Document rxZLebOQwkw10GdvgLQKrEyov

<' 303-837-3068 W U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE OF THE SOLICIT R X5019 16444 Ftdaral Office BuHdinf Denver, Colorado 80202 February 20, 1974 NOTE: THIS 0or-,,, -- Steve Wodka Legislative Aide N0T C0ME FROM PPG Files Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union 1126 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20036 ------I.'^TJ Re: Brennan v. Amoco Oil Company OSHRC Docket No. 4804 Dear Mr. Wodka: Per your request, enclosed are copies of the Citation, Notification of Proposed Penalty, Complaint and Answer. Sincerely, Henry C. Mahlman Associate Regional Solicitor _rt BB 0024536 | *43 Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union ANTHONY MAZZOCCHI, OIRECTOR CITIZENSHIP-LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT 6 1126 - tTH STREET, N. W. WASHINGTON. D. C. 20QU PHONE: XXXSl 223-5770 CERTIFIED MAIL-----R.R.R. May 3, 1974 Judge James Cronin Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Federal Building, Room 2E2 15000 Aviation Blvd. NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT DID Lawndale, Calif. 90260 NOT COME FROM PPG FILES Re: Secretary of Labor v. Amoco Oil Company OSHRC Docket No. 4804 Dear Judge Cronin: Enclosed please find a Summary Brief that we have prepared in the above-captioned case. We have sought to summarize the evidence which sustains the citation. We have also brought to bear pertinent legal arguments and the recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision on the asbbstos standard. Th re is one correction that I would like to make in the transcript. On page 89, lines 15-^16, the word ''mechanical" should be ''medical." As we have been represented in this matter by a non-lawyer thus far and as this brief has been prepared by a non-lawyer, we appreciate the Commission's cooperation. Respectfully submitted BB 0024537 | Steven Wodka Legislative Assistant cc: Via Certified Mail, R.R.R. with enclosed Summery Brief Jerry Gross Standard Oil Co. (Indiana) P.0. Box 5910A 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, Illinois 60680 Henry C. Mahlman Associate Regional Solicitor 15444 Federal Office Building 1961 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Att. : Ronald Whiting TX*, ^ * . . % --r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION SECRETARY OF LABOR v AMOCO OIL COMPANY Complainant Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, ) ) ) Authorized Emoloyee ) Representative ) /. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 4804 SUMMARY AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVE Testimony at the trial has shown that the employer exposed his employees to asbestos (Tr. p. 47,65); that the employer failed to inform persons laundering asbestos contaminated clothing of the requirement to prevent the release of airborne asbestos fibers in excess of exposure limits (Tr. p. 48-9, 71, 75); that the.employer failed to have asbestos contaminated clothing transported in sealed impermeable bags and labelled to indicate contents (Tr. p. 49, 71, 75); that the employer failed to establish a monitoring program including personal and environmental monitoring (Tr. p. 17, 98); that the employer failed to provide and display caution signs (Tr. p. 12); that the employer .failed to maintain external surfaces free of accumulation of asbestos fibers (Tr. p. 12, 13); and that the employer failed to provide chest x-rays and a history as part of a medical examination on or before January 31, 1973 for employees exposed to asbestos (Tr. p. 18, 72, 76-7). | BB 0024538 | - 2- One of the points raised during the trial was that the Respondent had not found it necessary to monitor asbestos exposure at the Casper refinery because monitoring at other % similar installations of the Respondent had not indicated excessive exposure (Tr. p. 98-9). The Respondent then proceeded to seek approval for its decision by contacting the OSHA National Office and the Area Office in Indianapolis (Tr. p. 110-1). This procedure, to say the least, was highly informal and denied employees of their rights. On the contrary, as the Respondent felt that the monitoring requirement was not not necessary at the Casper re finery, then he should have requested a variance from the standard for the Casper refinery. The variance procedure is provided under Section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. This is the proper procedure that the Respondent^mild.h^|^i^i^(|^^^aa^e evidence that he attempted to do so. NOT COME FROM PPG FILES Since the trial, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Industrial Union Department. AFL-CIO et al. v. Hodgson (No. 72-1713) reviewed the OSHA i* asbestos standard and issued a decision with some relevant interpretations for th case before us. (The Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union is an affiliate of the s Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO.) The Court recognized the importance of monitoring: The monitoring provisions are especially important because the results of that process often determine when and what protective measures are required. (p. 27) ' The Court went on to indicate that initial monitoring is not adequate: In light of these factors, satisfactory results in the initial monitoring would not necessarily justify a conclusion that concentrations in ex cess of the limits could not be foreseen, (p. 28) Therefore the Respondent's'failure to monitor at the Casper refinery contradicted this Court's ruling. _____________ ___ | BB 0024539*7 J*' 4 -3- The second point raised during the trial was the applicability of various provisions of the asbestos standard where concentrations of asbestos fibers in excess of the standard i have not been detected. The Complainant argued that these provisions were applicable, nonetheless, as they were "precautionary" in nature. This interpretation has since been supported by the U. S. Court of Appeals in the aforementioned case. The Court wrote: Whether monitoring detects impermissible concentrations of asbestos dust in a particular workplace may depend upon when and how the sample is taken. The danger that hazardous con i'.. ditions will consequently exist undetected and unremedied can f be reduced by requiring that certain objective control measures be employed as well.... For these reasons, we do not construe the methods of com pliance provisions as being applicable only in those instances ... . . in which a violation has already been detected, (p. 31) Therefore those contested items of the citation are required to be adhered to where employees are exposed to any concentration of asbestos dust. We therefore seek a ruling from the Commission denying the Respondent's Contest in all respects and an order from the Commission that abatement begin at once. 4 Respectfully submitted, Anthony Mazzocchi, Director Citizenship-Legislative Department Steven Wodka, Legislative Assistant NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT DID NOT COME FROM PPG FILES 1_BB^0024540 J