Document pmewbGXwMyMNg417Xqxm4Yq0D
James W. Hammond presentation for Humble Safety Meeting November 18, 1969
LIVING T.iTil W/iLSH-HEALEY AND SIMILAR FEDERAL OCCiJPA'l TONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
Because history is the rope of the past with which
we ring the bells of the future, a few actual examples from
Humble's past experience will serve to illustrate how we plan
to live with future federal occupational regulations and
standards. Mr. A. H. Diserens will explain how Humble meets
the Federal Supply Contract Regulations (W.H. Act) governing
noise. We will leave that important field to him for discussion.
A development of interest because it indicates the
trend in our fields, a task force from HEW is developing
pi'iorities for occupational air standards. Federal agencies
like the Bureau of Labor Standards and HEW plan to use these
criteria to set workroom standards, such as TLV on a firmer
foundation than these have now.
Early findings from a preliminary survey of industrial
plants in the Chicago region and by projection to the national
scale gave the following list the top ten hazardous substances
and agents:
TABLE 1
Carbon monoxide
Pitch and tar
Lead
Mercury
Silica (free Si02>
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Noise
Benzene
Heat stress
002311
For your information and files, a full list of about 180 priorities, as established by HEW, is appended to this paper.
Benzene is a good example of a commonly known toxic substance on the HEW list. It has been given threshold limit value (TLV) of 25 ppm by AGGIH. These TLV's have been adopted by reference in the Walsh-Healey Regulations.
For many years Humble has monitored work conditions for potential benzene exposures by both air determinations and by measuring employees' actual work exposure. This is done by determination of urinary phenol which is the common metabolite of absorbed benzene. It may gain entrance by either inhalation or/and skin absorption. These tests are started at or before the employees' work exposure begins, Table 2. For the start-up period or until operations have been stabilized, phenol levels should be measured frequently. After conditions are normal, monthly measurements are usually adequate and less sampling may usually be scheduled for a regular schedule.
Table 3 shows our experience with a group of employees loading a tanker. This would be similar to a unit start-up. We don't believe this type of control program can be effectively carried out by drop-in types of inspections of a plant. Only actual and frequent determinations of actual exposures are meaningful for evaluation here. Therefore, only an internal
2*
00231^
18-0000892
because there are too many pressing unsolved problems. I urge that enforcement groups, in the administration of regulations which we have or may yet obtain, approach the field of environ mental health thus: 1. Industry should be shown the courtesy of proof that a
potential problem exists and that there are feasible means of controlling a hazard: particularly where the cost of correction is sizable. Any attempt at a forced change in a method or process that has no bearing on the actual health of the employees is a serious infringement on industry's rights to meet the public needs at a competitive cost. 2. Unreasonable criteria and subsequent standards will adversely affect our economy, labor relations and unjustifiable claims in compensation cases. 3. Only the objective viewpoint should be taken. 4. The goal should be prevention of injury and occupational diseases.
Our governmental agencies and industry alike must live together in an atmosphere of harmony and mutual desire to work together in the field of occupational health toward the same ends.
JWH:1m 11-12-69
4.
002314
18-0000894
program can show the full and true conditions regarding a very serious potential health hazard.
A few years ago two crafts in one of the main shops became grieved with each other over the failure of one to use its available exhaust control devices effectively. To referee the question of whether or not there was health risk associated with the fumes involved, in addition to evaluating the complaint of dirt in the shop, our own industrial hygiene team surveyed the air and other pertinent factors. The complaints persisted on report of negative findings so, on the workers' suggestion, we invited the Industrial Health section of the State Depart ment of Health to evaluate the question. The crafts accepted their answer, which confirmed our earlier findings, and there have been fewer complaints for the past 15 years.
The final example is shown in Chart 2, It represents a 20-year period of success in the control of lead exposure among an average of 100 painters. The year prior to the initiation of an industrial hygiene program, there were 3 lead poison cases. There has not been a single case in over 20 years.
In conclusion, I should like to stress to you forcefully, both the serious trends in government regulations and the complex or subtle technical state in which industrial hygiene finds itself practicing today. We have moved forward in our field of science, but we surely need no hindrance to further progress,
3.
002313
18-0000893
TABLE
18-0000896
r~
"5T
1--4
^a*
oo
<5r
o
<1 O r-- r--< CO uf\ CO
LO ON
CVJ co CO
OO
oo
c: CD
vO oo O o o CO'' O' oo o
<c
CD
JZ Q-
<4w <
vd csl O o CO 0-1 --c co 1--< 1--1
r-J lO CNJ
O C L_CD CD
vO f--H VO ON NO l"--1 LA O' o
vd LP\ oo' vd
*=d O r--4 vd
oCO CD i--( CNJ
DaC_>
D_
>-
CsZ
<
_
_o
"to "o3
CsL
CCDm L O CD
CD
i-- CD
+-->
CD f--'
S. O
o
+O-< o
-*--
C/5 *C
J=3
C
CO
!T--
o CD o- Ol
CD Q.
CD Q-
CL. E d
CD 9c/>
<D CD C/5
CD CD
O
=3 C Z
O Q_ D- Cl. o_ Q_ --
UZ
6.
00231o
TABLE
18-0000895
c: o
CO
4s--_' E
c a>
eexx
o
c
o
o
CD CD o C_3 -- CO CO l_ L_
Z 1-- 1--
oo
rU---N<
1
OO
LT\ CNi
O
O
M
O
CD vO
N
<
C
I--
2LoJ C "E
O
oS
o Q
co
Q_
C03
r-,
g >
LO s,
cp
xe
o
^
*" V) ^
-- CO Cl. o
CO
xoooe
*E<
U_!
N
LU
CQ
i OO
o o
-Li
3 as O
5 M a,
c
GO _0
5 *E IS
-o c
c: o COO O
C
Q
co
^
co Jr
>'-DCO
-jt--z-
CaO>
--1--
_CD
--c
13 T3 cp.E
<n .E
o *-
E
03
S
S
"ra
05 =
!-
CO
C
-- CO
xOe
O
5 -CtcZ
SQ
CO
O CD -- o
IQ> ZD CNI
o E
orooo O
O O CD
r--4
oro--i
Coo1--NJ1
oCNJ Cp--O<
oUN oi--ni
U*=NoUi--N1
Lf--A4 vr--Ol
oo --4
\0 o p--H
5.
002316
CHART 2
*
18-0000897
7. 00231?
APPEKD7X
June 26, 1969
Priorities for Criteria for Hazardous Agents*
Aver* Batins (14) 7 ( 4) 7
(16) 7 (12) 7
(11) 7 (11) 6 (16) 7
BOSH Prlorj ty
Agent___________
Action
9 1 Carbon monoxide Work- began 6/25/69
9 1 Coal dust
Interim std. 12/15/6
9 1 Noise (Cont.i Inter)
8 1 Benzene
'
8 1 Carbon tetraohloride
8 1 Heat stress
8 1 Lead & tfpds.
Note: Final priorities grouped according to the following:
1. Includes BOSH priorities 9 and 8 and the highest averages of 7 and 6 ratings*
2* BOSH 8 and 7 and highest averages of 7, 6 and5 ratings.
3* BOSK 6 and highest averages of 6 and 5 ratings (exoept for gasoline).
4. BOSH 7 and 6 and 5 and 4 average ratings.
5. BOSH 6 and 4, 3, or no average ratings.
6. No BOSH rating from 9-6 but 7, 6 and 5 average ratings (12 substanoes).
'n002313
13-0000898
2
Aver. Ratine; BOSH Prioritv
Accent
('8)6
8
1
Pet. Naphtha & Kin.
Spts.
(15)7
8
1
Silioa (oryst. 3c miso.)
( 6)6
8
1
Oil mists
Action
(11)5 ( 3)6 ( 8)5 (11)7 ( 5)6 ( 5)5 ( 8)6 ( 6)5 ( 5)7 ( 9)5 ( 6)5 ( 5)6 ( 8)5 ( 9)5 ( 6)5 ( 8)7
7 7 7 7 7. 7 7 7 7 7 8 7 7 7 8 7
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Asbestos
Interim std.
Asphalt
Ammonia
Cadmium & opds.
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chromium cpds.
Ethylene diohloride
Epoxy resins
Fluorides & HF
Kerosene
Methylene ohlorlde
Nitric aoid
Nitrogen oxides
Phosgene
Pitch & coal tar vol.
. 8/1/.
002313
18-0000899
-3-
Aver. Rating EOSH Priority
Agent
( 8)5
8
2
Sulfurio aoid
( 9)5
7
2
Sodiuia hydroxide
(12)5
7
2
Tetraohloroethylene
( 2)6
7
2
Tin and opds.
( 9)5
7
2
Triehioroethane
{12)6 ' 7 2 Toluene
(12)6 ( 7)6 (12)6
7 7
2 s Toluene diisocyanate 2 s MSI
2 Triohloroethylene
( 5)6
7
2
Ultraviolet
( 8)5
6
3
Acetone
( 3)6
6
3
Aorolein
( 3)5
6
3
Aniline
( 5)6
6
3
Carbon disulfide
(10)5
6
3
Chlorine
( 8)5
6
3
Chromio aoid
( 8)5
6
3
Copper St opds.
(10)5
6
3
Cyanides
( 7)5
6
3
Fibreglas
Aotion
002320
18-0000900
-4-
Aver* Bating BOSH Prior3 ty
Aprent
( 9)6
6
3 Formaldehyde
( 7)4
8
3 Gasoline
( 6)5
6
3 Hydrogen sulfide
(11)5
6
3 Iron & opds.
( 6)6
6
3 Manganese & opds.
(12)6
6
3 Mercury
(10)6
6
3 Methylethyl ketone
( 8)5
6
3 Ozone
( 4)6
6
3 Phenol
( 2)6
6
3 Platinum & opds.
( 2)6
6
3 Tetraethyl lead
( 6)6
6
3 Styrene
( 5)5
6
Vinyl ohloride
(12)5
6
3 Zinc & opds.
( 5)4
6
4 Aluminum & opds.
( 3)5
7
4 Creosote
- 7 4 2,4 Dinitropnenol
( 8)4
7
4 Niokel & opds
( 5)4
7
4 Phosphorous & opds
( 3)5
6
4 Methyl ohloride
(4 )5
6
4 Tetraohloroethane
Action
002321
18-0000901
-5 -
Aver. Rating BOSH Priority
Asent
- 6 5 Acrylonitrile
- 6 5 Ammonium nitrate
- 6 5 Cold
(2)4
6
5
Dloxane
(4)4
6
5
Ethyl beneene
(4)4
6
5
Fluorine?
(8)4
6
5
Magnesium cpds.
(9)4
6
5
Methyl alcohol
(8)3
6
5 ' Microwaves
(3)4
6
5
Nitroglycerine
- 6 5 Paraffin
(4)4
6
5
Ph osphine
(4)4
6
5
Uranium
(8)5
-
6
Arsenic
(5)6
-
6
Arsine
(11)6
-
6
Beryllium
( 5)5 - 6 Cresol
( 7)6
-
6
Hydrogen chloride
( 7)6
-
6
MDI
( 4)6
-
6
Methyl butyl ketone
( 6)7
-
6
Portland oement
Action
002322
18-0000902
-6-
Aver. Batin?1; BOSH Priority
(7)5 (5)7 (5)5 (11)6
6 6 6 6
Ap;ent Selenium & cpds. Talc Turpentine Xylene
Action
Note: Inseotiaides, both organic phosphates and chlorinated hydrocarbons, would fall in Class (1), our highest priority ( (7)6-9). However, these were not inoluded in our list beoause CDC has the responsibility in this area.
fr'jr /?' A.D.Hosey
C-
002323
18-0000903