Document bpoDonzD7RKNaqpx2Jr5XyLD

SENSIDYNE MEMORANDUM TO: Distribution FROM: Ron Roberson DATE: August 1, 1995 SUBJ.: SEI Badge Certification Attached is some correspondence between Sensidyne and SEI concerning SEI's closed certification of Envirometrics Company's formaldehyde badge. I feel that SEI acted unfairly by not opening the certification opportunity to other companies. I have asked Sensidyne and Gastec not to participate in SEI's badge certification program, but to conduct our own program verifying with lab reports that the product meets the ANSI requirements. I have also asked Sensidyne and Gastec to carefully evaluate any benefit we receive from our current SEI certifications on our short term detector tubes. If you have questions or comments, please contact the writer at 1(800)451-9444. Sincerely yours, Ron Roberson Corporate Industrial Hygienist Copy: Kim Chapman, Gilian Environmental Gus Manning, Assay Technology Alan Levin, Air Scan Richard Wanek, GMD/Bacharach Bob Weber, 3M Ed Ligus, National Draeger Katie Spear, MSA Lloyd Kent, Matheson Gas 3M 110938 SENSIDYNE INC. Gas and Particulata Detection Systems 16333 3ay Vista Onve, Clearwater. Florida 34620 300-461-9444 / Florida 813-530-3602 TELEX 765223 / Fax 813-539-0630 June 1, 1995 Safety Equipment Institute 1901 North Moore Street Arlington, VA 22209 Attn: Patricia Gleason ear Ms. Gleason: As you are aware Sensidyne and Gastec have participated in SEl's detector tube certification program since ifs inception. Since the beginning of our relationship with SEi, I have consistently been impressed with the degree of professionalism within SEI. SEI has historically operated in an unbiased fashion in dealing with both ISEA members and non members in the same program. Until recently I had never witnessed favoritism toward any singi company. SEl's detector tube certification program began with SEi contacting all th manufacturer's to solicit interest Following that a protocol was adopted, gases selected and a test schedule published. Every company that produced detector tubes for the U.S. market was given an equal opportunity to participate. No single company was given any chance to obtain an unfair market advantage under SEI's program. To this day that professional, non-biased practice is still demonstrated in SEI's detector tube program. Recently at the A1HC in Kansas City, Envirometrics Products Company was advertising an SEi-approved formaldehyde badge. I thought this to be false advertising since SEI's program was not yet started. However, upon checking at the SEi booth I was informed that Envirometrics had received certification in a special testing session they had requested. I was given a copy of SEI's May, 1995 newsletter that announced Envirametric's certification. I received my copy in the mail after my return from the AIHC. I have followed SEI's commitment to a badge program carefully. Sensidyne sent representatives to the ISEA badge meetings at the National Safety Congress in October, 1994 and Salt Lake City in January, 1995. I sent correspondence to SEi with questions following the December 1994 newsletter announcement of SEI's intention to start the program. Judith Bailey answered these questions with a letter dated 12/1/94. There should have been no question that Sensidyne and Gastec were interested in this program, yet we were not informed that testing had started. Bill Emy of ISEA estimated two years from January, 1995 for ISEA to complete the ISEA test protocol. We were not informed by SB that SB planned to start without that protocol. 3M 110939 SENSIDYNE INC. Gu and Pimquiai# Oaiccnon Syatama 16333 Say Vista Ortva. C.'aarwater. Florida 34620 300-451-94*4 / Florida 313-530-3602 TELEX 756223 / Fa* 813-539-0550 It is apparent that Envirometrics quietly pushed for a custom certification in order to obtain a market advantage on the other badge manufacturers. I am very disappointed that SEI supported this market advantage, it is dearly not within SEi's historical policy to provide a custom certification that was apparently not open to everyone. It is dearly not the actions of a responsible unbiased third party certifier to support one manufacturer at the expense of others. Please answer the following questions in writing so I can advise Sensidyne and Gastec on future dealings with SEI. 1) When did the passive monitor program begin? Was a test schedule announced? Why was Sensidyne not informed prior to testing? We advertise formaldehyde passive monitors. 2) Why was Envirometrics allowed to certify a product without soliciting other program partidpants? Is it SEI's policy to conduct custom certifications outside of published programs? 3) The following companies also advertise passive formaldehyde monitors. Which ones were informed of SEi's formaldehyde certification testing? a) Gilian Environmental ' b) Assay Technology c) Air Scan d) GMD e) 3M 4) Why did SEI not follow the procedure set forth by the detector tube program? Why were the following steps omitted? a) Soliciting interested companies b) Publishing a test gas list c) Publishing a test schedule d) Informing manufacturers of certification opportunity 5) Why did SEI rush a custom certification for a single manufacturer? Did SEI intend to provide one company with a marketing advantage? Did SEI not realize the rush to certify in time for a major trade show promotion? 3M 110940 SENSIDYNE INC. Gas and Paniculata Detaction Systems 16333 Say Vista Onva, Clearwater. Florida 34620 800-431-9444 / Honda 813-S30-3602 TELEX 756223 / Fax 813-539-0550 I believe that SEI did not act responsibly in this initiation of a new program. I believe that all manufacturers should be given an equal opportunity to submit products if an unbiased third party certification truly exists. In my opinion SEI should do the following to rectify the situation. 1) Contact all companies that produce passive monitors and ask if they wish to participate in a certification program for formaldehyde monitors. Provide the test protocol to interested parties. 2) Produce a test schedule allowing all interested parties adequate time to submit products. 3) Inform all the manufacturers of the program schedule. 4) Put Envirometric's certification on "hold" to be released with the other participant's certifications. Please respond in writing as to SEI's planned actions to rectify this situation. Our continued support of SEI is pending SEI's response. Sincerely, >Si- 111 \ Ron Roberson Corporate Industrial Hygienist RR/tr copy:Gilian Environmental Assay Technology Air Scan GMD 3M 3M 110941 m SEI Certifies 1st Passive Monitor OSHA he first certification for direct reading passive dosimeters was Recognizes SEI Jissued to the Envirometrics Products Company for their ACT Monitoring Card System For Formaldehyde. Verification ?sting was conducted by SHI contract lab, Clayton Environmental Certification onsultants, Inc. Envirometrics passed the SEI quality assurance adit which was conducted by William A. Golomski & Associates. A protocol, which underwent a thorough review by OSHA's rchnical staff in Salt Lake City, is being used as the basis for the new rogram. SEI plans to use this interim standard until a consensus zandard is published by ANSI. The Industrial Safety Equipment .ssociadon has formed a standards group to accomplish this task. SHA maintains a OChemical Information File containing substances encountered by compliance officers in their workplace audits. SEI certified Gas Detector Tubes and Passive Monitors will now Equestrian Safety be listed in this File as a recommended screening device Zantuuitdfrom paft I) Task Group Chair, Dru Malavase's suggestion, SEI is cosponsoring i poster that will reach thousands of equestrian riders. Among oth ers, another sponsor of the poster is the American Medical Equeszrian Association. The poster includes a photo of Christopher Reeve iding his horse, Denver, and includes a quote, "In films I've played in invincible, hero - but in real life, I wouldn't think of riding withjut a helmet" The poster will be distributed nationwide. for OSHA compliance officers. This database is available to the public through the GPO and accessible via the Internet. This recognition by OSHA is a tremendous boost for companies with certified products to gain national exposure. Page 4 1901 N. Moore Street Arlington, VA 22209 Tel: 703/525-3354 Fax: 703/528-2143 inside... Quality, Standards, Testing - Focus at SSI Forum Global Issues in Quality Congressional Fire Services Institute Honors ETL ASSS & VPPPA Conferences to Feature SEI SEI - Your Symbol at Quality in Safety Eouipmext 3M 110942 SAFETY EQUIPMENT INSTITUTE 1901 North Moore Street Arlington, VA 22209 703/525-3354 703/528-2148 Fax June 6, 1995 Mr. Ron Roberson Sensidyne Inc. 16333 Bay Vista Drive Clearwater, FL 34620 Dear Ron: In response to your June 1, 1995 letter I would like to address your statements about SEI's continued professionalism in operating certification programs for safety and protective equipment. SEI's purpose continues to be to assist government agencies along with users and manufacturers of safety and protective equipment in meeting their mutual goals of protecting those who use safety and protective equipment on or of the job, in keeping with recognized standards and the current state of the art, and to recognize, for the convenience of users, those products which are certified to meet applicable standards. In all programs we attempt to provide a fair and equal opportunity to companies interested in participating in SEI certification programs. SEI is a non-profit organization with no interest in providing any company a market advantage. SEI's sole purpose is to test and certify products and to fill a void in the industry because of the lack of a government certification program for safety and protective equipment. We are proud of our accomplishments over the years and the tremendous growth and recognition of SEI's certification programs in general industry, the fire service and by consumers. In May of 1994 we had our first discussion with OSHA personnel about their interest in recognizing SEI certified gas detector tubes and passive monitors. The OSHA staff was already in the process of a review of a modification of the NIOSH protocol for passive monitors, which we thought could be used as the basis for an SEI certification program until a standard was published through ANSI. We were pleased at OSHA's interest and first publicized this exciting news on the cover of the August 1994 edition of SEI's participant newsletter, SET Update. To provide momentum to maintain OSHA's interest in recognizing SEI certified tubes and passive monitors, we decided to inform all SEI gas detector tube participants at a special meeting during the National Safety Congress on October, 25, 1994. With OSHA's level of interest being so strong, we invited two of the top OSHA Salt Lake City officials 3M 110943 to tell SEI participants first hand about their impending recognition of SEI certified products. At that meeting, a draft Interim Protocol for Direct Reading Passive Monitors was distributed to all attendees. Again it was emphasized that such a protocol would be reviewed by OSHA and be utilized by SEI until an ANSI standard was published. With the length of time it takes to develop a standard, utilizing an interim standard would address the short term need to support OSHA. The primary reason for holding the October 25 meeting was to announce the new SEI program, obtain input on the draft protocol and to gauge the level of interest of SEI participants. From our discussions and observations at the meeting, the first company that expressed interest in an immediate certification to the Interim Protocol was Environmetrics, Inc. A preliminary, open meeting was held the same day by the Industrial Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) to discuss the development of an ANSI standard. Those companies ISEA thought to be manufacturers of passive dosimeters were invited to attend the ISEA meeting. OSHA representatives attended that meeting as well to discuss their interests in development of a standard. We made certain all SEI participants were included in the invitation list. While the focus of the meeting was on development of an ISEA/ANSI standard for passive monitors, the new SEI program was discussed and the draft Interim Protocol was distributed. I understand their were five companies that attended that meeting and that Mike Marselli represented Sensidyne. Following the October meeting, Tom Augherton received a ietter from you inquiring about several issues, including audit costs for the passive monitor program. Judith Bailey responded with information available at the time. Over the next few months, OSHA continued their review of the Interim Protocol with SEI's insistence that it be generic so that it could be used for certifying similar passive monitors made by competing manufacturers. Input was also obtained from SEI's testing laboratory, Clayton Environmental Consultants and from a representative of 3M who was unable to attend the October meeting. This information was circulated to OSHA for review with the interim Protocol which received a final review from Robert Curtis and Rick Cee. On December 2,1995 the above information was presented to the SEI Board of Directors, who at that time approved the initiation of a program to certify passive monitors to the interim Protocol for the Evaluation of Direct Reading Passive Monitors. The intent is to utilize this standard until an ANSI standard is published. SEI announced this news on the front cover of the December 1995 issue of SEI Update. At this time SEI requested a fee schedule from Clayton and some time later we were notified by telephone that the fee structure was the same as the gas detector tube program. 2 3M 110944 A subsequent ISEA meeting was held at the OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center on January 26-27, 1995 to finalize a strategy for developing a consensus "standard through ANSI. At that meeting, the final OSHA reviewed interim protocol was distributed and attendees were informed of SEI initiating its certification program. Bob Curtis of OSHA notified attendees of their intent to recognize SEI certified passive monitors after March 1,1995. That meeting was well attended with eleven manufacturers present and Clayton Environmental Consultants was available for any questions about the SEI certification program. We received no indicator of interest from any manufacturer, except Environmetrics Inc. following any of these meetings. When Environmetrics applied for SEI certification, we initiated a certification process for their formaldehyde monitor. Publishing a test schedule for one company and one monitor seemed unnecessary. We sincerely believe there was a miscommunication with Sensidyne. Because of the unresolved cost issues surrounding your continued participation in the gas detector tube and our apparent misunderstanding of your company's dissatisfaction with fee structure, outlined in your February 3,1995 letter, we assumed that Sensidyne was not interested in pursuing another round of testing. We would have been pleased to include any interested company in the initial certification* I am certain that Environmetrics would have appreciated the cost reduction in testing fees. SEI's role in certifying the formaldehyde monitor assisted OSHA who was looking for products independently certified by a third party. With this program, SEI was trying to meet the needs of a government agency, and not any one manufacturer. We are making real progress in improving the management of the gas detector tube program. As always, we would like to accommodate any certification needs that you may have. If there are any passive monitors that you wish to have certified using the interim Protocol, please advise Tom Augherton, Judith Bailey or me. We can solicit other manufacturers to determine if they would like to participate. : In virtually all of SEI's other certification programs, participants submit products for certification at varying times. The unique nature of the gas detector tube program and passive dosimeter program allow for cost reductions through joint testing. Ron, we apologize for the miscommunication, and will make every effort to take that extra step in contacting all companies for future testing, even if there is no perceived interest. Patricia A. Gleason President J 3M 110945 SENSIOYNE INC. G and Particulate Oetection Systems 18333 Say viati Orlva, Ctaarwitar. Florida 34820 300-451-94-44 / Florida 311-530-3602 TELEX 758223 / FAX 313-5380550 June 20,1995 Safety Equipment Institute 1901 North Moore Street Arlington, VA 22209 Attn: Patricia Gleason Dear Ms. Gleason: Thank you for your letter of 6/6/95 responding to my letter of 6/1/95. I have spent the last ten years developing a very good rapport with SE1, and my recent letters of complaint were difficult ones for me to write. I believe your conclusion of miscommunication is a valid one regarding the issue of the seemingly closed passive badge certification for Envirometrics. However, my opinion that SE1 acted unfairly is not changed, and I still believe that SEI should start the certification program over using SEi's protocol developed in the detector tube program. SEi's announcement of the intended badge certification program as stated in the December 1994 newsletter is just that It is an announcement that SEI intends to eventually have a program. There is no start date, no list of intended gases and no invitation for manufacturers to contact SEI for such information, it is simply an announcement that OSHA is interested. I received similar information from Tom Augherton in telephone conversations over the past two years. I was fully aware that SEI intended to certify badges in the future. I was never informed as to when testing would begin. Evidently no other company except Envirometrics was informed either. My company attended the two meetings referenced in your letter. No start date was given at either meeting. The 10/25/95 meeting was simply to solicit interest from manufacturers. SEI gave no indication that the testing was actually about to start The Salt Lake City meeting of 1/26 and 1/27/95 was to initiate the writing of the ISEA/ANSI standard. There was no announcement that SEI would start a program prior to that standard's completion. I attended the Sait Lake City meeting personally and there were no SEI personnel present Bill Emy of ISEA announced that Marshall Parker of Clayton would represent SEI at that meeting. Mr. Parker stated that their lab fees would be similar to the detector tube lab 3M 110946 fees in any program that SEI would produce. But no start date nor. intended test gas was provided. Mr. Parker did not present a report He offered the lab fee information in direct response to my question. Bill Emy stated that 1SEA and SE1 were becoming separate entities, and that SE1 has its own board of directors. He stated that he was not in a position to speak to SEI. He also stated that ISEA was not bound to use SE1 as a certifier, but could use any certifier they choose to use. Bob Curtis of OSHA led the meeting, and he did not announce an SEI program. He did state that certification was not necessary for OSHA. If manufacturers could state that their product meets the ANSI standard requirements, and could provide the data, that was all that was necessary. If you believe that SEI's program was announced at that meeting, you have been misinformed. I also cannot believe that SEI thought Sensidyne/Gastec to be uninterested in a passive monitor program. I relayed our interest to Mr. Augherton in numerous phone calls. 1 wrote a letter to Judith Baiiey dated 9/30/94 with questions on the proposed program. Ms. Bailey answered some of the questions in a letter to me dated 12/1/94. My company spent nearly two thousand dollars to send me to the Salt Lake city meeting, and my name appeared in ISEA's meeting minutes. My letter of 2/3/95 regarding costs was written in an attempt to make both programs affordable to Gastec. How could SEI possibly conclude that we were not interested? All SEI had to do was ask. SEI was the party who knew that the testing was starting. We did not I have been involved in SEI's detector tube program since the initial "gathering interest" stage in 1984. SEI very skillfully handled the task of directing four strong competitors into one program. SEI acted as a "referee" and always made certain that the four companies were on a level playing field. There were many meetings and constant updates to manufacturers by telephone. A test schedule was published, and anyone who wanted to submit a product could do so. SEI's role as referee in this situation is very important to the manufacturers. In my opinion, if SEI no longer acts as referee, then SEI is no longer necessary. If clandestine certifications are allowed, the manufacturer might as well deal directly with the test lab and make his own claims. You seem to be under the impression that SEI's name is an important issue with us. This is not necessarily true. SEI is still virtually unknown to the industrial hygienists. Our customers find out about SEI through our brochure. OSHA came to SEI as a result of a phone conversation I had with Rick Cee in June of 1991. At that time OSHA was conducting its own detector tube testing at the Salt Lake City lab. I told Rick about SEI's program in an attempt to reduce the duplication of effort I gave him SEI's contact information. Prior to that time OSHA had little or no interest in SEI. Rick seemed to be completely unaware or at least uninterested in SEI's program. OSHA was already Sensidyne's customer, and had been since the 1970's when we were still Bendix. OSHA did not start using detector tubes as a result of the SEI program. I see SEI's certification program for detector tubes as a benefit to the end user. I have this opinion because I worked as a field industrial hygienist for ten years. The management at Sensidyne and Gastec sees SEi's detector tube program as a cost of operation. We cannot point to any increased sales that can be attributed to SEi's program. We have remained in the tube program and planned to certify passive monitors, because as the SEI coordinator, I have 3M 110947 always advised Sensidyne and Gastec to participate as a service to end users. However, in light of recant developments with SEI, I am reconsidering this position.' Your letter of 6/6/95 does not address the direct questions I raised on the Envirometrics issue. It also does not address my proposed restart of the program under SEI's normal detector tube protocol. I have to assume that SEI has no intention of putting Envirometrics' formaldehyde certification on hold until others can be certified. If SEI does not intend to provide a level playing field, then 1 see no reason to pursue passive badge certification from SEI. I am not in a position to make the final decision of participation for either Sensidyne or Gastec. However, as the SEI coordinator, I will advise both companies to pursue their own manufacturers' claims for passive badges by dealing directiy with the laboratory. Instead of an SEI certification we would simply state, "Meets the requirements of ANSI Standard XXXX, validation study available upon request" If this is good enough for OSHA, it should be good enough for anyone. As far as I know at this point, our detector tube certifications with SEi will remain unchanged. However, I believe there is a general lack of interest in this program among manufacturers, since we seem to be the lone participant submitting tubes for the new substances. If my proposed internal passive monitor program is accepted and successful, I will encourage a similar program in the future for our detector tubes. I believe such a program would be cost effective. Again, I do not make the final decision on our participation in your passive monitor program. If SEI does eventually issue a test schedule, please copy me. I sincerely hope that SEI endeavors to improve communications with manufacturers in the future. Sincerely, Ron Roberson Corporate Industrial Hygienist 3M 110948