Exhibit B-2), the Question and Answer Paper (Exhibit B-3) and as further clarified that "work site" in Management Practice No. 15 was intended to include the entire facility, not just the immediate work area. 5. OSHA Reform Policy. Mr. Evans presented the proposed policy on OSHA reform (including some revisions). He reviewed coalition efforts under way in the business community which were designed to result in a more unified, proactive approach through CMA's early leadership. Mr. Evans reported that the basic policy and the 17 supporting positions on individual issues had been developed to be consistent with the Responsible Care Employee Health and Safety Code. The Executive Committee approved and recommended for Board concurrence the proposed policy (Exhibit C) on OSHA Reform including the clarification suggested to Position No. 17 on Victim's Rights. 6. Environmental Audits. Mr. Malloch introduced the audits issue and indicated that approval was being sought for both the proposed principles and the advocacy position. He also reviewed the multi-committee development and review process which had resulted in the proposal being presented. a. Legislative Report. Ms. Archuleta presented the status of House and Senate activity on environmental audits and environmental crimes legislation. On behalf of the Federal Government Relations Committee (FGRC), she requested authority to use the proposed advocacy position at the appropriate time in the debate. She also suggested several changes to the proposals on behalf of the FGRC. b. Proposed Principles and Advocacy Positions. Mr. Zoll presented the proposed principles and advocacy positions and identified three key issues: o Relationship of this issue to Responsible Care and the need to preserve confidentiality to protect audits as a management tool. o More documentation of this type may well lead to more litigation and criminal suits. CMA 063764 3 o The international ratcheting effect of these type of requirements, using the example of the pending European Community requirements. Following discussion of several aspects of this issue, the Executive Committee approved and recommended for Board concurrence the proposed Environmental Health and Safety Auditing Principles and Advocacy Positions (Exhibit D) including the clarifying changes recommended by the FGRC. 7. Budget Amendments. a. PCB Advocacy. The Executive Committee approved an amendment to the 1991/92 budget to authorize increasing the budget by $50,000 for PCB advocacy. (Exhibit E) b. Insurance Industry Litigation Expenses. The Executive Committee approved and recommended for Board concurrence an amendment (Exhibit F) to the 1991/92 budget to authorize increasing the budget by $325,000 to provide legal services in connection with insurance litigation. The Executive Committee also suggested that if this activity continues at these levels into future years that a CHEMSTAR panel be considered as an alternate funding mechanism. 8. Hazard Classification Harmonization. Ms. Cofta presented proposed principles and activities in pursuit of international harmonization of hazard classification systems. These were approved as set forth in Exhibit G. Ms. Cofta indicated that any final proposal in this area will be brought back to the Board for approval once it is fully developed. 9. New Business. The Executive Committee discussed the lack of adequate participation based upon solicitations to date for the nascent CHEMSTAR Atmospheric Research Council. It was the sense of several Executive Committee members that this program deserved broader support from individual member companies to insure that the chemical industry remains a player in the global warming debate in defense of its unique interests. Therefore the Executive Committee agreed to another solicitation of the Board and other members for broader participation in a base level program ($300,000 per year) to maintain a role in public policy development. 10. Treasurer's Report. Mr. Herrman reported that through the six months ending November 30, 1991, the Association had received revenue of $30,422,800 and had incurred expenses of $15,347,700, with variances within anticipated ranges. He indicated that requests for 1991 chemical sales reports had been sent out with a January 24 requested return date and that the Finance Committee (at the Membership Committee's request) was moving to eliminate exclusion No. 5 from the Chemical Sales Definition. The chemical sales request reflected this proposed change which would be brought forward for final action in March and April. CMA 063765 B Iff 4 11. Committee Appointments. Mr. Van Vlack presented appointments (Exhibit H) to several CMA standing and special committees which were approved. 12. Product Stewardship Code. The Executive Committee discussed the Product Stewardship Code and the provisions relating to distributors in particular. The Code Drafting Group was asked to increase its efforts to identify the impediments to consensus to these provisions so that the Executive Committee and Board could facilitate their resolution in the months ahead in ways that preserve the integrity of the code drafting process. * ***** The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Charles W. Van Vlack Vice President-Secretary CMA 063766 EXHIBIT A CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION PROPOSED POLICY ON TRADE AND THE ENVIRONMENT BACKGROUND The trade impact of environmental policies, and the environmental impact of trade policies, are increasingly in the public eye. Trade and environmental policies are closely linked to economic and developmental growth; it is widely recognized that broader coordination and balancing of the potential tensions is necessary to assure open markets and policies protective of natural and human resources. Concern has been expressed that the proliferation of trade agreements -- bilateral or multilateral -- will encourage industries to take advantage of "weaker" environmental laws in other countries. Some predict that industry will simply relocate to take advantage of lax environmental enforcement and/or low wage rates. Conversely, some in industry feer that the growing number and stringency of national, regional and international environmental laws will strangle international trade. The overriding concern from a chemical industry perspective is whether environmental regulatory mechanisms impose barriers to free trade. These harriers may appear as tariff or non-tariff trade measures, as export controls, or in impacts on the industry's "competitiveness." In each of these cases, there is a range of options for mitigating any perceived negative impacts. Countries may unilaterally adopt retaliatory measures to compensate for the adverse effects of a trade or environmental policy, or efforts may be made to harmonize differing approaches to an agreed-upon international level. A number of intergovernmental organizations are addressing the critical issues at the intersection of trade policy and environmental regulation. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OF.CD) is working toward an agreement -- which would be applicable in all OECD countries -- on measures necessary to coordinate trade and environmental policies. Several national governments, U.S. Congressmen, and the Director General of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) have called for the next round of multilateral trade negotiations to focus on "green" issues. A GATT Environment Working Group is poised tc take the first steps toward an "environmental standards code" to discipline international use of environmental measures having trade effects. The U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), to be held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, will focus on "sustainable development," which looks to integrate trade and environmental policies. From the Agency for International Development to the World Bank, trade and environment issues are likely to dominate both the rational and international agenda. A CMA position on the issues raised in the intersection between trade and environmental policies is necessary to give direction to the comprehensive advocacy efforts heing conducted .in both areas. The proposed position is consistent with previous CMA positions which call CMA 063767 for regulatory mechanisms that fairly address health, safety and environmental concerns arising from international trade in chemicals. RECOMMENDED POSITION It is the position of CMA to promote appropriate coordination of trade and environmental policies at the national, regional, and international levels. CMA therefore supports measures which: o Recognize that open, fair trade and environmental protection are not inconsistent objectives. Free trade and investment should be promoted as a mechanism for enhancing and improving environmental protection and intergovernmental coordination through economic progress. o Promote non-discrimination and national treatment, and ensure that environmental regulations do not impose artificial or disguised barriers to trade. o Integrate private sector initiatives into the overall matrix of governmental approaches to assure coordination between trade promotion policies and environmental regulation. o Avoid unilateral approaches to global environmental problems. Multilateral solutions to global environmental issues can help assure that the policies are completely integrated into international trade disciplines. o Encourage market-oriented solutions to promote environmental goals. o Promote effective compliance with the highest applicable and appropriate environmental standard. o Recognize that convergence in international standards (or efforts to achieve comparability of standards) may be a useful mechanism to address the potential trade-distorting influence of environmental policies. Convergence in any case does not mean the adoption of an identical standard, but tailors the regulatory response to take account of essential goals and resources. o Address environmental problems in parallel to trade policy developments. Parallel initiatives are better suited to target and deliver the specialized assistance that may be necessary to enhance national regulatory and enforcement mechanisms. ACTION REQUIRED Approval of recommended position. CMA EC - 1/13/92 BD - 1/14/92 CMA 063768 EXHIBIT B-l DRAFT Novemberll, 1991 RESPONSIBLE CARE EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PUBFOmK The goal of the Employee Health and Safety Code of Management Practices is to protect and promote the health and safety of people working at or visiting member company work sites. To achieve this goal, the code provides management practices designed to continuously improve work site health and safety. These practices provide a multidisciplinary means to identify and assess hazards, prevent unsafe acts and conditions, maintain and improve employee health, and foster communication on health and safety issues. Implementation ofthe Employee Health and Safety Code, together with other codes ofmanagement practices, can enable member companies to operate in a manner that further protects and promotes the health and safety of employees, contractors, and the public, and protects the environment. Relationship To Guiding Principles Implementation of the Code helps achieve several of the Responsible Care Guiding Principles: To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations. To make health, safety, and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes. To operate our plants and facilities in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of our employees and the public. To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the health, safety, and environmental effects of our products, processes, and waste materials. CMA 063769 [AGEMENT PRACTICES Each member company shall have an ongoing occupational health and safety program that Includes: Program Management 1. Commitment by all levels ofmanagement to protecting and promoting the health and safety ofpeople working at or visiting member company work sites, through: published policies: accountability for implementation; and provision of sufficient resources, including qualified health and safety personnel. 2. Opportunities for employees to participate in developing. Implementing and reviewing health and safety programs. 3. Provisions, including selection criteria, to confirm that on-site contractors' programs are consistent with applicable management practices of this code. 4. Written, up-to-date health and safety programs and procedures appropriate to the facility. 5. Means to verify that health and safety programs and procedures are effective and that actual practices are consistent with these programs and procedures. 6. Systems for maintaining records and analyzing data to evaluate health and safety performance, determine trends, and identify areas for improvement. Identification and Evaluation 7. Methods to identify and evaluate potential health and safety hazards In planned or existing facilities, including facilities to be modified. 8. Exposure assessments and job safety anafyses to evaluate health and safety hazards to employees from processes: equipment: potentially hazardous chemical, physical or biological agents: or other work site conditions. 9. Health assessments to determine employee medical fitness for specific job tasks. 10. Employee occupational medical surveillance programs tailored to work site hazards. Prevention and Control 11. Mechanisms for reviewing the design and modification of facilities and job tasks, taking into account the following hierarchy of controls: inherent safe design, material substitution, engineering controls, admin istrative controls, and personal protective equipment. 12. Systems to verify that health and safety equipment Is properly selected, maintained and used. 13. Preventive maintenance and housekeeping programs to maintain the safety of facilities, tools and equipment. 14. Timely investigation of work site illnesses, injuries and incidents; corrective actions to prevent recurrence: and evaluation of the effectiveness of corrective actions taken. CMA 063770 15. Security procedures and systems to control entry and exit of personnel and materials at the work site and restricted areas. 16. Provisions for emergency medical assistance for people at work sites. Communications and Training 17. Communication of health and safety information that Is relevant to specific job tasks and the work site. 18. Health and safety training programs, including documentation of these programs, and methods to evaluate the effectiveness of both training and communications activities. Industry Trend Data To identify Industry trends, each company shall report to CMA. or its designated agent, occupational Injuries and Illnesses, as specified in CMA's Occupational Injury and Illness Reporting Program. Relationship To Other Codes Or MAVAr.y^ntvT Practices This code complements, and should be implemented in conjunction with, current and future codes of management practices, especially those elements of the CAER Code involving emergency response, the Process Safety Code involving training of employees In theirjob functions, and the Product Stewardship code involving health, safety and environmental information, and employee education and product use feedback. Member Self-Evaluation Each member company shall report annually to CMA. or its designated agent, the implementation category attained for each Management Practice in this code. The reports should be submitted on the member selfevaluation form provided. Resource Guide A separate resource guide is available to assist member companies in Implementing this code. CMA 063771 EXHIBIT B-2 RESPONSIBLE CARE* QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The following are frequently asked questions about the Eaployee Health and Safety (EHS) Code of Management Practices: 1. Does the EHS Code cover all aspects of an eaployee's health and safety? Answer: The EHS Code is restricted to those aspects of an employee's health and safety that are affected by his or her employment in the chemical industry. The EHS Code addresses occupational health and safety and does not address employee "wellness" or "off-the-Job" safety. 2. Does the EHS Code include visitors and all contractor operations? Answer: The EHS Code covers all visitors and contractor employees who enter a member company's work site. Visitors should be protected from hazards they nay encounter while on the work site. All contract employers should have health and safety programs for their employees that are appropriate for the hazards encountered in their contracted job tasks and that are consistent with applicable management practices of the EHS Code. Contract manufacturers, or tollers, are addressed in the Product Stewardship Code. 3. Does the EHS Code require employee participation at work sites at which employees are represented by a union? Answer: The objective of the EHS Code is to encourage member companies to fully involve employees in safety and health activities. However, at facilities at which employees are represented by a union, negotiations concerning such employee participation may be required. In the contract negotiation process, member companies should make a good-faith effort to address opportunities for employee participation. CMA 063772 Responsible Care Employee Health and Safety Code Questions and Answers December 17, 1991 Page 2 4. What Is CMA's Occupational Injury and Illness Reporting <01IR) Program? Answer: CMA's 01IR Program serves as a basis for awarding the annual Lammot Du Pont Safety Awards recognizing sustained achievement by CMA member companies in reducing workplace injury and illness rates. Each participating company submits its injury and illness data, as reported on the OSHA Form 200, based on guidelines issued by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 5. Are contractor employees included in the OIIR Program? Answer: At this time, contractor employees are not included in the CMA OIIR Program. Current US BLS guidelines require reporting of occupational injuries and illnesses by individual employers based on Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. Both CMA and OSHA are considering revisions to the reporting guidelines that would consolidate the reporting of occupational injuries and illnesses for a single work site, without regard to the SIC code of the employer. 6. Does the EHS Code address substance abuse in the workplace as part of assessing medical fitness for specific job tasks? Answer: Substance abuse is addressed by the Process Safety Code in Management Practice 21: "Programs designed to assure that employees in safety critical jobs are fit for duty and are not compromised by external influences, including alcohol and drug abuse." 7. Does the EHS Code require each job task to be evaluated for its physical requirements? Answer: Each job task should be evaluated to determine the specific physical abilities associated with the task. An employee's abilities should be evaluated using medical criteria before being assigned to a job task with specific physical requirements. For example, employees should be medically evaluated to determine their ability to wear a respirator before being assigned to job tasks requiring the use of a respirator. CMA 063773 Responsible Care Employee Health and Safety Code Questions and Answers December 17, 1991 Page 3 8. Does the EHS Code require member companies to provide annual medical examinations to all employees as part of an occupational medical surveillance program? Answer: Occupational medical surveillance programs should provide appropriate, targeted medical assessments to those employees exposed to specific hazards. For example, regular spirometry examinations to assess lung function should be offered to employees exposed to an agent known to affect lung function. 9. Does the EHS Code require member companies to assess the affect of exposures to chronic hazards on the health of employees? Answer: As a part of maintaining records and analyzing data for trends, member companies should assess the long-term health experience of their employees in relationship to exposures to chronic hazards. Chronic hazards include, for example, long term exposures to carcinogens. CMA 063774 EXHIBIT B-3 DRAFT November 11, 1991 EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION FORM Instructions for the Company Responsible Care Coordinator: 1. This form is to be submitted annually to CMA by each member company. Please submit directly to: Dr. Edward J. Heiden Heiden Associates. Inc. 2100 M Street, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20037 2. Indicate on page 1 the number of your member company's facilities that are subject to the Code. Each company must report the Implementation stage for all facilities subject to the Employee Health and Safety Code on this form. 3. For each Management Practice on the following pages, indicate the number of facilities that have attained each implementation category. Each facility should appear In only one implementation category per Management Practice. Identify the current implementation category for each of your facilities at the time you complete the form. 4. For the Industry Trend Data, report the previous calendar year's cumulative occupational injuries and Illnesses. Occupational injuries and Illnesses should be reported on a company-wide basis as specified by CMA s Occupational Injury and Illness Reporting (OIIRJ Program. 5. Only subject facilities owned or operated as of the reporting date should be included. 6. The implementation categories are: Category NA - No action. Ifno action taken because the management practice Is not applicable, please explain. Category EV - Evaluating existing company practices against the Management Practice. Category DP - Developing plan to Implement Management Practice. Category LA - Implementing action plan Category PP - Management Practice in place. Category R1 - Reassessing Management Practice Implementation. Ifany facilities are shown in Category NA, please add any pertinent remarks to the space marked "comments." CMA 063775 EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Management Practice* Categoric* NA EV DP IA PP RI 1. Commitment by all levels of management to protecting and promoting the health and safety of people working at or visiting member company sites, through; published policies; accountability for implementation; and provision of sufficient resources, including qualified health and safety personnel. Comments on Category NA- 2. Opportunities for employees to participate in developing, implementing and reviewing health and safety programs. Comments on Category NA 3. Provisions, including selection criteria, to confirm that on site contractors' programs are consistent with applicable management practices of this code. Comments on Category NA 4. Written, up-to-date health and safety programs and proce dures appropriate to the facility. Comments on Category NA 5. Means to verify that health and safety programs and proce dures are effective and that actual practices are consistent with these programs and procedures. Comments on Category NA- Category IU Category EV Category DP Category IA Category PP Category RI No action. If no action taken becattae the management practice la not applicable, pleaae explain. Evaluating editing company practice* agalsat the Management Practice. Developing plan to Implement Management Practice. Implementing action plan Management Practice In place. Reaaaeaalng Management Practice Implementation. CMA 063776 Categoric NA EV DP 1A PP F 6. Systems for maintaining records and analyzing data to evaluate health and safety performance, determine trends, and identify areas for improvement. Comments on Cateeorv NA: 7, Methods to identify and evaluate potential health and safety hazards in planned or existing facilities, including facilities to be modified. Comments on Cateeorv NA: 8. Exposure assessments and Job safety analyses to evaluate health and safety hazards to employees from processes: equipment: potentially hazardous chemical, physical or bio logical agents; or other work site conditions. Comments on Cateeorv NA: 9. Health assessments to determine employee medical fitness for specific Job tasks. Comments on Cateeorv NA: ' 10. Employee occupational medical surveillance programs tailored to work site hazards. Comments on Cateeorv NA: Category NA Category EV Category DP Category IA Category PP Category RI No action. If no action taken becanae the management practice la not applicable, pleaae explain. Evaluating exiating company practice! againit tbe Management Practice. Developing plan to Implement Management Practice. Implementing action plan Management Practice in place. Reaaaeaaing Management Practice Implementation. CMA 063777 NA EV 11. Mechanisms for reviewing the design and modification of facilities and Job tasks, taking into account the following hierarchy of controls: inherent safe design, material substi tution, engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. Comments on Category NA: Cjtcttrtey DP IA PP Rl 12. Systems to verify that health and safety equipment is prop erly selected, maintained and used. Comments on Category NA: 13. Preventive maintenance and housekeepingprograms to main tain the safety of facilities, tools and equipment. Comments on Category NA: 14. Timely investigation of work site illnesses, injuries and incidents: corrective actions to prevent recurrence; and evalu ation of the effectiveness of corrective actions taken. Comments on Category NA: 15. Security procedures and systems to control entry and exit of personnel and materials at the work site and restricted areas. Comments on Category NA- Category NA Category EV Category DP Category IA Cetegory PP Category Rl No action. If no action takes becanea the management practice la not applicable, pleaae explain. Evaluating dieting company practice* agalnat the Management Practice. Developing plan to Implement Management Practice. Implementing action plan Management Practice In place. Reaaaeaalng Management Practice Implementation. CMA 063778 Categoric* NA EV DP IA PP 16. Provisions for emergency medical assistance for people at work sites. Comments on Cateeorv NA: RT 17. Communication of health and safety Information that is relevant to specific job tasks and the work site. Comments on Cateeorv NA 18. Health and safety training programs, including documenta tion of these programs, and methods to evaluate the effective ness of both training and communications activities. Comments on Cateeorv NA INDUSTRY TREND DATA Occupational injuries and illnesses for the previous calendar year were reported as specified in CMA's Occupational Injury and Illness Reporting Program. Comments on Cateeorv NA ` Category NA Category EV Category Dp Category IA Category PP Category HI No actios. If so actios takes because the management practice la sot applicable, please explain. Evaluating exittlng company practices against the Management Practice. Developing plan to Implement Management Practice. Implementing action plan Management Practice Is place. Reassessing Masagemest Practice Implementation. CMA 063779 EXHIBIT C OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (OSH) ACT REFORM PROPOSED POLICY BACKGROUND Legislation was introduced earlier this year to attempt the first major changes to the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act since its creation in 1970. The proposed legislation (called the Comprehensive Occupational Safety and Health Reform Act), as introduced, would bring about substantial changes in the law and in the agency that administers it. The legislation as introduced is broad in scope and goes beyond traditional questions of health and safety, addressing numerous labor law reform issues as well. In CMA's view, major portions of the pending bills would not be an improvement over current law and, most important, would do little to raise the level of safety and health protection in American workplaces. Since CMA's last comprehensive review of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) prepared during the transition to the Bush Administration, CMA has maintained there is no need for a massive overhaul of the OSH Act. In the more than 20 years the law has been in force, it has proved to be effective and flexible in addressing workplace safety and health issues. At the same time the law has become more understood and its goals held in high regard. However, CMA has also maintained that OSHA can be improved -- and that improvements could be accomplished either administratively or by routine regulatory procedures. In recent years, there have been numerous instances when OSHA has improved its performance using both these methods, including development of voluntary programs; enhancement of state training and consultation initiatives; and issuance of generic, performance-based regulations such as the Hazard Communication Standard. CMA is committed to continually improving the safety and health of all chemical industry employees, contractors and visitors in the workplace, as evidenced by our Responsible Care program and its codes of management practices. Furthermore, the Association and its members are committed to working with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to accomplish this goal. Although agency performance has improved in recent years, CMA believes there is room for further improvement. In addition, public perception of the state of workplace health and safety is supportive of changes in the law, presenting the opportunity for CMA to be a part of a critical review of the OSH Act. PROPOSED CMA POLICY CMA believes the existing Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 has contributed significantly to the health and safety of American workers. CMA also believes the law and the Occupational CMA 063780 OSH Act Reform Page 2 Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) can be improved and strengthened resulting in better safety and health protection in the workplace. CMA supports changes in the existing law that will improve health and safety. In addition, CMA believes that there are some improvements that can be made effectively through legislative action as well as others through administrative and regulatory initiatives. CMA does not support the proposed Comprehensive Occupational Safety and Health Reform Act (COSHRA), H.R. 3160 and S. 1622, in their current form. The measures will not bring about further improvements in workplace health and safety protection. In addition, they address labor law issues unrelated to health and safety protection. CMA believes there are a number of workplace health and safety issues that should be addressed on their merits,,and that they should be examined carefully. In our view, this examination should be done in partnership with the Administration, Congress, organized labor and the rest of the business community. The mutual goal should be to promote real improvements in occupational safety and health for American workers. To that end, CMA will actively participate in deliberations with the goal of achieving legislative reform that truly promotes safety and health protection. Detailed positions on individual issues embodied in the proposed COSHRA legislation are referenced in the attached Exhibit A. The basis for these individual positions are rooted in the proposed legislative policy and previously approved policies. ACTION REQUESTED Approval of proposed OSHA reform policy and positions on individual issues as set forth in Exhibit A. CMA EC-1/13/92 BD-1/14/92 CMA 063781 EXHIBIT A PROPOSED POSITIONS ON INDIVIDUAL ISSUES CONTAINED IN H.R. 3160/S. 1622 1. Issue: Mandated written safety and health programs Position: 1.1 1.2 Support inclusion of a written safety and health program with a non-mandatory list of elements. Oppose mandated list of specific program elements. 2. Issue: Mandated joint labor management committees by legislation or regulation Position: 2.1 2.2 Oppose mandated committees and specific list of duties, make-up, and selection of members. Support the requirement that employers create the opportunity for employees to participate in workplace safety and health program activities but allow employers flexibility to design and implement methods appropriate to their specific workplace. 3. Issue: Mandated training of employees and annual training of committee representatives Position: 3.1 3.2 Support health and safety training of employees. Oppose mandating training specifics through legislation. 4. Issue: Employee Pay Position: Do not oppose pay for time employees are trained or working on safety and health program activities as presently legislated and regulated. 5. Issue: Coverage Position: 5.1 5.2 5.3 Oppose elimination of the proven standard of federal agency preemption contained in the existing law. Support extension of coverage to governmental employees, but only if preemption is unchanged. Oppose as unnecessary the provision addressing federal nuclear facilities. 6. Issue: General Duty Clause Position: 6.1 6.2 Support making a site owner responsible for: providing a safe workplace; informing employees and contractor employees of workplace hazards and precautions required for safe work related to site specific operations; and controlling hazards accordingly. Oppose making a site owner responsible for contractor employees, and for safety and health conditions beyond the control of the site owner. CMA 063782 Page 2 7. Issue: Standards setting process and public disclosure of all written or verbal communications regarding promulgation of standards. Position: 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.A 7.5 Oppose legislation of a list of specific standards to be promulgated by OSHA as well as the specific timetables for completion. Oppose the imposition of timetables and mechanisms for OSHA to respond to petitions from "interested persons" regarding OSHA standards; the present provisions of the Act are adequate. Support OSHA's authority and responsibility under the current Act to establish its own priorities and promulgate occupational safety and health standards as they determine the need. Oppose change in public disclosure of communications by OSHA as existing law is adequate. Oppose re-definition of Occupational Safety and Health Standard that eliminates the need for cost benefit analysis. 8. Issue: Recording of work-related illnesses Position: Oppose recording of suspected work related illnesses. 9. Issue: Enforcement Position: 9.1 9.2 9.3 Support the concept that the current OSH Act recognizes consideration of complaints to OSHA from any source. Support Agency establishing its own priorities in addressing complaints. Oppose redefinition of serious incident requiring OSHA inspection. 10. Issue: Abatement Position: 10.1 Oppose requirement to abate alleged hazard citation while under legal challenge by the employer. 10.2 Do not oppose requirement that the employer verify abatement of hazards that are not contested; OSHA has existing authority to require such an employer response. 11. Issue: Employee participation in settlement process Position: 11.1 Oppose the authorization of employees and employee representatives to file contest of citation for more than reasonableness of the abatement period. 11.2 Oppose authorization of employee representatives to participate as parties to hearings and other proceedings which includes settlement discussions between employer and Agency. CMA 063783 Page 3 12. Issue: Imminent Danger and Work Refusal Position; Oppose any change in definition of imminent danger from conditions that could be expected to cause death or serious physical harm; support maintaining current procedure requiring OSHA to seek temporary restraining order to either shut down or remove employees from work area. 13. Issue: Penalties Position: 13.1 Oppose changes to the penalty structure including the addition of criminal penalties. 13.2 Oppose personalizing fines; allow company assets to support individual employee. 14. Issue: Whistleblowing Position: 14.1 The existing Act provides for protection of an employee from discrimination based on complaints or testimony given relative to safety and health matters in the workplace; oppose any broadening of these provisions. 14.2 Oppose further definition of conditions that will allow employees to refuse to perform hazardous work without fear of reprisals; employees already have the right to refuse hazardous work under court decisions and the current Act. 15. Issue: NIOSH Position: 15.1 Support maintenance of NIOSH in CDC. 15.2 Oppose giving NIOSH authority to force OSHA to justify nonacceptance of regulatory recommendations. 15.3 Oppose mandating that NIOSH contractors or designees have authorization to inspect facilities ' and question employees; oppose authorizing NIOSH to Investigate accidents. 15.4 Oppose NIOSH communication of increased risk of disease directly to employees. Support employee notification of increased risk by employer under jurisdiction of OSHA Hazard Communication. Support employer determination of medical surveillance needs. Oppose mandated generic medical removal provisions. 16. Issue: State Plans Position: Do not oppose increased oversight of state plans by federal OSHA. CMA 063784 PROPOSED OSHA REFORM POLICY (TAB 7) AMENDED VERSION OF LAST PAGE (P.4) 17. Issue: Victims' Rights Position: 17.1 Do not oppose communication with victims and their families 17.2 Oppose mandatory victim and victim family participation in OSHA decisions, proceedings and settlement negotiations. ***** CMA EC-1/13/92 BD-1/14/92 CMA 063785 EXHIBIT D PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AUDITING PRINCIPLES "Environmental audits" ara applied to a wide range of health, safety and/or environmental programs. Such audits should be preserved as a voluntary management tool because they provide objective, internal assessments to management on the implementation of these programs. Accordingly, CMA supports the use of voluntary environmental audit programs based upon recognized, generally accepted principles, which promote candid and confidential exchanges for information. To achieve maximum utility of audits, CMA supports the creation of strong incentives or mechanisms for encouraging environmental audits. These incentives and mechanisms fall into two areas: promoting environmental audit principles and limitations on use of audit results in federal and state civil and criminal enforcement actions. I. Goals of Advocacy Efforts A. Be responsive to public concerns and the public's need for information about company operations. B. Be consistent with and supportive of Responsible Care*. Identify and encourage disclosure of the role of auditing as a management tool. C. Formulate policies regarding expanded criminalization of environmental laws and related penalties. D. Strive for national uniformity in whatever the government does in the audits arena. E. Consider global environmental audit developments in addressing domestic issues and international economic competitiveness. F. Protect trade secret and confidential business information. II. Environmental Auditinx Advocacy Principles A. Encourage companies to develop and improve environmental audit programs as internal management tools in order to evaluate and improve environmental performance, both as to legal compliance and compliance with company or local practices. B. Educate policymakers regarding environmental audits. C. Preserve open and candid flow of information internally among audltees and auditors. D. Encourage the appropriate documentation and response to findings discover d during audits. CMA 063786 Coordinating CMA participation in international discussions on harmonization. These discussions have been held under the auspices of the IPCS, the ILO, the OECD and, within the industry, the ICCA (a discussion of these organizations and their roles in harmonization is attached). Preparation of presentation materials for use in discussion with other groups. Among the materials on which work is already begun are the following: Comparisons of acute hazard criteria under the main classification systems. Examples of how chemicals are classified and labeled under different systems; Advantages of harmonization; Disadvantages of harmonization, including major impacts on existing systems; International harmonization activities; Principles of advocacy in harmonization. The Health and Safety and International Affairs Committees are expected to approve these advocacy principles at their December meetings. The Distribution Committee is in the process of analyzing this issue and the proposed issue and the proposed strawman to form their position. Potential disadvantages of harmonization to be considered are a possible expansion of the universe of regulated chemicals under some systems (such as transportation) and the cost of converting to a single, harmonized system. IH. PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE EXPLORATION OF HARM0NI2ATI0N CMA will use the following principles in its exploration of international harmonization activities: o Harmonization has maximum value if accepted in all the major systems for industrial chemical hazard classification. o No country should be compelled to reduce protection of its population in a meaningful way by adoption of a harmonized classification system for industrial chemicals. o While a uniform classification system offers significant advantages, expanding the universe of specific materials to which current standards apply through changes in hazard categories may be inappropriate. Care must therefore be taken to ensure that harmonization does not result in unwarranted extension of standards or regulations. For example, the transport systems may wish to continue regulating for only the acute hazards as they are defined 2- - CMA 063794 under the harmonized system, because chronic exposures do not occur in transportation. o Harmonization must begin with the classification of hazard categories, including the criteria and endpoints for the hazard classes, taking note of the work already done in the international transportation arena. Harmonization of labels, data sheets and related documents will be considered at a future date. o The harmonization process can begin by addressing acute health and physical hazards. The incorporation of some chronic hazards for which a scientific consensus is lacking may need to be deferred until these hazards are better understood. o Development of a harmonized system for acute and physical hazards should be prepared as a package; a fragmented approach of a single category at a time would be excessively disruptive. While the initial harmonized system will address acute and physical hazards, it must be able to accommodate chronic hazards as they are defined. o The transition period for implementation should be relatively long, to permit organized and orderly replacement with as little cost and disruption as possible. o Testing data generated under existing systems must be utilized in the harmonized system through bridging protocols or other mechanisms. A harmonized system is not intended to require new testing. IV. PROPOSED PROGRAM ACTIVITIES CMA will continue to participate actively in international discussions on harmonization. The next significant meetings on the subject include an IPCS harmonization coordinating committee April 2-3, 1992 and an OECD consultation April 6-8. CMA will encourage strong communication and coordination among all of the international organizations addressing this issue. Input will be solicited from the Health and Safety Committee, the Distribution Committee, the Environmental Management Committee and International Affairs Committee in developing a CMA position regarding harmonization prior to external advocacy. V. ACTION REQUESTED Endorsement of proposed principles and program to explore harmonization. Any final proposal would be brought back to the Executive Committee and Board for action. CMA EC-1/13/92 '3` CMA 063795 International Activities to Harmonize Hazard Communication Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) OECD consists of the 24 leading industrial economies of the world and, as such, are responsible for the vast majority of world chemical production and trade. For this reason agreement in OECD is likely to precede global harmonization. An OECD workshop on November 19-20, 1991 concluded that harmonization was desirable and achievable, at least for acute and environmental hazards. Consultations between key players such as the EC and the U.S. are planned for February 1992, and the full membership will meet again April 6-8, 1991. UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) UNCED, scheduled for June, 1992, in Rio de Janeiro, will help set the international environmental agenda through the year 2000. UNCED Preparatory Committees have identified harmonization of classification and labelling systems as one of the five major program areas for environmentally sound management of chemicals. UNCED will not discuss the subject in detail, but could lend impetus to further work. International Labor Organization (ILO) In June 1991 the ILO Secretariat outlined a work program for harmonizing existing classification systems. An expert group approved this document in a meeting in Geneva November 14-16, 1991. The group recommends that the IPCS act as the coordinating body for UN system efforts to promote harmonization. The ILO Secretariat previously declared that harmonization would require a 10-year effort. International Program for Chemical Safety (IPCS) The IPCS is jointly sponsored by the ILO, the UN Environmental Program and the World Health Organization. A meeting on the subject held in April 1991 was restricted to phraseology used in safety data sheet sections on first aid, fire-fighting, storage and handling, and acute toxicity. However, an IPCS Coordinating Committee will meet April 2-5, 1992, under the broader mandate suggested by the ILO experts. In addition to the IPCS sponsors, the OECD and the UN Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods will be active participants. International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) The ICCA consists of chemical associations in the European Community, the U.S., Canada, Japan and Australia. The October 22-24 meeting of the Technical Affairs Group concluded that harmonization would be desirable, but that resolving differences will require much expert work supported by a political commitment. The ICCA will serve as an important channel of communication for private sector views as harmonization discussions proceed. December 13, 1991 4CMA 063796 EXHIBIT H COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDATION Appoint the following individuals to the committees and committee offices designated: Energy Committee Charles R. Nuckolls, International Specialty Products, term expiring May 31, 1993. (Replacing George Matzke of the same company.) federal Government Relations Committee Robert F. Brothers, Eastman Chemical Company, term expiring May 31, 1992. (Replacing Wells Denyes of the same company.) International Trade Committee Allen B. Miles, Eastman Chemical Company, term expiring May 31, 1993. (Replacing Bud G. Pettigrew of the same company.) Chemical Industry Federation Advisory Council Carolyn T. Burridge, Executive Director, Chemical Industry Council of Maryland. Kelli Heartsill, Executive Director, Alabama Chemical Association. Joseph MscKenzie, Chairman, Louisiana Chemical Association, (Replacing Larry Adcock of the same council.) Jack Toslosky, Executive Director, Chemical Industry Council of Illinois. (Replacing David Satterfield of the same council.) Richard M. 2-ielinski, Chairman, Chemical Industry Council of Illinois. (Replacing George A. Vincent, of the same council.) Public Outreach Coordinating Group Mr. Charles A. Aidag, Sherex Chemical Company. (Replacing Ernest F. Ruppe of E. I. au Pont de Nemours.) Mr. Kenneth E. Davis, Rohm and Haas Company, as a member and as chairman. (Replacing R. Ken Rushin of Eastman Chemical Company.) Responsible Care Coordinating Group Mr. Charles A. Aidag, Sherex Chemical Company, as a member and as chairman. (Replacing Ernest F. Ruppe of E. I. du Pont de Nemours.) Mr. Thomas T. Brand, Jr., Pfizer, Inc. (Replacing Dr. Percy Kavasmaneck of Union Carbide Corporation.) ACT 10N_ RF.QUJRED Approval of lef.omn-erdnt ion . CMA EC-1/13/H2 CMA 063797 E. Avoid the creation of government disincentives for companies to find and correct problems on their own. F. Preserve the confidentiality of information identified during audits. G. Recognize the benefits of voluntary audits to effective environmental management programs. H. Provide limited use immunity in federal and state enforcement actions for documentation of deficiencies discovered in audits and promptly corrected. I Provide enforcement agencies incentives for improving compliance rather than incentives for the number of enforcement actions initiated. J. Create a self-evaluation privilege with results protected against compulsory disclosure. K. Create appropriate safe harbor protections for audit programs which provide for prompt corrective action. CMA EC-1/13/92 BD-1/14/92 CMA 063787 ADVOCACY POSITION ON ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING AND RELATED CRIMINAL PENALTIES ISSUES A. Environmental Auditing "Environmental audita" are applied to a wide range of health safety and/or environmental programs. Significant public debate regarding government involvement in environmental auditing is probable. In conducting all of its advocacy regarding environmental audits, CMA will support the following positions. 1. Internal corporate environmental auditing should be preserved to the maximum extent possible. 2. Audit results should be protected from disclosure (i.e., they should be given safe harbor, self-evaluation privilege and limited use immunity protections). 3. Audits should not cause a company to become subject to new legal liabilities. We oppose required third party audits. When they are proposed: 4. There should be nationwide uniformity to auditing processes. 5. There should be recognition of the need for a "level playing field" and for industry to be subject to similar government involvement in auditing processes in the global market. 6. In government policies regarding audits, audit requirements should be limited to an appropriately defined regulated community and they should be focused in scope (e.g., upon compliance; upon certification of the audit process). 7. Audits should be conducted according to a set of generally agreed upon principles and by persons chosen by the company audited. B. Criminal Penalties Legislation is currently under consideration which incorporates audits in the larger context of enforcement and increased criminalization and increased penalties for so-called "environmental crimes." In this regard, CMA will oppose efforts to inappropriately CMA 063788 expand such criminal penalties, CMA will seek to conduct its relevant advocacy by coalitioning with other business and industry interests. CMA EC-1/13/92 BD-1/14/92 CMA 063789 EXHIBIT E PROPOSED BUDGE! AMENDMENT Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Advocacy BACKGROUND Since 1961, the CMA Legal Department has provided funding or manpower for outside counsel in support of the PCB Panel's rulemaking activities. Budget constraints have removed this support. Without these funds the Panel will be unable to continue its proactive leadership role within the Industry PCB Consensus Group to influence and shape PCB regulation. The Panel's prime focus is to achieve regulatory approaches protective of health and the environment that are technically achievable in a cost effective manner. Current efforts focus on new rules for resolving remaining PCB disposal issues: a national policy for old PCB spills, e.g., CERCLA and RCRA sites; standards for PCBs in mixed waste, e.g., RCRA and radioactive wastes; revocation of the PCB "anti-dilution rule" to allow treatment of PCBs based on levels as found; and authorization of alternative disposal methods in lieu of the existing requirement for methods equivalent to PCB incineration for large volume, low concentration media, e.g., soil, sludge, sediment, construction debris. Industry cost benefits alone justify this effort. Typical remediation costs for old PCB spill sites under TSCA, CERCLA and RCRA could be reduced by an order of magnitude. EPA currently estimates that greater than 17% of all known Superfund sites contain PCBs. Most industrial sites requiring remediation contain PCB contamination from electrical and other industrial equipment. The Panel is also working with the CMA Dioxin Panel in a lead role to address EPA misuse of Toxicity Equivalency Factors (TEFs). CMA members ought to be concerned that TEFs may become yet another basis for chemical regulation in various media and endpoints based upon similarities in structure. Immediate funding shortfall of $50,000 alone is needed to continue participation in the current ANPR stage. This support is in addition to the recent contribution of $65,000 by the five Panel members to support CMA administration and outside research projects. In addition, the Panel's total expenditure is leveraged by cofunding of projects and total legal expenses for PCB issues by other trade association members of the Industry PCB Consensus Group. Currently the annual CMA PCB Panel expenses, averaging $120,000/year, are currently being matched by both the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group. The Panel has explored the following alternatives: (1) sunset the Panel when current funds are depleted, around January 1992; (2) seek generic support to fund outside legal costs; or (3) solicit additional members based upon requests to the Panel for comments and information. This last alternative has been unsucessful over the last five years. RECOMMENDATION Approve an admendment to the 1991 budget for $50,000 to support outside counsel for PCB Panel activities. ACTION REQUESTED Approval of recommendation. CMA EC-1/13/92 CMA 063790 EXHIBIT G INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION OF HAZARD CLASSIFICATION Proposed Principles and Activities to Explore Harmonization I. BACKGROUND The classification of hazards forms the foundation for an understanding of the product's characteristics and how to safely handle and use it. The classification of the material triggers label information, its description on Material Safety Data Sheets, and packaging, transport and storage requirements. Classification schemes for hazardous materials are different, however, among U.S. government agencies (OSHA, DOT, CPSC) as well as internationally among nations. Classification schemes also traditionally differ between hazard communication programs for workplace exposure and transportation systems. The lack of consistency among classification systems creates two significant problems: o Credibility of hazard warnings is undermined and safety jeopardized by differing classifications for the same material. o Differing national requirements for classification create practical barriers to trade. To address this issue, the Health and Safety Committee and International Affairs Committee jointly formed a working group. Its charter is: To define and compare the current status of hazard classification systems uorlduide. To develop recommendations on achieving international harmonization of these disparate systems. II THE HARMONIZATION WORKING GROUP The Working Group on classification harmonization has met 5 times since its creation in March, 1991. Its main accomplishments have been: Preparation of a "strawman" proposal for harmonization based on the most widely accepted endpoints for a selected group of acute hazards. This proposal is an initial basis for discussion, not an effort to predetermine the results of negotiation. - 1- CMA 063793