Document p1mpZxRgykL7zGkE4R92OBmk

FILE NAME: Avondale (AVD) DATE: 19 DOC#: AVD DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION:DD^^Z lvilnutes Safety Committee Meeting Shipbuilders Council of America Aoril 2, 1969 f,I ~~!:ni Dr l'":'- J ~ r, i., 1l il!j :;;~ C.l.4 1:.;t1.~1 .. E :..~: -,.it..E... T ?HSiuE.11 T The Safety Corr..mittee of the Council convened at 9:30 A. M. April Z, 1969. Present were: Harry H. Howard (Chairman) Lloyd Beers G. M. Bryan John P. Carey Vernon Duke John F. Fitzgerald David A. Lavalette William F. Metts Harold J. Morgan Lloyd J. Pie cin M. P. Redford Linwood Temple G. P. Walls Bethlehem Steel Corp. Bath Iron Works Corp. Ingalls Shipbuilding Div. / Litton Bath Iron Works Corp. Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. General Dynamics/ Quincy. Newport News SB & DD Co. General Dynamics I Groton Sun Shipbuilding & DD Co. Norfolk Shipbuilding & DD Co. Bath Iron Works Corp. Maryland Shipbuilding & DD Co. Edwin M. Hood, President Edward P. Ruddy, Secretary Shipbuilders Council of America Shipbuilders Council of America While the following statement was made by a member of the Committee later at the meeting it was pertinent to all subjects discussed and, therefore, reported at this point. The member of the Committee stated: "The money involved in the subjects discussed at the 'Accident Prevention Committee' meetings go iar beyond that involved in practically every other committee that is functioning within the Council. There is nothing that is discussed by other groups that really approaches the potential cost to shipyards of America like that involved in the subjects discussed by this Committee." At the invitation of Committee Chairm.an Howard. the President of the Council opened the meeting with brief comment on several items of current interest: PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT SBCA 5016 2 CH}1...'t\'GE OF NAME TO "ACCIDENT PREVENTION COMMITTEE'' Mr. Hood noted that the Council had adopted revised ByLaws which, among other things, made changes in the Council's committee structure including a. reconstitution of the "Safety Corn~ mittee 11 as the ''Accident Prevention Committee.'' This change, subject to Board approval, is to take place in June, Reaction oi the Committee mer.:-i.bers was unanimously favorable with comment by sever al particularly endorsing the elimination of 11 Safety" from the Comrrtlttee name. ASBESTOS FIBER HEAL TH HAZARDS IN SHIPY.ARDS The Committee had before it press clippings which pointed up a potentially st:rious problem involving asbestos fiber health hazards in shipyards. Apparently recent medical studies among asbestos workers of the incidence of asbestosis and a type of lung cancer as socia.ted with exposure to asbestos, had led to rec:ornn1endations that the acceptable "Threshold lirnit11 be reduced from 5 millions of particles per cubic foot to 2 millions. Also, there has been wide publicity of autopsy findings of "asbestos bodies'' in the lungs of a high percentage of the general population. The implication was that asbestos fibers are becoming ar.. important pollutant in the general atmosphere (See attached article from the WASHINGTON POST dated D~cember 4, l 968 ). Mr. Hood reported that a member of the Council's Boar cl a.t its March meeting had stated his opinion that the Federal safety rules and regulations on this subject now being considered or adoption, probably constitute one of the most important areas for Council activity. The Board member had proposed further that the safety and health problem of asbestosis (and also industrial deanes s) might best be dealt with by the Council on an industry-wide basis. In order to be effective the Board member suggested that the Council consider establishment of a highly skilled technical and medical group to cope with these problems. Mr, Hood reported further that the Board had agreed the matter should first be reviewed by the Safety Committee with a view to submitting its recommendations to the Board. Council President Hood noted that David Swankin, Director of the Bureau of Labor Standards, had disclosed an intense interest in the industry's handling of this potentially serious health problem and had pinpointed asbestosis as an area to which he hoped the shipyard industry would direct close attention. His basic thought appeared to be 3 a c:lesi.re that a situation such as the recent ''black lung" controversy in coal mining be avoided. One member oi the Cornm.it-;ee referring to the proposal that this problem be dealt with by the Council on an industry-wide basis by means _of a highly skilled technical ancl medical group suggested that companies haYing these talents among their employees should appoint them to such a group. To get things started, he proposed that a three-man group, including two technical men from the industry and one from the Committee representing the management area be appointed. The three-man group would study the situation anc report back to the Conunittee with its suggestions. However, subsequent discussion dis.closed a lack of clarity as to how serious the oroblem reallv is, and also that some yards already have studies under \Vay to deterrr...ine the situation both from the standpoint of industry use of asbestos and as to the medical picture. Additionally, Labor Depa:-t. rnent industrial hygienists were reported to have approa.chec several shi?yards to cieterrr-.ine what action is being taken by industry. There \Vas mention that Dr. Irving Selikoff named in the WASHINGTON POST article, has also contacted some yards, Dr. Selikoff was reported to be Director of Environmental Medicine at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York and a part of a joint venture. between Mt. Sinai, Johns-Manville Corp, and the International Pipe Coverers and Refrigeration Wol"kers Union. Others mentioned as having an interest included the Inte:rnational Office of Asbestos Workers, Aetna Insurance and the Armstrong Company. A feeling was expressed by several members of the Conunittee that it is unwise .for the yards to refuse access by these interests . In this context, attention of the Committee was drawn to a.n a:::-ticle in the WALL STREET JOURNAL dated March l 7, 1968, which discloses that Hill &. Knowlton, fac., national public relations firm, is now rep:::esenting Johns-Manville Corp. on health problems connected with asbestosis and other diseases workers develop from inhaling asbestos dust. Ensuing discussion convinced the Committee that there are a lot of things going on and that at this time rather than appointing the 1roup of technical people that had been proposed, it would be advisa9le rn first develop further informatioz:i.. _ The consensus w!;.:\!~~~-~rob~ -~~ps~.to need~ close watching with coordi->n,,.a-4t_i-o:--n..-o,,f--t-h--e .a-v-a-i.l.,able information and ..... ..____ .:,rom~t a..ction .....- . .--:r"'ri e-.;,,,,C-.,If om --- m---itt ---ee --- .. agreed that the Council should immediately take develop what is taking plac.e in the various areas, catalog-.ie all of them, and determine where the Council can coordinate and fit into the picture. ' ... 4 As one step the Com.tni.ttee agreed the Council should ask all members to prodde any information they may have such as studies being made, v~sits from reseal"ch groups and so forth. Concern was expressed both as to the asbestos and the hearing problem--that the American Medical Association see~; to be left out. Mention was made that a Dr. Howe. who heads up the Industrial Medicine Division of AMA,--is the p_rope:- person to approach for coordination with that group. Mr. Hood agreed that he would establish liaison with the Hili and Knowlton concern to further develop the activities uncie.iway and that the A..\.1A would be contacted. During the discussion there also was com...--nent that so long as asbestos is used in industry it will present a health prob- '-tt" lem and that at least from the shipyard industry point of view the eventual solution may lie in the use of substitutes. One proposal was that recommendations be made to the Navy, MarAd and the shipowners that asbestos containing products not be specified for vess~el I construction. It was recalled that in sandblasting the safety and health problem had led to substitution of shot blasting and synthetics.: The thought was expressed that there may be a substitute for asbestos. In any event, the use 0 masks was recognized as quite objectionable from a worker efficiency standpoint. Committee discussion indicat~d also that the problem has not a.risen suddenly and that recent publicity has resulted from suggestions for surveys by the labor unions. It was reported that a paper onthe problem is scheduled to be presented at the National Saiety Council meetings in New York on Ap~il 16th. Further, as to whether the asbestos problem is new, it was pointed out that as long ago as 1964 the Council had received a letter from the then Director of the Bureau of Labor Standards, Arthur Motley, listing a number of items of this nature which the Bureau intends will, as a matter of evolution, lead to some regulatory action in the future. Further Committee discussion of various bits and pieces of information led to a recognition that basically a national rather than a single industry problem is involved and that at this point the Council would not be justified in raising a fund to make a study on behalf oi the shipyard industry. 5 The Co:m...--n.ittee recognized that the shipyard employer is at a particula~ disadva...-ri.tage because under present legal principles the last employer is being held responsible for all damage to a worker even though his exposure may have been during previous employ:::i.ent periods. The legal situation appears to be quite like that in the hearing cases. At the conclusion of the Committee discussion. Council President Hood stated he would contact P...ill and Knowlton and inform the Cornmi ttee as to his findings. SA.FETY A.DVISOR Y COM..'!vfITTEE 11...EETING - February 24. 25. 1969 Mr. Ruddy reported that the President of the Council, as il member of the new Safety Advisory Corrunittee to the Bureau oi Labor Standarc:s hac. attended the first day of that group's two-day meeting in late February and that he (Mr. Ruddy) had attended the second day in place of Mr. Hood. He reported that a good part of the material made available to the advisory group at the meeting had been already re- produced and distributed to the Councill s Committee and that he would continue this procedure to keep the Com.."11.ittee irdormed as to the activities of the Advisory Committee. Mr. Ruddy reported that one i..tnportant recent outgrowth of the general industry expanding dialogue on safety matters has been an interest by the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, the N.A... and similar na tional business groups in the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers Compensation Act. One re!lection of general industry concern with this law is seen in the scheduling by the National Association of Manufacturers of a symposiu..-n for high level policy makers on the pending Burton Bill which proposes to increase the benefits under that Act from $70 to $105 per week. The }JA_\i symposium is scheduled for late April and Mr. Ruddy promised to report back to the Com.rrrittee in due course as to the outcome of the discussions. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DATA SHEET The Corn.:m.ittee was informed tha.t this !inal regulation is expected to be issued by the Bureau of Labor Standards in a matter of days and when available copies 'Will go to the Conunittee members and all yards. While the final text has not been disclosed to industry, it is expected that the regulat:on and the data sheet will follow the format agreed to by the Council's Safety Committee some time ago. The members of the Committee agreed that it would be useful ii a stanc.ard form of transmittal letter is developed for use by the yards in fo=warding the data sheet to their suppliers. Mr. Ruddy i.11dicated he would 6 coorc.inate such a developmental effort ii Counsel for the Shipbuilders Council agreed that this is a proper activity. HAXDL~G OF POTEXTIALT Y EXPLOSIVE SHIPS BY U. S. REP_AIR. Y_A..RDS The Com...T.itte e had before it a request by the Council's Board that it review the ship repair industry's overall policy as to handling vessels that are in a potentially explosive condition whether due to their not being gas freed or because of other factors. The basic thought which prompted the Board to direct this review was that if yards contL"1.ued to handle these tankers it would be only 2 matter of time before a major catastrophe occurred with loss of life and property both in the shipyard and emriorns The Com.rr.Jttee was informed that at its meeting on March 5 members of the Board had indicated their agreement with the principle that no vessel should be handled in a ship repair yard until it has been gas freed or otherwise rendered safe, and that it was the apparent sense of the Board that this matter should be reviewed by the Council to deterrrJ.ne what should be done to eliminate potential dangers~ As a first step, the Board had agreed that the Safety Committee should consider the problem at its meeting April 2, 1969, and submit its rec::on-.rn.endations to the Board. Subsequent to the Board meeting the President of the Council received a con:irming letter on the subject which states, in part: '' As you can appreciate, the cost and time involved in gas freeing a tanker can be an important cost factor to a ship operator, and as a consequence, this question of gas freeing becomes a part of the competi tive atmosphere surrounding the procurement of ship repair work. As I indicated a.t the Directors Meeting, it is not in our mutual best interests to inject safety considerations of this type into the competitive arena and you will recall I proposed to make our position clear, on an individual company basis, to the Coast Guard and the Department of Labor. Prior to taking this action and as a result of the discussions a.nd assurances that the Council would consider this matter in some depth and take reasonable prompt action, I agreed to defer my approach to the governmental authorities on this subject.'' ., <> I / 1'1 am not unaware that the most euective action could probably be taken on an industry wide basis by the Shipbuilders Council, and I heartily encior s e the ?Urpos e which such action is intended to achieve. However, as you realize, this matter nas been con- sidere.d for several "years and no action has been forthcoming. "1 would appreciate your early adv-ice as to a program the Council might propose that would effectively solve this problem. '' Mr. Ruddy recalled that in I 96 3 a special Ad Hoc Comn.ittee of the Council haci been appointed to develop guidelines for deliberation witr. the National Fire Protection Association in the formulation of revised regulations dealing with the handling of non gas-freed vessels in ship repair yards. At that time the problem stemmed from various legal problems which had arisen out of the MISSION SAN FRANCISCO episode - a tanker which had collided in the Delaware River with another vessel and the ensuing explosion and fire had almost destroyed the tanker and there were numerous crew deaths and injury. Legal opinion at tha.t time indicated that shipyards could be fully responsible for any catastrophic incident resulting from the presence of an ''explosive vessel" in a shipyard. The 1963 Ad Hoc Committee had considered a proposal that NFPA Code 306 "Standard for the Control of Gas Hazards on Vessels to be Repaired" Section 4, should be amended to g:-eatly restrict the handling of these tankers by ship repair yards. Committee discussion highlighted a number of things to consider if further restructions are imposed on the shipyards, including: (1) Importance of the work to the industry (2} Damage to customer relationships (3) Imposition of additional restrictions on yard management (4) IInpact depending upon a yard's geographical location (5) Prospects of shore shops acquiring work now done by integrated yards. 8 As to the geographical problem it was explained that, if a tanker in a northeast United States po~t is found to require repair yard senice, but the :r...a.nagement of a yard refuses to ace ept the tanker unless it is gas-freed, the vessel will probably leave the port anc clean at sea while enroute back to the Gulf so that when it arrh-es at the Gulf it can enter a ship repair facility in clean condition. It was reported that diHe:-ences of opinion had developed on this question and in order to determine what position should be taken by the Shipbuilders Council, a survey had been rr...ade 0 all members. At that time the outcome based on volume of tanke:: work was about 10 to one against further restrictions. After discussion, the Com.mittee agreed that as a first step a survey somewhat along the lines of that in 19 63 should be made to deterrr..ine the present position of the individual members of the Council on this important question. Bu"REAU OF LABOR ST&~DARDS A.DMTh'ISTRATION' OF SAFETY REGULATIONS The Committee entered into a round robin discussion of recent experiences with administration of the safety and health regulations by the Bureau of Labor Standards with particular emphasis on inspection procedures and instances of legal action. Overall corr..ment ir.cicated a hardening of attitude among the member yards. There was agreement that it is of prime importance that in all cases shipyard legal counsel should be called in very early when problems arise. There is some disenchantment with the procedures which are being described by the Government as 1'inforrr..al. 11 In one case it was recounted tbat the so- called inform.al hearing actually turned out to be a full dress legal proceeding. Based on the discussion, it was the sense of the Committee that if possible an informal conference should be set up with Bureau of Labor Standards Director David Swank.in, so that the yards could ciisc-uss these problems with him without his !';ta.ff being present. The members of the Committee also agreed to subn-.i.t by letter to the President of the Council any problems that may arise in the interpretation or admini::ltration o! sped:fic regulations so that they can be taken up with the Bureau rather than waiting for the Bureau to come up with its own revisions to the regulations. ,, 9 E).1.PLOYEFS' COMPE~SATlON COMMISSION ..A..DY.:..l~ISTRATIOX OF COMPENSATION ACT The members oi the Com..--rtlttee were tl!l.anirnous that a ma_ior facto:- in the large increase that has taken place in Wo:-kznen I s Compensation L.-i.surance premiums is due to the arbitrary powers which reside in the Deputy Comm.issw:ner. One member oi the Com- mittee suggested that perhaps in place o:f the Deputy Conunissione::, by a hearing board ought to be established. Others pointed out that the cost increase is due in large measure to averaging insurance compa.."lies with arbitrary premium and award determinations. Based on the discussion, it was agreed that this matter should be referred to the Legal Committee o: the Council to de~ermine what might be done to change Section 21 of the Longshoremen's and Harbor '\Vorkers Compensation Act so as to improve claL--n.s administ:-ation. The thought was expressed that when the Congressional Corn.mit!ees schedule hearings on the pending legislation to amend the Longshoremen 1s a...--id Harbor Workers Compensation Act this oa.tter should be brought to their attention and a specific proposal made on behalf of the shipya.:-d industry, ii the Legal Com...'nittee so determines. WALSH-HEALEY SAFETY REGULATIONS The Co:m..."nittee was informed that revised Walsh-Healey Public: Contracts Act Saiety and Health Standards originally scheduled to become e::'.fective February 17, 1969 had been delayed for a period 0 9 0 days as a result of urgent requests by industry associations for their review by the Nixon Administration. A letter interposing objections to a number of new provisions on which industry had not had an opportu..TJ..ity to comment and strongly requesting such a. delay was submitted by the Council to Secretary Schultz. Among new problem areas in the regulations are, of course, the sections dealing with noise levels and asbestos threshold levels. The Committee agreed that the Council should a.gain _distribute the January 17, 1969 revision along with a copy of the exis~ng regulation and the two position letters previously submitted to the Labor Department with a request that Members submit additional com..""nent. The Committee agreed that as a minimum, the Secretary of Labor should be asked to further delay issuance of the regulation insofar as the hearing probleo :::_nd asbestos is concerned. The Comrr...ittee was in agreement that the sripyard industry will have most serious problems of compliance unless sor:ie change is m.ade in the standards as now pending. "' - 10 One major subject being currently dis cussed vdthL"'l the Department of Labor and which has been taken up with industry and labor on the agenda of the Acl\-isory Cornrr.Jttee, is a proposal for a Star.ciard L"nifar:n State Safety Law. lvJ:r. Ruddy reportec: that the S?eci::.c pro?osal for a uniform act before the Advisory Cozr..-. nittee had been reprocuced and forwarded to the Com.._-nittee for their review. After brief discussion, it was decided that all legislation dealing with the Federal and State Workmen's Compensation an2 Safety laws incluc.ing the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act are r:1atte:-s that can best be handled by the Legal Committee and that the Secretary of the Council .;hould take whatever action .may be required to bring these matters to the attentior. of that Conunittee. There was agreement that the Council should testify before the Congress against the increases in the level of benefits being proposed in the Burton Bill, HR-6949. GEAR CERTIFICATION Mr. Ruddy reported that no comment had been received from members of the Committee on the Bureau of Labor Standards regulation, Part 1505, GeaT Certification, published in the FEDERAL REGISTER, March 4, 1969 and forwarded to the members of the Committee for final coIT..-.-nent on March 12th. The assumption is that from the viewpoint of the shipyards, this regulation is acceptable. There was some discussion as to whether shoreside cranes now require certification. No action was taken. ADJOURN'1vfENT The meeting adjourned at 3~00 P. M. Edward P. Ruddy Secretary