Document x803490vpVJ3pM3wy69R34JE

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER A weekly review of occupational safety and health developments " : ( Volume 10, Number 10 THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. August 7, 1980 HIGHLIGHTS OF CURRENT REPORT A PROVISION TO EXEMPT small businesses with better than average lost workday rates from routine safety inspections is approved by the Senate. The provision, attached to a bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. would exempt businesses having 10 or fewer employees and a lost workday case rate less than the national average, except for situations in volving fatalities and other specified cir cumstances. House action is expected on the bill following the August recess (p. 261). THE APPROPRIATIONS BILL for the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services clears House subcommittee markup, but an embargo is placed on the proceedings pending full committee action. Reportedly, the subcom mittee agrees to remove restrictions on Oc cupational Safety and Health Administration safety inspection authority imposed under the fiscal 1980 funding measure (p. 261). A SLOWDOWN IN ISSUANCE of standards may result from the Supreme Court benzene rul ing. though the standards-setting process will not be halted, OSHA Health Standards Director Bailus Walker tells an environmental health meeting. Irving Selikoff, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, tells the meeting that the Court should not be faulted for refusing to uphold the standard, because occupational medicine "simply foisted its own statistical uncertainties on the courts" <p. 263). THE SUPREME COURT is asked by the Secretary of Labor to deny petitions for review of an appellate court decision that upheld the validi ty of the workplace cotton dust standard. The issues on which two of the petitions focus -- the meaning of feasibility as used in OSHA's enabling statute and the question of costs and benefits -- are presented in two coke oven standard cases already granted certiorari by the Court, the Secretary argues (p. 264). BRAIN CANCER CASES found at a Dow Chemical Company petrochemical plant in Texas will be examined in closer detail by medical in vestigators from OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and a more general study of overall cancer incidence at the plant will be made as well. Dow disputes any claims of a "cancer epidemic'' at the facility, saying results of current Dow studies show "no increased risk to employees,*' but Texas Representative Bob Eckhardt says he will hold an REFERRAL INSPECTIONS conducted by member agencies of the Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group will be reexamined by an IRLG subgroup in light of public comments questioning the legal basis for such investigations. Under the program, inspectors for one agency are directed to refer possible violations of other agencies' standards to the other agencies, using guidelines set forth in an IRLG manual (p. 264) . . . Text of excerpts from the manual involving conditions to be referred to OSHA (p. 279). investigation and possibly introduce legislation to help OSHA in regulating hazardous environments (p. 262). A HEALTH HAZARD ALERT on benzidinebased dyes is given strong support by the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, in response to strong objections by in THE RECORDS ACCESS RULE issued by OSHA is "plainly unlawful" because the agency failed to meet requirements of significant risk set dustry to the alert. The union terms the bulletin "the very least that can be done to improve the safety and health of textile workers'' (p. 265) by the Supreme Court in the benzene decision, the S' Louisiana Chemical Association asserts in challenging the access regulation in the U.S. CALIFORNIA PLAN SUPPLEMENTS in volving health centers and a computer data base District Court for the Western District of- on hazards are approved by OSHA (p. 265) Louisiana (p. 263). Text of OSHA notice of approval (p. 281 > Soctton 1 Copyright * I960 by Th 8uf*u of Notional Aftor*. Inc 009$ 323?'90 S00 50 Hcd 000 013819 260 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER In this issue < . . TOPICAL SUMMARY APPROPRIATIONS OSHA bill clears subcommittee ............................... 261 CALIFORNIA Cal OSHA reports increase in inspections ............ 270 OSHA approves health centers, hazard data base .. 266 Standards board revises firefighter protection rules .. 270 CERTIFICATION Sole NIOSH authority for testing supported ............ 266 ENFORCEMENT Legality of referrals being evaluated ....................... 264 OSHA refers fatality case to Justice Department .. 266 FEDERAL AGENCIES FACOSH urges October 1 deadline for compli ance ............................................................................. 267 FULL TEXT Announcement of approval for California supplements 281 Excerpts from interagency referral manual .......... 279 GENERAL POLICY Marshall attacks Republican plank ........................... 267 HEALTH HAZARDS Congress asked to support dyes alert ...................... 265 IRLG cites substances for coordinated rulemak ing .............................................................................. 269 Plans set for study of brain cancers ........................ 262 Slowdown in standards seen from Supreme Court ruling .......................................................................... 263 JOURNAL Brief coverage of coming events .............................. 262 LEGISLATION Senate approves small business exemption .............. 261 LITIGATION Access rule does not meet Supreme Court test, group says ................................................................ 263 High Court asked to deny review of cotton dust decision ...................................................................... 264 OREGON Enforcement, compliance continue decline, report says ............................................................................ 271 PUBLICATIONS Arts, crafts health hazards treated ........................ 272 Investigation summaries, publications list availa ble ............................................................................... 271 Laser volume takes interdisciplinary perspective .. 272 NIOSH studies on dyestuffs, cataracts available ... 271 Pamphlet describes hot environment hazards ........ 272 Revised `All About OSHA' describes provisions .... 272 RESEARCH Study section renewal announced .............................. 270 RESPIRATORS International workshop to be held by NIOSH ......... 269 REVIEW COMMISSION Weekly report of commission activity ..................... 273 TRAINING Labor Department awards $3.5 million in grants .. 267 WASHINGTON Compliance inspections increase .............................. 270 This issue of Occupational Safety & Health Reporter con sists of two sections: Section 1. Current Report, and Section 3. Decisions OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER Published at Washington. D C., every Thursday except the vear-end issue by Tne Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037. Telephone: 452-4200 (Area Code 2021 William A Beltz. Editor in Chief Stanley E Degler. Executive Edttor Patricia R. Westlein, Associate Editor BOARD OF EDITORS Managing Editor: Michael H. Blake. Jr. Assistant Managing Editor: Stanley Pond Melanie M. Aclander Fred Blosser Larry E. Evans John Herzfeld Anne Kohut Rose Lally-Knowles Michael M. McCann Mary M Miller Kathryn J Scott Robert Strain Glenn Totten Debra M. Waugh Mary Wheeler Senior Legal Editor: Stanley J. Gilbert Senior Scientific Editor: Girard L. Ordwiy AiTimi ChH'.f /tides Editor Judith Springberg Emil Toth: Editor First year subscription rate (payable in advance) $327. renewal $316 per year. Correspondence concerning editorial content should be directed to die managing editor. Second Class postage paid at Washington. D.C.. and at ad ditional mailing offices. The code at the bottom of some pages of this report in dicates that copies of the pages for use beyond that permitted by Sections 107 and 106 of the new U.S. Copyright Act may be made uponpeyment of a 50-cent per page copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., P.O. Bos 765, Schenectady, N Y 12301, or directly to The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Code: ISSN 0095-3237 Copyright * I960 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All rights reserved fay the copyright omm. Printed in UJ.A. S-7-80 mod 000C13820 Occupol'onol Safely & Heai'b Raporte' 00M 323740400 SO 261 Current Report Legislation SENATE APPROVES PROVISION TO EXEMPT SOME SMALL FIRMS FROM SAFETY VISITS The Senate July 29 approved a proposed amendment to the Occupational Safety and Health Act that generally would ex empt small businesses with better than average lost work day rates from routine Occupational Safety and Health Ad ministration safety inspections. This provision, attached to a bill (HR 3904) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, drew sharp criticism from the Carter Administration, as did another amendment to transfer jurisdiction over stone, sand, and gravel surface mining operations from the Mine Safety and Health Administration to OSHA. At a July 30 press conference Labor Secretary Ray Marshal! expressed "deep concern" over the amendments, asserting, "These actions should serve as a warning to American workers that the rights they have fought for dur ing the past 50 years are in great jeopardy." Marshall said the nongermane measures added to the ERISA bill "establish dangerous precedents." The Carter Administration "will not sit idly by and permit the antiworker forces in this country to weaken workplace stand ards which we deem essential for the protection of the American worker." be asserted. The OSHA amendment, offered by Senator David Boren (D-Okla). passed by a vote of 48 to 36 after a motion to table failed by a vote of 53 to 36. The Boren amendment differs slightly from the restriction under which OSHA currently operates pursuant to a con tinuing resolution for the present fiscal year. OSHA now is restricted from routine safety inspections of small businesses with 10 or fewer employees and an occupational illness and injury incidence rate of less than seven per 100 employees as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Current Report. November 12. 1676, p. 587). The Boren amendment shifts the criteria to lost workday rates. Exempted would be firms employing 10 or fewer workers that are in industrial categories having a lost work day case rate less than the national average of four worker injuries per 100 workers The senator said this change would bring the law into line with OSHA policy, which he said does not target for inspection any business with a rate of less than four per 100. Boren said the net effect of his amendment would be to bring an additional one million small companies under the ex emption adopted a year ago. The total of small businesses exempted from scheduled inspections would be about 2.5 million, he added. Boren explained that his amendment retains the current provisions to the small business exemption allowing the Secretary of Labor to investigate on his own motion in cases of suspected hazards, where accidents involve a fatality or hospitalization of one or more employee, where worker com plaints include retaliation for exercising rights under the Oc cupational Safety and Health Act. or where an employee complaint covers a health or safety hazard. Boren Amendment Opposed Senator Harrison Williams (D-NJ), in opposing Boren's proposal, said it would create "uncertainty and confusion in the minds of 3 4 million small businessmen and women in order to avoid, probably, a very small number of inspec tions." "It hardly seems like a good bargain for the small en trepreneurs of the nation." Williams added. "It hardly seems to be the kind of thing they will in the end thank us for. And it hardly seems like the kind of saving which warrants a fundamental shift in the basic concept of how our OSHA law is to be enforced." The amendment shifting from MSHA to OSHA sand, gravel, and stone mining operations was offered by Senator Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyo) and passed by a vote of 52 to 37 Wallop objected to the provisions of the 1977 amendments to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act combining all min ing. coal and noncoal, under a single set of rules. He said the MSHA rules are too burdensome and costly to noncoal operators who sometimes are dealing only with eight-foot gravel pits. House Fails to Act The Senate version of the House-passed bill with its ger mane and nongermane amendments was not received in the House until July 31. where attempts to bring the measure to the House floor were thwarted both that afternoon and the following morning. The House then adjourned for the August work period and the Democratic convention, barring further action until it reconvenes on August 16. The nongermane riders affecting OSHA and MSHA. and a third provision on equal employment opportunity, also were opposed by Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY). who argued that at taching the nongermane amendments could impede passage by the House because they involve touchy subjects for House members, all of whom are up for reelection in November The failure of the House to act by an August 1 deadline for ERISA prompted the Labor Secretary to again chide what he termed the "group of antiworker elements in the House who are insisting on retaining a series of Senate-added amendments which ere unrelated to this critical legislation and which could "seriously jeopardize workers' rights to health, safety, and equal opportunity on the job." Marshall noted that the pension bill has received broad support from both labor and management, adding that the failure of Congressional approval "has created a crisis for the 8 million workers and their families covered by those plans." The Secretary called on Congress to "speedily enact this bill, without trying to attach antiworker nongermane amendments." During House debate on the unsuccessful attempt to gam unanimousaonroval for consideration of HR 3904. Represen tative. Frank Thompson. Jr. (D-NJ) said that it was his in tention as well as those of his "colleagues on the ERISA task force immediately upon our return following the recess, to seek a rule and to proceed with the earliest possible disposi tion of this legislation." Appropriation* OSHA APPROPRIATIONS SILL CLEARS LABOR-HEW SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP The Haase Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor. Health, Education and Welfare met in closed session July 30 0-7-80 Copyright * I960 by The Bureau of National Affairs, fnc 009S 3337 SO SOO SO MCI) 000013821 262 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER to markup the fiscal 1981 budget request for the Oc cupational Safety and Health Administration. Reportedly, the group agreed to remove restrictions on OSHA safety inspection authority imposed under the fiscal 1980 funding measure. Following last year's practice, subcommittee members responded to a standing-room-only crowd by excluding the press and public from the day-long session and placing an embargo on the proceedings until the subcommittee's ac tivities are acted on by the full House Appropriations Com mittee. Congress has adjourned for the August work period and the Democratic convention and is scheduled to reconvene August 18. Subcommittee staff officials anticipate that the full committee will take up the Labor-HEW appropriation measure in late August or early September. Although subcommittee staff members declined comment, labor officials told OSHR that subcommittee members had agreed to remove the restriction included in the fiscal 1980 continuing resolution prohibiting OSHA from conducting routine safety inspections in any workplace having 10 or fewer employees and a low injury and illness rate as publish ed in the 1977 Bureau of Labor Statistics annual report (Current Report. August 2. 1979, p. 2111. This amendment was introduced last July by Senator Richard S. Schweiker <R-Pa>. The Carter Administration's fiscal 1981 budget request for OSHA is 8211.9 million, an increase of about $24.9 million over the agency's final estimated fiscal 1980 appropriation (Current Report. January 31. p. 803). Health Hazards OSHA. NIOSH. DOW SET PLANS FOR STUOY OF BRAIN CANCERS AT PETROCHEMICAL PLANT Medical investigators plan to look in closer detail at 25 brain cancer cases at a Dow Chemical Company petrochemical plant in Freeport, Texas, and also plan a more general study of overall cancer incidence at the plant, federal and Dow officials reported August 5. While parts of the brain cancer study already are com plete. officials from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration worked out details for a more extensive study at a meeting with Dow officials August 4. The three groups also reached general agreement, but without specific details, on an overall study of cancer at the plant. The 25 cases were discovered as part of an ongoing in vestigation at a Union Carbide Company chemicals and plastics plant in Texas City (Current Report, July 31, p. 237i A total of 4S fatal brain cancers were found between the two plants, a rate twice that found in the general popula tion. officials said. Although officials from all three groups told OSHR that the investigation was proceeding with cooperation from all parties. Dow officials, in a statement released August 6, dis puted claims of a "cancer epidemic'' at the plant and said that death rates actually may prove to be lower than ex pected. "Preliminary results from Dow studies currently in progress show no increased risk to employees, and the number of employee deaths due to brain cancer may well be somewhat lower than predicted from a comparable sample of the population at large." according to Etcyl Blair, Dow vice president for health and environmental sciences. "We are confident that when Government scientists have completed their independent investigation, their conclusions will confirm our findings.'' Blair said. The company also noted there have been no cancer deaths among company employees since 1977. and restated its belief that there is no correlation between the deaths and any process or chemical used at the plant. At the Dow plant. NIOSH and OSHA officials plan to draw a 5 percent sample from the approximately 40.000 workers employed between January 1. 1940 and January 1. 1980. Demographic and work history information will be com piled from company records, and a case'control study will be conducted in an attempt to determine common exposures between those with cancer and the control group. The overall cancer incidence rates will be determined through a study of the entire 5 percent sample, officials said Congressional Investigation The discovery of the Dow cases prompted a pledge from Representative Bob Eckhardt (D-Texas) to investigate, and possibly to introduce legislation to help OSHA in regulating hazardous environments, as well as specific chemicals Eckhardt met with OSHA and NIOSH officials on August 1 and offered assistance in the federal agency's investigations, a NIOSH official said. Eckhardt described the discovery of the cases as "further evidence that cancer in the Texas Gulf Coast region has reached epidemic levels." He added that "The problem u of "national concern." affecting not only workers but residents m communities near chemical plants. Eckhardt noted that OSHA and NIOSH may be unable to locate specific chemicals, if any. responsible for the cancers. He also noted that the Supreme Court ruling in OSHA s benzene case <8 OSHC 1586> indicates that agencies may not be able to regulate specific chemicals unless studies demonstrate that the chemical poses a significant risk to human health that would be alleviated by a regulation He said he would change this, to reflect what he called the intent of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, so that an environment known to subject workers to unreasonable risk could be the subject of OSHA control regardless of whether a specific substance can be identified. "If the Court does not read the law {hat way, wc will make it clear that that is what is intended," he said. Eckhardt, chairman of the House Commerce subcom mittee on oversight and investigations, is likely to hold over sight hearings this fall, focusing on the questions raised fr* the Supreme Court decision, and the need for Congress u> define "significant risk." Union Carbide Results The study of brain cancer cases at the Union Carb*d plant, begun in early 1979 (Current Report. March 8. 1979 p 1521). found a three-fold risk of brain cancer for worsen employed at the plant for more than 20 years, federal <* ficials reported. A brief report of theTexas City investigation was pufc.wt ed in the August 1 edition of the Center for Disease Con" publication. "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report According to that account. 11.2 cases would have bee* peeled at the plant. A total of 17 cases were studied, anew ing to an overall increased risk of 1-1/2. The risk with length of employment, officials found, with employed 20 years or more suffering a three-fold naa Officials also reported that the preliminary review e* work records for the cases revealed "no obvious comm** m posure factor within the plant," and that determinant "causative agent* awaits further study. 8-7-80 Occupotioool Sofv'y & Hcolth Reporter OOSS-32S7/W/SOO SO tiCD 0ooi3a CURRENT REPORT 263 Litigation ACCESS TO RECORDS RULE DOES NOT MEET SUPREME COURT TEST, CHEMICAL GROUP SAYS The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's rule on access to medical and exposure records is "plainly unlaw ful" because OSHA failed to meet requirements of signifi cant risk set by the Supreme Court, a chemical association told the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The Louisiana Chemical Association's July 29 complaint was the second action that group has taken in regard to OSHA's May 21 rule on access to records (Current Report, May 29. p 1203) and the first action taken in a U.S. District Court. The industry group also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to review the rule (Current Report. July 24, p. 2211. The association contended that the OSHA regulation is not a "standard" as defined in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 because it does not prescribe safe work ing conditions, but only requires preservation and access of records, and therefore should be reviewed by a district court. The industry group further claimed that even if the regula tion is considered a standard, "as OSHA has asserted." it is unlawful in light of the Supreme Court's July 2 ruling on OSHA's benzene standard (8 OSHC 1516) "because OSHA has failed to make requisite findings that the regulations are necessary* to remedy a significant health risk In its brief to the district court, the association continued that the rule "exceeds OSHA's authority to set standards" because OSHA "did not and could not make the threshold finding required by the Supreme Court.' The access rule, according to the association, "applies to substances or agents simply because they come within the OSHA's expansive definition of `toxic substance or harmful physical agent.' without regard to the exposure level or risk from any particular substance." "Such a basis for a standard was found wanting by the Supreme Court" in the benzene cate "even in the case of a known carcinogen." the court was told. Health Programs Would Decttna The association contended that its members and their employees would suffer "grievous and irreparable injury' if the regulations are not set aside, because occupational health programs will become "significantly less effective " The association said doctors will decline to work as in dependent contractors for companies because of a lack of assurance of confidentiality between patient and doctor, and that working doctors will record less information and con duct fewer studies. Increased costs, disclosure of trade secret information, disruption of collective bargaining agreements, loss of Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable and un warranted searches, and the possibility of widespread litiga tion from disclosure of confidential employee information were other reasons cited by the association for opposing the rule. OSHA's regulation governing the agency's internal procedures for seeking access to employer records "con tains broad standards, and open-ended exceptions, rendering it inadequate to safeguard the privacy of medical records,'' the industry group charged. According to Stephen A. Bokat, of the National Chamber Litigation Center. Inc., acting as co-counsel to the associa tion, the district court was petitioned because of the question that the regulation is not a standard and thus not review-able in an appeals court. A similar question was raised by the American Industrial Health Council, which complained to a district court in Tex as about OSHA's cancer policy. In that case. AlHC contend ed the policy was not a standard and therefore was reviewable in a district court (Current Report. January 31. p. 8051. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has yet issued no ruling in that case, according to OSHA attorneys. Health Hazards SLOWDOWN IN RATE OF OSHA STANDARDS SEEN RESULT OF SUPREME COURT RULING MILWAUKEE -- (By a BNA staff correspondent) -- The Supreme Court's decision in the benzene case will not halt the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's standards-setting process, but it may result in a slowdown in the issuance of regulations, OSHA Health Standards Director Bailus Walker stated July 28. Addressing a National Environmental Health Association educational conference, Walker said it would be a "mistake" to conclude that the benzene ruling (8 OSHC 1586) "put OSHA on `hold' or in fact completely destroyed the OSHA standard-setting process and related efforts to protect the American workforce." The rate at which standards are issued may be slowed, however, since a considerable portion of the agency's resources will have to be diverted to meet the court's expec tations, he predicted. Walker asserted that the decision is simply another im pediment in the already "difficult, slow, and contentious" process of standard-setting. In addition, be said, "the court did not reject the Secretary's conclusion that there is no known safe level of exposure to a carcinogen, that benzene causes leukemia, or that benefits may be derived from reducing exposure to benzene." "The Court did indicate that those conclusions standing alone may not be adequate to support regulation," he said Walker called for additional public health professionals to aid in the enormous data-gathering required, and for full acceptance of environmental health personnel in the com munity health profession. Full acceptance is essential, he said, because "80 to 90 percent of the illnesses recognized and dealt with by private and public health services are en vironmentally or occupationally related. " `Statistical Uncertainties* Sean The Supreme Court should not be blamed for refusing to uphold the benzene standard, because occupational medicine "simply foisted its own statistical uncertainties on the courts." according to Irving Selikoff, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. "The court was grappling with the same insecurities we are," Selikoff said. "If we were dealing with absolute cer tainty. the case would never have gotten to the Supreme Court." At the same time, Selikoff declared the numerical stan dards required by the Supreme Court "cannot be acquired" at the present time, and will never be acquired unless in dustry provides worker exposure data to occupational health researchers. "We simply will never determine car cinogenicity without data which only industry has," he said Selikoff said he does not believe there is such a thing as a total or absolute threshold level for exposure to cancercausing agents, but there are certainly practical thresholds 8-7-40 Copyright c 1960 by The Bureau of National Affair*. Inc. 0096-3237/00/100 w MCI) QOOO13g23 264 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER "How much residual risk we accept for others depends on ethics and morality." he said. When asked about cost-benefit analysis being applied to occupational exposure levels, he said the "costs should accrue to the same person who will enjoy the benefits." and "a worker should not have to put his life on the line.' In reviewing his research on asbestos exposure. Selikoff noted that there never will be developed any valid dose-response relationships for low level exposure and family-contact disease, because 'nobody does dust counts on shaking out father's clothes after work, or even on such groups as ship repair workers The data are not there." Selikoff reported the results of a soon-to-be-published study of 282 ship repair workers done by Mt. Sinai Hospital, which showed that 30 years after presumably tow-level ex posure to asbestos, approximately 85 percent have abnormal chest X-rays. He noted that if mesothelioma were not such a rare disease in the general population, its connection with asbestos would probably never have been noticed. There is also a great dearth of data on possible reversal of risk for occupationally exposed workers, he said. It is possi ble that, by removing workers from benzene exposure when certain benign blood changes occur, their risk of leukemia is lessened, in the same way that quitting smoking eventually reverses lung cancer risk, be said, but added this is an almost unexplored field. Litigation SECRETARY OF LABOR ASKS HIGH COURT TO DENY REVIEW OF COTTON DUST DECISION The Secretary of Labor requested the U S. Supreme Court to deny review of a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which upheld the validity of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's cotton dust standard. This request was made in a brief filed in response to petitions for certiorari in American Textile Manufac turers Institute. Inc. r. Marshall (No. 79-1429). \attovul Cotton Council of America v. Marshall (No. 79-1583). and Cotton Warehouse Association v. Marshall (No. 79-1789). All three petitions for certiorari seek review of the deci sion in Ak'l.-CIO r. Marshall (7 0SHC 1775) with the tex tile manufacturers having filed their petition on March 14 iCurrent Report. March 27. p 996), the Cotton Council on April 9 (Current Report, April 17, p. 1071), and the Warehouse Association May 9 (Current Report. May 22. p. 1183) According to the Secretary's brief, the textile manufac turers and the Cotton Council are seeking review in this case in order to get the Court to consider the meaning of the term "feasible" as it is used in OSHA's enabling statute, and for a determination as to whether the Secretary must establish that the costs of the cotton dust standard bear a "substantial relationship" to its benefits. The Secretary's brief main tained that those issues are presented in the coke oven emissions cases which were recently granted certiorari by the Court (Current Report, July 10, p. 149). Accordingly, the Secretary urged that the textile manufac turers' and Cotton Council s petitions for certiorari be held pending disposition of the coke oven cases. The Secretary's brief also maintained that there is no need for the Court to consider the warehouse group's contention that there is insufficient evidence to support the Secretary's determination that employees exposed to cotton dust in cot ton warehouses and cotton classing officers may suffer material impairment of health According to the brief, the Secretary decided to reexamine that issue in light of the Court s recent ruling in the benzene standard case (B OSHC 1586). and has suspended the standard for those industries pending this reexamination (Current Report. July 31. p 237). Accordingly, the Secretary's brief urged that certiorari be granted in that portion of the case challenging application of the standard to cotton warehouses and cotton classing of fices in order that the issue be remanded to the appellate court so that the record may be returned to OSHA for further consideration. Enforcement LEGALITY Of INTERAGENCY REFERRAL BEING EVALUATED BY IRLG SUBGROUP A subgroup within the Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group is taking a second look at the legality of an inspection referral program announced earlier this year. The legal review was requested in a July 17 memorandum from the subgroup chairman. Food and Drug Administration Associate Commissioner Joseph P. Hile, who said the program should be reviewed in light of several "eloquently written'' public comments challenging its legal basis. Is a March notice. IRLG announced the program as a way of making more effective nee of "limited'' inspection resources. Under the program, an inspector for one agency is expected to make a referral if. during a routine authorized inspection, he observes "in plain view" a possible viola tion of another agency's regulations (Current Report. April 10. p. 1055). Stephen Mallinger. Occupational Safety and Health Ad ministration office of field coordination, told OSHR August 4 that bis agency is not making referrals under the program. OSHA has not yet reviewed the program with union representatives for its field personnel to determine how the program would affect contract provisions on the duties for inspectors, he said. However. OSHA "is actively accepting referrals from the other agencies, " Mallinger noted. Hile acknowledged that he was requesting the review even though legal counsel for the member agencies reviewed and approved the program before it was initiated. The reviewing subgroup, known officially as the compliance and enforce ment counterpart group in the IRLG. can make recommen dations on compliance to the head of each member agency. The FDA official asked in his memorandum if individual agency inspection officials would be "jeopardized" by a law suit against IRLG referrals, and if sucb a lawsuit would be likely. He also listed four arguments made in the comments that he said should be reconsidered: The Administrative Procedures Act would require rulemaking for such a "formal" procedure; Training inspectors to recognize violations over which they have no enforcement jurisdiction "exceeds the mandate of Congress;'' The "plain view'' doctrine, which holds that inspectors will not perform any duties outside their ordinary authority but will refer possible violations that are in plain view, is not applicable because of the manuals, training, and referral procedures involved in the program;" and Inspectors who do not state that one of their functions is to look for violations of other agency laws are "engaged in unreasonable searches prohibited by the Fourth Amendment" to the Constitution. 8-7-80 Occupational Sol*ty g Haoltb Raporttr OOSS-ttST 40400 SO MCD 000013824 CURRENT REPORT 265 The memorandum asked for a response from compliance and enforcement subgroup members by August 15. Referral Manuel Hazardous conditions involving electrical equipment, walking and working surfaces, trenches, machine guarding, and materials handling and storage are among the conditions that should be referred to OSHA by inspectors from other agencies, according to a manual developed for the interagen cy program. Other violations that should be noted are those concerning protective equipment, flammable and combustible liquids, ventilations, and noise, the manual reported. According to IRLG. results of inspections made pursuant to referrals will be evaluated on a quarterly basis to deter mine the effectiveness of the program. Specific conditions that should be reported to OSHA are listed in the manual. In the area of electrical hazards, for ex ample. inspectors from other agencies should note lack of grounding for equipment and appliances, exposed wires, lack of covering for junction boxe* and switches, substitution of flexible cords and cables for fixed wiring, splices and tape on wiring, flexible cords hung from ceilings and walls and across floors, and lack of identification for breaker switches. Agencies participating in the referral program are FDA. the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Food Safety and Quali ty Service of the Department of Agriculture. Excerpts from the IRLG manual regarding conditions to be referred to OSHA appear in the Full Text section of this Current Report. Health Hazards TEXTILE UNION ASKS CONGRESS TO SUPPORT OYES ALERT OVER INDUSTRY OBJECTIONS The Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union voiced strong support of an Occupational Safety and Health Administration health hazard alert on benzidine-based dyes, objections to which have been carried to Congress. In letters to Senator Harrison Williams (D-NJ), and Representative Joseph M. Gaydos (D-Pa), the onion called the alert "prudent * and "the very least that can be done to improve the safety and health of textile workers." The health hazard alert, released by OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in May. came under fire from the Dyes Environmental and Toxicology Organization, which charged that the alert caus ed a drastic decline in sales of certain dyes (Current Report, June 26. p. 91). DETO wrote Williams, chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, and Gaydos. chairman of the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Health and Safety, to ask for congressional intervention. Specifically, the industry group sought an amendment to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 prohibiting OSHA from issuing health hazard alerts, which DETO termed "de facto regulation." without first seeking public comment. However, ACTWU told Williams and Gaydos that the health hazard alert is the "absolute minimum level of ac tion" OSHA must take until it can write specific regulations for benzidine-based dyes. The union said it had petitioned OSHA for specific regulations in 1978, and that the agency responded that regulations might be written under OSHA's generic cancer policy, but that the alert would provide infor mation in the interim period. "The Health Hazard Alert is crucial because it gives workers, employers, physicians, and others a way to identify which dyes need to be treated with care.'' ACTWU said. "In the absence of the Alert, workers would have no way to get beyond the trade names of the hundreds of dyes that might be kept in an average dye shop," the union declared. The union also contended that the large concentration of dyehouse workers in the New Jersey contributes to a high rate of bladder cancer in the state. OSHA Reviewing Date OSHA still is reviewing the scientific information DETO presented as the basis for some of its objections to the health hazard alert, and is considering the need for modifications in the document, according to an OSHA health standards of ficial. The health hazard alert is not a legally binding document, however, that can be used in citing employers for health violations. Peter Infante, director of OSHA's office of car cinogen identification and classification, stressed. He added that the alert was written to inform industry and employees of the health hazards of certain kinds of dyes. A July 11 OSHA directive (OSHA Notice CPL 2-2) also stressed that the alert is intended only "to assist employers, employees, and physicians to work together to reduce poten tial health hazards that could result from excessive exposure to these dyes." According to OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.27. employers can be cited for violation of the general duty clause only for employee exposure to three particular ben zidine. o-tolidine, or o-dianisidine-based dyes (Reference File. 21:9163). California OSHA APPROVES STATE UTILIZATION OF HEALTH CENTERS, HAZARD DATA BASE Inclusion into the California state plan of Universiiv of California occupational health centers established by tn state legislature and a workplace hazard computer data base, also set by the legislature, was approved July 25 bv the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA an nounced August 5. The first supplement provides that the California itate plan (GaJ/OSHA> will purchase research, cluneal end laboratory services from the occupational health renter* the notice said (45 FR 51775). The services, which are to be those beyond the capability of Cal/OSHA, include and education, consultative, clinical and analytic*: nd applied study, the announcement noted. The supplement calls for one epidemiologist two . duslrial hygienists, and a clerical position, to be design* #d the technical development group within the Reeeanrti end Standards Development Unit, the notice elaborated The supplement was submitted as a plan change M*/11> ,' Hazard Alert The second supplement describes the Hazard A ien a ^ (HALTS), a data repository on toxic materials and physical agents in use or potentially in use in *urr - OSHA stated. Jointly administered by the c*,. Departments of Industrial Relations and Health n and located in Berkeley. Calif., the system was specialists in toxicology, epidemiology, medicine *4 ministration, data processing, and information anr^ re cording to the announcement. Under the supplement, a technical position m nia Division of Occupational Safety and Health * w * liaison between Cai/OSHA and the HALT '** 'o* supplement was submitted as a plan change n 9-7-80 Copyright * 1980 by The Bureau of National Affair*, fne O0as-3237W}/S00 W 000013825 HCD 266 Further information may be obtained from Patricia 0. Horn, Project Officer. Office of State Programs. Oc cupational Safety and Health Administration. 200 Constitu tion Ave. NW . Washington. D.C 20210; tel: (202) 523-8045. OSHA's notice of approval appears in the Full Text section of this Current Report, and will be reflected m a future Reference File Supplement. Enforcement OSHA REFERS LOUISIANA FATALITY CASE TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOR EVALUATION The Occupational Safety and Health Administration an nounced August 6 that it is referring a case involving the death of a marine-services company employee to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. Leroy Moore of Erwinvilie, la., an employee of Port Allen Marine Services, Inc., died August 20, 1979, when he fell from an unguarded drydock into the water and drowned, OSHA stated. Moore was not wearing a life jacket, the an nouncement said. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 provides that. "Any employer who willfully violates any standard . . .promulgated (under) this Act and that violation caused death to any employee, shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both'' (Reference File 71:1101). No further details of the case can be disclosed pending Justice Department review, according to OSHA. Certification SOLE NIOSH AUTHORITY POR TESTING SUPPORTED BY FIREFIGHTERS' UNION The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health should be the sole agency authorized to test and certify respiratory protective equipment, according to the Inter national Association of Fire Fighters. IAFF comments supporting NIOSH's role in testing and certification were presented by Richard M. Duffy, the association's occupational health and safety coordinator, at a July 29 NIOSH hearing. The hearing was held as a follow-up to a consultants' report on current testing and certification procedures followed under 30 CFR Part 11 by NIOSH and the Mine Safe ty and Health Administration. The consultants found a need for a major reconstruction of the certification program (Current Report. June 26. p. 92). Industry representatives urged at the opening session of the hearing July 28 that equipment manufacturers be per mitted to establish their own testing programs using equip ment performance criteria developed by NIOSH (Current Report. July 31. p. 238). According to IAFF, the authority to conduct testing and certification should remain with the institute. Placing this authority with private certification laboratories, as suggested by some parties, would not be a '`viable alter native." the labor union argued. Transferring certification authority to independent laboratories would result in IAFF members having "leu trust in the integrity of the product'' tested. Duffy main tained. Also, it would result in a loss of NIOSH expertise, which in turn would "delay any stop-sales/recall procedure if engineering defects or unapproved changes were un covered in the field." he added. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER Consistency in testing among different laboratories would be marginal'' at best, according to IAFF. Experience in dicates that testing performed at different locations is not consistent, even where specific common criteria are follow ed. the union maintained. This is due, IAFF commented, to use of different types of testing equipment, differences in geographic location and altitude, and other variables. The union argued that MSHA should not be given an active role in respirator testing and certification. In the past. MSHA has played a "relatively passive role" in the program, and giving it more responsibility would result in "potential jurisdictional disputes, bureaucratic en tanglements. and duplication of effort," the union declared. Other agencies such as the U.S. Fire Administration would not be qualified or have the resources or "credibility" to per form testing and certification. IAFF added Duffy reported that a resolution supporting a preeminent role for NIOSH in testing and certification will be submitted for membership vote at the 35th IAFF convention later this month. Firefighter Need* Performance criteria for respirators should be "upgraded" to take into account the "hostile environment" faced by firefighters, Duffy urged. Some factors that should be addressed, he said, include: Heat and flame resistance. Corrosion and moisture resistance. Cold temperatures Thermal shock. Durability and dependability of respirators. More audible and more effective low-pressure warning devices. Inclusion of communications equipment and buddy breathing capability in respirators. IAFF agreed with the institute that data from actual tests should be published. The information also could be sum marized to ensure that the user understands the results, it added. Duffy said his union is "sure there will be disagreement by the manufacturers on this issue." However, much of this in formation already is-availabie through the Freedom of Infor mation Act, he asserted. 3M Testimony Einar D Home, representing the occupational health and safety products division of the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, argued that NIOSH's current system for certification forces manufacturers to "submit products that will pass tests that may or may not guarantee protection to the user." Tests employed by the institute are not accurate, not reproducible or adequately defined, and designed for equip ment from the 1930s and 1940s. according to the company These procedures may "do more harm than good based on the fact that the tests have little, if any, correlation to actual field conditions." it stated. Horne called for NIOSH to adopt performance criteria rather than design specifications as the basis for its cer tification program. Such a procedure, he commented, would "specify the problems to be solved and not the detailed prescription for solving them." This approach would permit manufacturers to search, with "minimum restraint,'' for innovative solutions to respirator problems, he explained. The 3M representative criticized NIOSH for failing to notify manufacturers promptly of the status of approval tests. In the past 10 months. NIOSH has been doing a "poorer job" than ever before in communicating with B-7-B0 Occupational Safely 6 HeoltK Reporter OOK 3237*0400*0 MCD 000013826 CURRENT REPORT 267 manufacturers, he said, adding that 3M recently experienc ed a four-month delay between the testing of a product and receipt of the NIOSH letter of certification. NIOSH testing should be "audited," Horne recommended, stating that the institute could establish ground rules for "what a witness to the test can and cannot do " The techni cian performing the test should not feel pressured by an out side witness ' if things are done correctly." he added. Federal Agencies FACOSH URGES OCTOBER 1 DEADLINE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY/HEALTH RULES Members of the Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health adopted a motion August 5 tn favor of complying with the October 1 deadline for implementation of safety and health requirements for federal employees. Last month. President Carter delayed the effective date of Executive Order 12196. which requires federal agencies to comply with the same safety and health requirements as private sector employers, from July l to October 1, 1980. At that time the President said the extension was necessary "to provide sufficient time for the development of adequate im plementing instructions" for putting the new requirements into effect (Current Report. July 10, p. 152). Gilbert Omenn. associate director for human resources, veterans and labor. Office of Management and Budget, out* lined for the advisory council the status of the revised draft of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's regulations concerning basic program elements for federal employee safety and health programs, 29 CFR 1960. (Current Report, June 12, p. 51). Under the executive order. OMB is responsible for coor dinating the basic program elements between the Depart ment of Labor and the other federal agencies (Current Report. February 28. p. 901). Of the 17 federal agencies receiving the draft regulation. Omenn reported that roughly half have submitted comments and that the others have until August 8 to file their views with OMB so that the agency can get on with its task of reconciling the differences in the various responses and preparing the final draft for possible publication in the Federal Register. OMB Undor Tight Deadline Council members expressed concern over OMB's ability to have the regulations in place by the October 1 deadline. Omenn admitted that the agency was under a "vep' tough timetable" but he emphasized the agency's objective is to issue the regulations "by October i, or as soon thereafter as possible." John McCart, executive director, Public Employee Department. AFL^CIO, told Omenn that he "sympathized with the difficult job" faced by OMB but that he personally favored publication of the rules in the Federal Register. But if publication in the Federal Register "could result in deferral of the regulations." McCart said that he "would be willing to forego" this step, using the time instead for an ex tensive review of agency comments in order to comply with the October 1, deadline, making sure at the same time that all legal responsibilities in terms of union consultation rights are complied with. Because the safety and health requirements are con* sidered an internal Government document. John Hynan of the Solicitor s Office, DOL, said that it was not necessary to follow the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and publish the proposed regulations in the Federal Register. Interim Regulations Proposed However, Anthony F. Ingrassia. assistant director. labormanagement, relations. Office of Personnel Management, cautioned if the regulations are not put in the Federal Register for public comment, agencies could be faced with unfair labor practice charges from government unions holding national level consultation who wish to comment on the Government-wide regulation are not members of the ad visory council. To avoid costly and time consuming unfair labor practice proceedings. Ingrassia suggested that "interim regula tions" could be issued which would give the unions, agencies other than the 17 initially contacted, and the public, an opportunity to comment on the revised provisions. Robert Crum, international representative. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CTO, proposed the motion that the advisory council recommend to OMB and DOL that the program elements be published in the Federal Register after August 8 and that the agencies go forward with the necessary review as swiftly as possible in order to meet the October 1 deadline. This provision was unanimously approved by the council after first rejecting an amendment which would have placed an August 20 cut-off for publication in the Register. The advisory council is scheduled to meet again in November. General Policy MARSHALL ATTACKS REPUBLICAN PLANK ON PURE CONSULTATION' ROLE FOR OSHA The Republican Party platform plank on job safety and health proposes to "gut" federal protection for workers. Labor Secretary Ray Marshall charged. Speaking at a July 30 press conference. Marshall stated that the platform "would make (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration] a simple consultation program and leave the health and safety of workers up to the business community." However, OSHA and the Mine Safety and Health Ad ministration were created as the result of the "failure of such a system." he added. fn its safety and health plank, approved July 10. the plat form committee said OSHA should concentrate its efforts on encouraging voluntary compliance by employers, and should exempt employers with good safety records from safety in spections (Current Report. July 17. p. 198). Republican Presidential candidate Ronald Regan "suggests that OSHA serve as a laboratory, a consultation agency.' Marshall asserted. "Well, Mr. Reagan may not know it. but OSHA already provides consultation, and it already has a lab a very fine one in Utah." The Government is not about to "turn America s workplaces into labs, or America's workers into mice. ' the Labor Secretary declared. "The safety and health of workers must not begin with a body count." He charged that, "measured by any progressive or humane standard," the "Reagan Republicans are antigovernment and anti-worker." Training LABOR DEPARTMENT AWARDS $3 5 MILLION IN TRAINING-GRANT PROGRAM SECOND YEAR The Occupational Safety and Health Administration an nounced August 4 that it has awarded a second round of training and education grants totaling 83.5 million 8-7-80 Copyright * 1980 by The Bureau of National Affair*, fnc. OOM32J7/IO/$OOtt MCD 000013827 268 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER Recipients were 66 business, employee, and educational organizations, OSHA said. The new awards complete the second year of the agency's "New Directions" program, which funded 82 continuing grants totaling <11.2 million tn fiscal 1979. the agency noted. The National Cancer Institute provided $2.3 million in fiscal 1979 and $810,000 for the current grants, the an nouncement said. NCI grants are directed at problems of cancer in the workplace, OSHA noted. OSHA explained that planning grants, funded for one year, were awarded to groups that "demonstrate potential to provide important workplace information but need to focus goals and assess needs before their programs can fully serve the intended audiences.'' Developmental grants, funded for up to five years, support established programs that require further development to become "self-sufficient resource centers," OSHA said. Pool of 232 OSHA selected the grant recipients from an application pool of 232 following announcement of competition August 13. 1979 (Current Report, August 16. 1979. p. 252). Applications also were reviewed by 29 consultants from labor, business, and the academic community, the agency said. OSHA noted that two grantees will use funds to assist labor and management in instituting joint labor-management safe ty and health committees. They are the American Center for the Quality of Work Life. Washington. D.C., and the Massachusetts Labor-Management Center. Inc.. Boston. Mass. The grants are divided among labor organizations and field branches (Category I); employer associations and groups serving small business (Category II); educational in stitutions (Category III); and nonprofit organizations (Category IV). Organizations that received the grants, listed according to the categories to which they belonged, follow. Category I Groups Grant recipients in Category I were: Public Employee Department, AFL-CIO, Washington. D C 20006, $50,000. International Association of Fire Fighters, Washington. DC 20006. S100.000. Utility Workers Union of America. AFL-CIO. National Union. Washington. D.C. 20006, $50,000. AFSCME Career Development, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20036, $60,000. United Paperworkers International Union, Flushing. New York 11365. $100,000. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Washington. DC. 20005, $60,000. United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union. Chicago. Illinois 60656, $41,500. American Federation of Government Employees. Washington. D C. 20005. $75,000. International Union of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Washington, D C. 20036. $60,000. Montana State AFL-CIO, Helena, Montana 59601, $50,000. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union. New York. New York 10019, $80,000. International Union of Operating Engineers, Washington, D C. 20096. $100,000. District 1199 of the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees. RWDSU/AFL-CIO, New York. New York 10036. $50,000. Colorado Building and Construction Trades Council. Denver. Colorado $0218, $40,008. Phoenix Building and Construction Trades Council. Phoenix. Arizona 85004. $40,000. St. Louis Labor Council. AFL-CIO. St. Louis. Missouri 63139. $50,000 AFL-CIO Great Lakes Regional Council. Lansing. Michigan 48933. $50,000. United Food and Commercial Workers. Washington, D.C. 20006. <50.000. Teamsters Local 2707, Los Angeles, California 90045. $30,000 United Furniture Workers of America. AFL-CIO. Inter national Union. Nashville. Tennessee 37210. $50,000. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Washington. D C. 20001. $70,000. AFL-CIO Appalachian Council, Charleston, West Virginia 2S301. <50,000. United Electrical. Radio and Machine Workers of America. New York. New York 10022. $68,835. Category II Group* Recipients in Category II were: SAFE Committee, Construction Advancement Foundation. Hammond. Indiana 46324. $50,000. American Public Works Association, Chicago, Illinois 60637, $49,200. Rubber Manufacturers Association, lac., Washington, D C 20066, >43.500. National Constructors Association. Washington. D.C. 20005. $49,900. American Association of Minority Enterprise Smalt Business Investment Companies, Washington. D.C 20005. $50,000. American Paper Institute. New York, New York 10016. $48,300. American Waterways Operators. Inc.. America Waterways Shipyard Conference Safety and Health Com mittee. Arlington. Virginia 22209. $50,000. Associated Industries of Alabama. Inc., Birmingham. Alabama 35222. $50,000. Engraved Stationery Manufacturers Association. Inc.. Chicago. Illinois 60611. $25,000. The Food Processors Institute. Washington, D C 20096. $30,700 The Grain Elevator and Processing Society, Minneapolis. Minnesota 55415. $49,000 Council of Smaller Enterprises, Division of Greater Cleveland Growth Association. Cleveland.* Ohio 44115. $50,000. International Lead Zinc Research Organization. Inc Lead Industries Association, Inc., Environmental Health Depart ment. New York. New York 10017. $75,000, National Maritime Safety Association. Inc.. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19102, $75,000. National Small Business Association. Washington. D C 20006. $50,000. Society of Plastics Industry. Inc., New York. New York 10017, $75,000. Truck Bodv and Equipment Association. Inc.. Washington. D.C. 20015. $54,400. Category III Groups Academic groups receiving grants were: West Virginia Institute of Technology, Montgomery. West Virginia 25136. $50,000. West Virginia University, Morgantown. West Virginia 26506. $45,700. Langston University, Langston. Oklahoma 73050. $50 00 Coppin State College. Baltimore. Maryland 21216. $50,000 University of Oklahoma. Norman. Oklahoma 73019. $19,900. 8-7-90 Occupational Safety & Health Reporter 00M 3237*0100 SO MCD 000013826 CURRENT REPORT Category IV Organizations Grants were awarded to these nonprofit groups: Rhode Island Committee on Occupational Safety and Health. Providence. Rhode Island 02909. *25.000. Maryland Committee on Occupational Safety and Health. Baltimore. Maryland 21217. $25,000 Maine Labor Group on Health. Augusta. Maine 04330. *25.000 Eastern New York Construction Employers. Inc.. Albany, New York 12205. *29.700. Workers' Institute for Safety and Health. Washington. D C. 20036. *120.000. Western New York Council on Occupational Safety and Health. Buffalo. New York 14201, *25.000. Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Washington. D C. 20006. *50,000. Tbe East Los Angeles Community Union. Los Angeles, California 90032. $25.000. Massachusetts Labor-Management Center. Inc., Boston. Massachusetts 02108 $100,000. American Center for the Quality of Work Life. Inc.. Washington, D C 20016, *180,000. Comite de Trabajadores para Ayudar al Consumidor, Inc.. Puerto Rico 00922, *30.000. National Urban League, New York, New York 10021, *50,000. A. Philip Randolph Educational Fund. New York, New York 10010. *49,900. Coalition of Labor Union Women, Washington, D.C. 20036, $50,000. Working Women. National Association of Office Workers, Cleveland. Ohio 44115. 137.300. Metro Area OSHA Training Consortium, Omaha. Nebraska 68102. $25,000. American Chemical Society. Washington, D C. 20036, *30.000. INFORM. Inc.. New York. New York 10004. *80,000. New Hampshire Safety Council. Concord. New Hampshire 03301. *25.000 North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Project. Durham. North Carolina 27705, 125,000. Occupational Safety and Health Education Fund of New Jersey, Linden, New Jersey 07036, $25,000. Respirators INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON RESEARCH TO BE HELD BY NIOSH SEPTEMBER 9-11 An international workshop on respirator research will be held September 9-11 in Morgantown, W. Va.. by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Included in the workshop are sessions on research in volving air-purifying respirators, physiology and psychology of respirator use, atmosphere-supplying and miscellaneous respirators, and quantitative respirator fit testing. NIOSH Deputy Director John R. Froines will deliver the opening presentation. "Respirator Research, Where It Needs To Go." and Assistant Labor Secretary Eula Bingham will be the September 9 dinner speaker, according to the preliminary agenda. Also featured will be a panel discussion on areas where respirator research should be directed. Panel members in clude Mary-Win O'Brien, United Steelworkers of America; William Burgess, Harvard University; Morton Com, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health; Darrel D. Douglas. Oregon Workers' Compensation Department; Bruce Held, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory; Peter Raven, 269 Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine, and William H Revoir, American Society for Testing and Materials The workshop will be held at the Ramada Inn in Morgan town. For further information, contact Robert H Schutz. assistant to the director. NIOSH division of safety research, telephone <304 f 599-7595. Health Hazard* IRLG REPORT CITES SIX SUBSTANCES FOR COORDINATED RULEMAKING IN 1980 The Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group Formally reorganized its regulatory coordination efforts by granting priority status to six chemical substances, changing the focus for 13 others, and ending regulatory efforts on nine. The reorganization is detailed in the latest edition of the group's "Regulatory Reporter," dated July 1980. As planned, the group is shifting its regulatory coordina tion efforts during 1980 to six substances, called Category I chemicals: asbestos, benzene, benzidine congener dyes, chlorofluorocarbons, formaldehyde, and polychlorinated biphenyl*. A lesser priority is given to 13 substances, designated as Category II. They are: acrylonitrile, cadmium, chlorinated dioxins, chloroform and chlorinated solvents, chromates, ethylene oxide and its residues, lead, mercury, nitrosammes. noise, radiation, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride, and waste utilization and disposal on food chain land. In addition, the group decided to suspend its regulatory ef forts on nine substances because the need for control has passed or controls already are in place. The substances in this Category III are: arsenic, beryllium, coke oven emissions, dibromochloropropane. diethylstilbestrol. ethylene dibromide, ozone, polybrominated biphenyls, and sulfur dioxide. The 28 substances listed in the latest report increase byfour the original 24 substances targeted for regulatory coor dination when tbe group was formed in 1978 The four ad ditional substances are the benzidine dyes, chlorinated diox ins. formaldehyde, and noise. Agencies involved in the IRLG are the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Environmental Protection Agen cy. Food and Drug Administration, Consumer Product Safe ty Commission, and Food Safety and Quality Service of the Department of Agriculture. Coordination Urged The report noted that information gathering or other ac tivities focusing on the six priority substances should be in tegrated and coordinated. Economic analyses should be sponsored jointly when possible, or at least should be consis tent in their assumptions and methods of analysis In addition, the report noted, any proposed rules should be coordinated with the other IRLG agencies and issued jointly where possible. According to the report, the group will try to develop a single risk assessment for formaldehyde and to determine the feasibility for coordinated risk assessments for asbestos and benzidine dyes. In addition, the report said, the regulatory development workgroup of the IRLG will: Develop retrospective and possibly prospective control options analyses for lead; Develop a mechanism for identifying emerging chem icals which might be subjects of later coordination efforts by the agencies; and 8-7-90 Copyright * 1980 by The BorMu of National Affairs, fnc. flOSa-3U7/fOrSOO 90 Mcd 000l.3829 270 Assess the confidential business information/trade secrets constraints to joint regulatory development. Comments on the report should be addressed to the Regulatory Development Work Group. EPA (TS-793), 401 M. St., Washington. DC. 20460. Copies of the report are available from the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Industry Assistance Of fice. at the above address, or at (8001 424-9066 or 554-1404 in Washington, D.C. Research SAFETY, HEALTH STUDY SECTION RENEWAL FOR TWO YEARS ANNOUNCED BY DEPARTMENT Renewal of the Center for Disease Control's Safety and Oc cupational Health Study Section was announced July SI by the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 509371. The announcement noted that the section makes recommendations to the department on scientific, research, and training areas related to occupational safety and health, which are in need of special emphasis. It also reports on the competency available to meet these needs. Further, the section reviews the scientific and technical merit of all research and training grant and fellowship applications, and recommends to the appropriate national advisory councils those applications that merit support, the notice added. Authority for the section will expire June 30. 1982, unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that continuance is in the public interest, the notice stated. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER Finally, sanitation standards for general industry and agricultural operations were amended and clarified to end their conflict with the state Health and Safety Code. The dis crepancy between the code and the board's standards was the subject of a lawsuit. Variances and Petitions In a variance decision, the board granted the request of Diamond International Corporation (Docket No. 80V-008i for a variance from section 6264(a) of the Logging and Sawmill Safety Orders relating to front end loaders. The rule requires such loaders to be equipped with log gripping or retaining devices. At a plywood mill. Diamond Inter national uses a front-end loader equipped with forks to transport logs within a restricted area, hi granting the variance the board allowed the practice to continue so long as the company limits access to the area and uses the loader only in the restricted area. Two petitions from Federated Firefighters of California were granted and the board ordered advisory committees convened to study the issues involved. One petition asked the board to add a requirement for fire shelter devices to protect wildland firefighters. The other suggested that personal alarm devices be required for all firefighting activities in volving use of self-contained breathing apparatus. Health hazards associated with exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls and trichloroethylene will be studied by advisory committees under two other petitions granted by the board. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Local 1245. asked the board to add PCBs to its list of carcinogenic substances. Nine other petitions sought a reduction of the TCE exposure limit, or an outnght ban on its use. California CAL/OSHA STANDARDS BOARD REVISES RULES FOR FIREFIGHTERS PROTECTION SAN FRANCISCO -- (By an OSHR staff correspondent) -- A revision of the state's standards for persona] protective clothing and equipment used by firefighters was adopted unanimously on July 31 by the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board. In a related action, the board also amended other standards governing maintenance and sanitation of respiratory protec tive devices. The standard for firefighting gear mandates that all such gear meet its requirements by March 31. 1983. In the mean time, protective clothing and equipment meeting recognized safety standards may continue to be used. The rule lists the National Fire Protection Association, the American National Standards Institute, and the National Bureau of Standards as examples of organizations that issue recogniz ed safety standards. Some of the revisions in the new standard include a 30-ounce limit on helmet weight and thermal insulation specifications for protective gloves. The rule also includes provisions for wildland firefighters. In other action, the board unanimously adopted a revision to its inorganic arsenic standard that permits retail sale of ant control devices that contain arsenic as an ingredient. Under the revision, retailers, distributors, and users of such devices need not report their activities to the Division of Oc cupational Safety and Health. The state rule for diving was amended to bring underwater photography for motion picture production within the scope of the term "technical diving " Washington COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS INCREASE FOR FOURTH CONSECUTIVE QUARTER For the fourth consecutive quarter, Washington job safety and health inspectors made more inspections than in the previous quarter, the state repotted to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. For the period from April 1 through June 30. Washington inspectors made 3.804 total inspections, 268 more than in the first quarter. Over three-fourths, or 2.942. of the inspections were listed as general schedule. 351 were in response to complaints, and 70 were accident investigations. Followup inspections ac counted for 441 of the total. Excluding the followups. Washington inspectors found 32 percent of employers in spected in the second quarter in compliance with state stan dards. Washington's 84 inspectors cited 632 alleged serious violations for which they proposed S113.210 In civil penalties. They also cited 7.145 alleged nonserious infrac tions which carried proposed fines totaling $57,106. California CAL/OSHA REPORTS SECOND QUARTER INCREASE IN COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS SAN FRANCISCO -- (By an OSHR staff correspondent) Compliance inspections made under California's job safety and health program (Cal/OSHA) in the second quarter jumped by more than 1.000 over the previous quarter, the 8-7-00 Occupational Safety A Hcolth Reporter ow-m7/o/soc SC 0O0013B30 MOD CURRENT REPORT state reported to the Occupational Safety and Health Adrn imslration. The total inspection tally for the second quarter was 4.821, compared with 3.740 in the first period (Current Report. May 8. p 1150). The rate of employer compliance also in creased slightly from 26.6 percent in the first quarter to 28 percent in the second. A breakdown of the second quarter figures shows that Cal OSHA made 494 accident inspections. 1,665 in vestigations of complaints. 1.993 general schedule inspec tions. and 669 followups. However, only 313 of the inspec tions. or 6 5 percent, involved occupational health. Cal OSHA inspectors cited 1.372 alleged serious violations during the second quarter and 10.998 alleged nonserious in fractions. For these citations they proposed a total of 8370.584 in civil penalties. Manufacturing and construction accounted for over 70 percent of the inspections and over 80 percent of the citations and fines. Besides enforcement. Cai'OSHA reported that its con sultation service provided 913 free consultations to employers and employees in the period between April 1 and June 30. 104 more than the previous quarter. Occupational health accounted for 27 percent of the consultations. Oregon ENFORCEMENT. EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE CONTINUE DECLINE. REPORT TO OSHA SAYS Enforcement activity and the employer compliance rate in Oregon both declined in the second quarter compared with figures recorded last year, according to a report submitted to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Second quarter inspections numbered 1.665. about 500 fewer than the average for a three-month period in 1979, and the employer compliance rate was only 20 percent. Figures for the period from April 1 through June 30 show that 1.057 general schedule inspections were made. 293 were listed as complaint inspections, and 26 were in response to accident reports. Follow-up inspections numbered 289. Oc cupational health accounted for 7.6 percent of all inspec tions Oregon's 55 job safety and health Inspectors found only 20 percent of employers in compliance with state standards, more than a 10 percent drop over the average for last year. They cited 803 alleged serious violations and 3,497 alleged nonserious infractions, for which they proposed 8241,929 in civil penalties. Publications MOSH INVESTIGATION SUMMARIES. OSHA PUBLICATIONS LIST ARE AVAILABLE A compilation of summarized health hazard evaluations of 25 workplaces, designed to familiarize readers with hazards encountered and approaches used in recent investigations, is available from the National Institute for Occupational Safe ty and Health. The summaries list in brief the hazards found, the methodology employed to discover them, and recommended control procedures. A key-word index lists chemicals or processes which may interest a particular reader, and the table of contents includes report numbers and National Technical Information Service stock numbers to assist readers seeking copies of full reports from which the sum maries are taken An NTIS order form also is included. The compilation is a NIOSH pilot effort, according to a notice contained in the volume. The notice encouraged 271 readers to submit comments or suggestions for the publications improvement to NIOSH. To obtain the publication, titled SJOSH Health Hazard Erriluafion Summaries. April, 1980. interested persons may contact NIOSH. Robert A. Taft Laboratories. 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. labor Department Publications A listing of 110 Labor Department publications concerning safety and health is included in a general listing available from the DOL Information Office. Also included is a list of 19 publications concerning workers' compensation. The safety and health publications include the Oc cupational Safety and Health Administration's Job Health Hazard Series. Safe Work Practices Series, Programs and Policies Series, and a group of manuals on principles and practices of occupational safety and health. Statistical breakdowns by the Bureau of Labor Statistics also are included. The workers compensation publications include booklets describing available benefits, as well as the most recent volumes of Employees' Compensation Appeals Board decisions. The subject listing covers the period from January 1975 to December 1979. Information concerning the listing and the publications listed may be obtained from the Office of Information. Publications, and Reports. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington. D.C. 20210. Publications NIOSH STUDIES ON AZO DYESTUFFS, RADIATION-CAUSED CATARACTS AVAILABLE A research report on cataracts produced by exposure to in frared radiation and a technical report on carcinogenicity of azo dyes derived from benzidine are available from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The report on radiation-produced cataracts (DHHS NIOSH No. 80-1211 was authored by Donald G. Pitts. Anthony P. Cullen, and Pierrette Dayhaw-Barker of the College of Optometry. University of Houston. It reports research undertaken to establish ocular threshold exposure values for infrared radiation necessary to produce cataracts in the crystalline lenses of experimen tal animals relevant to man, to identify effects observed in other ocular structures, and to recommend valid criteria for safety standards against ocular exposure to infrared radia tion. according to the report's abstract. Azo Dye* The report on carcinogenicity of azo dyes (DHHS-NIOSH No. 86-119J was authored by Mark Boeninger and prepared by the NIOSH Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies. The study presents a comprehensive review of the literature on the sites of carcinogenic action of benzidine in man and experimental animals, on the metabolism of ben zidine. on the metabolism of azo compounds, and on the epidemiological experience of industries using azo dyestuffs, according to its abstract. Based on its findings that the origin of urinary benzidine among dome workers exposed to benzidine-derived dyes may have resulted from (he metabolism of azo dyes, the researchers recommended ''that the manufacture and use of benzidine-derived dyes be handled as if they are potential carcinogens and that safe dyes be substituted when available " 8-7-80 Coeyrtgtt * 1980 by Tb* Bureau of National Affairs. Inc 009S-1237/t0/S00 SO MCD 000013ft.?] 272 The study identifies some jobs that may involve exposure to dyestuffs and other known carcinogenic agents, the abstract added. Copies of the two publications may be obtained from MOSH Publications. Robert A. Taft Laboratories. 4676 Columbia Parkway. Cincinnati. Ohio 45226. Publications REVISED ALL ABOUT OSHA' DESCRIBES POLICIES. PROCEDURES. ACT PROVISIONS An updated edition of "All About OSHA," a 47-page publication giving information on provisions of the Oc cupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and general policies and procedures of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, is available from OSHA at no charge. Revisions announced by OSHA July 7 include added infor mation about provisions for federal employees, on-site con sultation. and the appeals process, as well as a new section. "ll<ci Rights: Protection for Using Rights." OSHA said the revision is part of its efforts "to keep workers and employers informed about developments in the occupational safety and health field affecting them." Single, free copies are available at OSHA area and regional offices, and the OSHA Publications Office. Room S-1212. Department of Labor. 200 Constitution Ave.. N.W.. Washington. DC 20210. telephone (202) 523-6138. Publication* COMPREHENSIVE LASER SAFETY VOLUME TAKES INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVE Safety with Lasers and Other Optical Sources: A Comprehensive Handbook, by David Sliney and Myron Wolbarsht, was announced by Plenum Press of New York and London. The 1.035-page volume treats such aspects of laser safety as biological effects, safety standards, radiometric measurements, and general background in optics and biology. Individual chapters discuss eye and skin protection, general hazard analysis, and laser safety in laboratories and medical facilities, construction, manufacturing, consumer and office products, and outdoor applications. A chapter by James Smith erf International Business Machines Corporation concerns safety programs and formal training. The book is intended for broad, interdisciplinary use. the authors said. Material on anatomy and physiology is oriented toward the engineer or physical scientist, while material on basic optical physics is designed to be understood by physicians and life scientists, they explained. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER The work is designed for classroom use or for self-study, the authors noted. Sliney is affiliated with the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.. and Wolbarsht with Duke University Medical Center. Durham, N.C. The book, published by Plenum Publishing Corp.. 227 West 17th St., New York, N.Y. 10011. is available for *49.50. Publications ARTS. CRAFTS HEALTH HAZARDS TREATED IN CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS PUBLICATION Health Hazards in the Arts and Crafts, published proceedings of a scientific conference on health hazards of such fields as ceramics, jewelrymaking, sculpture, and stained-glass manufacture, is available from the Society lor Occupational and Environmental Health. The volume, edited by Michael McCann, Center for Oc cupational Hazards, Inc., and Gail Barazini, University of Illinois School of Public Health, contains more than 20 presentations made at an SOEH-sponsored conference in Oc tober 1978. The Center for Occupational Hazards co-spon sored the publication. Conference participants included scientists, health professionals, and arts and crafts professionals involved in policymaking or scientific research. The paperback book is available for $16 including postage and handling from SOEH. 1341 G St., N.W., #308. Washington, D.C. 20005. SOEH specified that payment must accompany all orders except those from libraries and in stitutions. Publications NIOSH OSHA PAMPHLET DESCRIBES HEALTH HAZARDS OF HOT ENVIRONMENTS A pamphlet describing the health hazards of working in hot environments was published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Oc cupational Safety and Health. "Hot Environments" is intended to give employers sad employees a general idea of the health hazards of working in a hot environment and some of the precautions that should be taken to avoid stressful conditions. The pamphlet explains special considerations to be taken during longer heat spells of more than three days and lists sources for additional in formation. Copies of the pamphlet, DHHS (NIOSH > Publication No 80-132. can be obtained from NIOSH. Robert A Tali Laboratories, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohs* 45226. Copies of court opinions reported in Occupational Safety & Health Reporter and not yet published in OSHR Decisions are available on loan to subscribers by contacting BNA's Opinions Clerk, (202) 452-4202. Review Commission rulings and other documents may be obtained by contacting BNA's Research and Special Projects Division, (202) 452-4324. 8-7-80 Occupational Solaty & Health Paportar 00* *23740400 SO mcd 0000 273 Review Commission Activity ACTIVITY OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION This Section includes -- Review Commission Final Orders: Judges' reports which have become final, with date of finality. Judges' Reports Ordered Reviewed: Date ordered reviewed, judge's report, and issues on review Notices of Contest: Notices of context to Labor Department citations. Abatement Petitions: Contested petitions for extensions of abatement dates. REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL ORDERS Cedar Brook Rustic Company, 7/23/80 -- citations for serious violations of 1910.213(c)(1) and (c)(3) for failing to adequately guard ripsaws and provide ripsaws with an tikickback devices. 1910.213(g)(1) and (g)(3) for failing to adequately guard swing cutoff saws and provide saws with limit chains, and 1910.213(h)(1) for failing to adequately guard radial saws, are affirmed with total penalty of 3125 assessed; evidence established that saws used m employer s plant were inadequately guarded or lacked guards, and that ripsaws lacked swing cutoff devices and swing cutoff saws lacked limit chains: accordingly, existence of violative con ditions was established; employer's argument, that com pliance with guarding standard would be infeasible due to need for employees to observe their work, which vision would be obstructed by guarding, and due to reduction in production capabilities, is rejected; employer has failed to meet burden of proving affirmative defense of impossibility of compliance since it has failed to demonstrate that opera tion of saws with guarding would be functionally impossible or that alternative means of employee protection were un available; employer's argument, that its employees' familiarity with present working additions precluded necessity to provide better guarding devices, is rejected; Commission decisions have established that employer can not rely on human behavior as alternative to compliance with machine guarding standards; employer's further con tention. that guard on cut-off saw would not prevent injury if hands were placed in direct path of saw, is rejected; stan dard is not designed to prevent accidental injuries to hands when they are placed directly in front of saws; due to poten tial for amputation and laceration to hands from contact with saws, violations are classified as serious (Fier. Judge; No. 79-6583). Fort Pitt Bridge Works. 7/23/80 -- citation for serious violation of 5(a)(1) of Occupational Safety and Health Act, in that load attachment chain sling was disconnected from steel beam, being placed between similar beams, before it was secured to prevent toppling, is vacated; there was no evidence to support contention that employer had actual knowledge of potential hazard or that there was any general industry recognition of hazard; serious citation for violation of I9l0.179(n)(3)(ix). in that no responsible person was in charge of operation when two or more cranes lifted load, is affirmed as nonserious with no penalty assessed; evidence established that no one instructed personnel in proper rigg ing procedures or was in area to supervise operation; there was no evidence that violation could have caused death or serious physical injury; citation for serious violation of 5<aH 11 of OSH Act. m that employees, other than qualified crane operators, were permitted to operate electric overhead traveling cranes, is vacated; though it was es tablished that employer had no training program for crane operators. Secretary failed to show that hazard was cai iing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm (McQuade. Judge. No. 79-4603). Hercules, Jtte., and Local 884, United Paperworkers laternational Union 7/18/80 -- citation for violation of 1910.132(a). in that employees were not required to wear protective footwear in employer's plant where hazards were encountered capable of causing injury, is affirmed with f 100 penalty assessed therefor; employer's argument, that employees were not exposed to hazard as there had been only six 1 `recordable" toe injuries in Spinning Department in past eight years, is rejected; evidence established that in ad dition to six "recordable" injuries. 32 employees had been involved in accidents which would have resulted in foot in juries but for wearing of safety shoes: employer's argu ment. that employee exposure to hazardous conditions in other two areas of plant would be minimized if employees adhered to safe working practices, is rejected; evidence of record dearly indicated that foot hazards are inherent in employer's operation; issue of industry* custom and prac tice was not addressed as employer had actual knowledge of hazard (Brennan. Judge; No. 79-2765). Standard Service. Inc., 7/21/80 -- citation for serious violation of 1926.451(g)(3). in that outrigger scaffold was not designed by registered professional engineer, was not constructed and erected in accordance with standard, and distance between outriggers exceeded six feet, is vacated. employer was not bound by requirements of cited standard since subsection (g) of section related to outrigger scaffolds and scaffold in question was swinging two point scaffold. citation for serious violation of 1926.451(i)(l). in that twopoint suspension scaffold platform was not securely fastened to hangers by U-boKs or the equivalent, is vacated: employer's argument that use of nylon rope constituted per missible alternative means of compliance, is accepted Secretary's contention that nylon rope could chafe against building causing abrasion of rope is rejected; evidence es tablished that rope was exposed on underside of scaffold but no portion touched building during scaffolding operation: citation for serious violation of 1926.451(1X4), in that tiebacks on two-point suspension scaffolds were not installed at right angles to face of building nor secured to structurally sound portion of building, is affirmed with penalty of $320 assessed; since outrigger beam on left end of scaffold fell from building, it must be concluded that tiebacks were not 8-7-aO Copyright * 1980 by The Bureau of National Affairs. Inc 009* 3237 90 MO 50 MCE) 000013833 274 connected to reliable portion of building and that their method of attachment was faulty (McQuade Judge; No. 79-4021). Super Excavators, Inc.. 7/24, 80 -- citation for violation of 1926,6S2tbi. for failure to slope or support trench excavated for sewer line in accordance with standard, is affirmed; employer and Secretary both presented expert testimony on consistency of soli and required angle of slope for trench walls, employer's expert took photographs and soil samples, but relied on photographs for his opinion since soil samples were taken 75 to 100 feet away from area cited; soil samples indicated sandy consistency which supported Secretary's case, and Secretary argued relevance of samples within 100 feet of cited area; testimony of Secretary's expert is more credible than employer's witness since expert opinion which totally rejects relevance of soil sample must be viewed askance (Maxwell. Judge: No. 79-2471). JUDGES' REPORTS ORDERED REVIEWED Jenac Haies 4t Company. Inc.. 6/24/80 -- citation for violations of 1910.100l(g)(l)(i), for failing to post caution signs at location where airborne concentration of asbestos fibers may be in excess of prescribed exposure limits, 1910.1001(gi(2)(i). for failing to affix caution labels to asbestos material and scrap to protect against release el asbestos fibers in concentrations which exceed prescribed exposure limits during any reasonably foreseeable use of materials, and 1910.1001(h). for failing to place asbestos material and scrap in closed impermeable containers in order to prevent release of asbestos fibers in conoeotrations which exceed prescribed limits during any reason ably foreseeable use of materials. Are vacated; evidence established that room of employer's plant in which asbestos rope is manufactured contained stored asbestos, asbestos waste, and scrap material; Secretary's witness testified that no caution signs were present at entrance to spinning and braiding room, no caution labels were affixed to asbes tos material and scrap, and that sealed off waste containers were not utilized to contain these materials; however, test ing of room's atmospheric conditions daring rope-making operation, taken by Secretary's representative on inspec tion date and by employer prior to inspection, showed that airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers were below pre scribed limits: employer satisfied his duty of determining whether reasonably foreseeable use and handling of asbes tos materials might or would cause release of airborne con centrations of asbestos fibers above exposure limits by test ing atmospheric conditions and finding that concentrations fell below limits; furthermore, evidence established that rope manufacturing operation was conducted only "spor adically"; record fails, therefore, to support finding neces sary to sustain affirmance of violations (Ditore, Judge). Issues on review: whether judge erred in vacating citation alleging noncompliance with asbestos standards I9l0.1001<h)(l)(i>. (g)(2)(i) and <h) on grounds that "(t there is no evidence that the reasonably foreseeable use and handling of asbestos materials during Respondent's sporadic asbestos rope operation may or will cause the release of airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers in ex cess of prescribed limits "; whether judge erred in assigning to Secretary burden of proving that employee exposure to asbestos fibers may exceed permissible exposure limit, rather than requiring employer to prove that excessive ex posures cannot occur; if judge properly assigned burden of proof, whether Secretary satisfied burden of proving violations (No. 79-6911). OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER Reda Pump Company. Division of TRW, Inc.. 7/17 80 -- citation for violation of 1910.132(a), for failure to require engineers witnessing assembly or disassembly of oil and water pumps to wear safety shoes while on plant floor, is af firmed, citation for violation of 1910.133(a)< 1), for failing to require inspection and electrical department employees to wear safety glasses, is affirmed; citation for violation of 1910.22(b). for failure to mark as an aisleway the area between disassembly department and electrical depart ment, is affirmed: evidence established that tools and parts fail to floor during disassembly of pumps, and engineers spend 15 minutes to an hour on plant floor observing assembly or dismantling of pumps once or twice a week to six times a week; evidence also established that inspection department employees do not wear safety glasses while per forming routine duties within four feet of employees engag ed in disassembly operations, and that electrical department employees do not wear safety glasses when passing these operations oo the way to water fountain or lunch; areas between disassembly and electrical departments through which employees pass to go to lunch or take breaks was not marked as an aisieway (LaVecchia. Judge). Issue on review: whether judge erred in affirming cita tion for serious violation alleging ooncompliance with per sonal protective equipment standard at 29 CFR 1910.132(a), on grounds that employees failed to wear safety shoes while oa plant floor observing assembly and disassembly of pumps (No. 79-3691). Vak-Pak, Inc., 7/3/80 -- citation for serious violation of 1910.1000(b)(1), in that fiberglass lay-up operators were ex posed to styrene vapor in excess of eight-hour time weighted average limit during lay-up process, is affirmed as nonserious; employer's argument, that findings of analyst who was not present to testify should not have been admitted, is rejected; hearsay is admissible in administrative proceedings and can be used as probative evidence; citation for serious violation of 1910.1000(e), in that feasible ad ministrative or engineering controls were not implemented to reduce employee exposure to styrene vapor, is affirmed as nonserious; no controls were implemented as employer erroneously believed there was no need to reduce level of styrene vapor; increased local ventilation was deemed to be feasible; citation for serious violation of 1910.134(a)(2), in that respiratory protection program was not established for employees exposed to styrene vapor, is affirmed as non serious ; lay-up operators used no form of respiratory protec tion nor was a respiratory protection program maintained; citation for serious violations of 1910.134(b)(1) and (b)(ll), in that minimal acceptable respiratory protective program was not maintained, is dismissed; violation of 1910.134(a)(2) necessarily included any allegations of noncompliance with minimal acceptable programs. Citation for violation of 1910.107(g)(2) and (g)(7), in that resin residue, and pieces of cloth containing fiberglass were allowed to accumulate on floor in lay-up area, and there were no "no smoking" signs in areas where flammable chemicals were used and stored, is vacated; floor was clean ed and trash cans were emptied at completion of each work day; standard requires keeping areas as free from ac cumulations as practicable with cleaning conducted daily if necessary; employer's testimony that "no smoking" signs were posted* was accepted; citation for violation of 1910.133(a)(1), tn that eye and face equipment was not worn by employee, is affirmed; chemicals which employee was mixing could splash in employee's face, similarly, grinding operation could result in particles entering eye; citation for 8-7-80 Oceupotiorial Solely g Health Report** OOWKJ?XO'SOO 50 oooo' tfCB CURRENT REPORT 275 violation of 1910.134(f)(3) and <f)(5)(i), in that routinely used respirators were not cleaned and disinfected as necessary to ensure proper protection to wearer, is af firmed; respirator had no exhalation valve and had paint deposits on both inside and outside, and stored dust masks were exposed to spray from gel coat, resin, and dust; cita tion for violation of 1910.132(a), in that protective gloves were not provided to employees working with fiberglass MEKP-resin mixture, and acetone was used to cleanse resin from their hands, is vacated, employer's practice was not shown to be hazardous within purview of standard; citation for violation of 1910.151(c). in that suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of eyes and body were sot provided in area where employees were exposed to gel overspray, resin, and MEJCP. is affirmed: citation for violation of 1910.141(g)(2). for allowing employees to consume food or beverages in area exposed to toxic material, is vacated; employees were separated from lay-up area, no work was performed with toxic materials where employees were located, and there is a difference in being exposed to toxic material and being in vicinity where such materials are us ed; total penalty of 8150 is assessed for violations (Brady; Judge). Issues on review: whether judge erred in concluding that the employer was engaged in business "affecting com merce" ; whether the allegations of violation of 29 CFR 1910.1000<bK 1). 1910 1000(e). and 1910 134(a)(2) should be vacated as Secretary's sample analyses were erroneously admitted into evidence or otherwise erroneously accorded probative weight (No. 79-1569). NOTICES OF CONTEST Accu-Cor, Inc., Flushing. N.Y., is contesting an S60 penalty for 1926.400(h)(1) for failure to use an assured equipment grounding conductor program for temporary wir ing (No 80-3161). Acme Industrial Company, subsidiary of Jergens Inc., Carpentersville. III., is contesting a serious citation and a 1280 penalty for 1910.219(d)(1) for failure to guard pulleys adequately (No. 80-3399). Adams Van and Storage, Caribou, Maine, is contesting a serious citation and a S460 penalty for 1910.1?8(m)<9) for failure to equip industrial trucks with overhead guards. 1910.213(h)( 1) for failure to equip a radial arm saw with a lower blade guard. 1910.309(a) for failure to guard live parts of electrical equipment from accidental contact, and 1910.309(a) for failure to ground plug- and cord-connected equipment (No. 80-3359). Adco Chemical Company, Newark, N.J., is contesting a repeated citation and a 81,280 penalty for 1910.134(b)(5) for failure to ensure that respirators were regularly cleaned and disinfected. The company also is contesting a 82,400 penalty for a repeated citation for 1910.1012(c)(4)(v) for failure to en sure that employees removed and placed in impervious con tainers protective clothing upon exit from regulated areas, and 1910.1012(d)(4)(ii) for failure to protect nonregulated areas from contamination by equipment or materia! from regulated areas. The company also is contesting a willful citation and a 83.200 penalty for 1910.1012(c)(4)(H) for failure to ventilate regulated areas as required. The company also is contesting a serious citation and a 81.920 penalty for 1910.134(a)(2) for failure to establish and maintain respiratory protection program. 1910.1012(d)(4)(i) for failure to maintain negative air pressure in regulated areas, and Section 5(a)(1) for failure to ensure that employees were not exposed to ethyleneimme while attaching respirator hoses. The company also is contesting a $640 penalty for a serious citation for 1910.1012(c) for failure to establish a regulated area for ethyleneimine. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for I910.1012(e)(5)(i) for failure to train employees in the re quirements of 1910.1012(e)(5) before authorization to enter a regulated area (No. 80-3157). Advanced Roofing & Sheet Metal Company, Wallington. NJ,, is contesting a serious citation and a 8210 penalty for 1926.252(a) for failure to ensure employees' use of an enclosed shaft for dropping materials. The company also is contesting a 8180 penalty for a serious Citation for 1910.219(d)(1) for failure to guard pulleys as required (No. 80-2359). Astro Air Corporation, Jacksonville, Tex., is contesting a serious citation and a 8750 penalty for 1910.213(h)(1) for failure to guard the lower exposed portion of a radial-saw blade. 1910.213(i)(l) for failure to guard nonworking por tions of a bandsaw blade, and 1910.309(a) for failure to ground plug- and cord-connected equipment (No. 80-3507). Badaracco Bros. 4 Co., Hoboken. N.J., is contesting a serious citation and a 8720 penalty for 1926 100(a) for failure to ensure employees' use of protective helmets and 1926 500(bMl) for failure to guard floor openings (No 80-3166). Best Way Mechanical Contracting Company, Zanesville. Ohio, is contesting a 8770 penalty for a serious citation (or 1926.28(a) for failure to ensure employees' use of personal protective equipment and 1926 652(c) for failure to shore trench sides adequately (No. 80-3286). Brookside Corporation, McCordsville. Ind., is contesting a serious citation and a 81.000 penalty for 1910.95(bi< ! (or failure to reduce noise (No. 80-2865). Brown & Root, Inc., Petro-ChemicaJ Division, Valliaot Okie., is contesting a willful citation and an 818.200 penalty Tor Section 5< a) (1) for failure to protect employees from in halation and absorption of hydrogen sulfide and other iosk chemicals. 1910.28(a)(1) for failure to providea scaffold to employees working in an elevated location, and 1910 132 * for failure to ensure employees use of protective equipment (No. 80-3389). Brown & Root, Inc., Power Plant Division, Houston. Tvs is contesting a nonserious citation for 1910.1001'C"2 u: for failure to ensure that employees used an air-supptmd respirator while removing asbestos insulation (No. 80- 33M Breyer Molding Company, Chicago, 111., is contesting a serious citation and a 81.020 penalty for 1910.212(1^ 1 u for failure to guard machinery points of operation 1910.212(a)(1) for failure to guard a bandsaw bugs 1910.219(d)(1) for failure to guard pulleys, and 1910 MS- a for failure to guard live parts of electrical equipment agam* accidental contact. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation tar 1910.23(c)(1) for failure to guard an open-sided pUtfcrm and 1910.23(dH ll(ii) for failure to equip a stair with a tm ing (No. 80-3423). Chromalloy Americas Corporatioa, Federal Castings Dni sion. West Allis, Wis., is contesting a serious citation ne 12.000 penalty for 1910.95(a) for failure to prmnr employees against the effects of noise and 1910 1M a 1 8-7-60 Copyright 1980 by Thy Bureau of Nation* Affairs, tnc ooas 32j?ao sooso MCD 000013835 276 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER for failure to provide respirators to employees where re quired (No. 80*3379). Prank T. Cody Company, Inc., West Lebanon, N.H., is con testing a serious citation and a S900 penalty for failure to en sure that employees did not work in proximity to unguarded electrical power circuits. The company also is contesting a repeated citation and a $200 penalty for 1926.401(jH2) for failure to equip tem porary lights with heavy-duty electric cords (No. 80*3360). Combustion Engineering. Windsor, Conn., is contesting a serious citation and a $1,500 penalty for 1926.55(a) for failure to ensure that employees were not overexposed to respirable dust. 1926.350(a)(9) for failure to secure com pressed gas cylinders in an upright position, and 1926 451(a><13) for failure to provide safe access to scaf fold and a ground hole. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1926 25(a) for failure to keep a work area clear of debris, 1926 52(b) for failure to reduce noise, and 1926.402(a)(5) for failure to ensure that flexible cords were not spliced (No. 60-*3383). Consolidated Edison Company of New York. Inc., New York, N.Y.. is contesting 15 items of an 18-item serious citation and a S5.520 penalty, including Section 5(a)(1) for failure to provide a complete enclosure of a tunnel shaft hoistway. 1926.800(e)(l)(i) for failure to comply with fire prevention requirements in tunnel and shaft operations, and 1926 800(m)(9) for failure to equip an elevator door with a positive locking device. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1910.151(0 for failure to provide suitable quick drenching facilities for employees exposed to corrosive materials (No. 80-3052). Consolidated Edison Company of New York, lac.. New York. N.Y., is contesting a serious citation and an $800 penalty for 1926 800(b)(2) for failure to provide emergency hoisting facilities for a shaft. The company also is contesting a willful citation and a $9,000 penalty for 1926.552(d) for failure to ensure that per manent elevators compiled with ANSI standards. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1910 27(d)(3) for failure to ensure that rungs were not omitted from ladder extensions (No. 80-3099). County Sheetmetal Construction and Developmental Cor poration, Laurelton, N.Y., is contesting a 8120 penalty for a serious citation for 1926.28(a) for failure to provide employees with safety belts where required (No. 80-3170). Davis Construction Corporation, Hicksville, N.Y., is con testing a serious citation and a $720 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to protect employees assisting in the handling of loads suspended from an excavator crawler from electrocution (No. 60-3032). Didier-Taylor Refractories Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio, is contesting an eight-item serious citation and a $1,980 penalty, including Section 5(a)(1) for failure to equip kiln furnaces with safety interlocks, 1910.28(a)(3) for failure to guard an open-sided platform, and 1910.212(a)(1) for failure to guard machinery pinch points. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1910.22(b)(2) for failure to mark aisleways and 1910.309(a) for failure to ensure that tension was not transmitted from flexible cords to terminal screws (No. 60-3294). Evans Packing Company. Dade City, Fla., is contesting a serious citation and a $630 penalty for 1910.212(a)(1) for failure to guard machinery nip points adequately, 1910 215(a)(2) for failure to equip an abrasive wheel with safety guarding, and 19l0.219(ei( li(i) for failure to enclose horizontal belts. The company also is contesting a repeated citation and a $980 penalty for 1910.134(f)(3) for failure to clean and dis infect respirators after use. 1910 219(d)(1) for failure to guard pulleys. 1910 252( a K 2) (iv >< c) for failure to separate stored oxygen cylinders from fuel-gas cylinders, and 1910.309(a) for failure to guard live parts of electrical equip ment from accidental contact. The company also is contesting a 20-item nonserious cita tion and a $140 penalty, including 1910.36(b)(4) for failure to maintain exits free of obstruction. 1910.106(e)(2)(iv)(d) for failure ensure safe transfer of flammable or combustible li quids, and 1910.106(e)(6)(i) for failure to take adequate precautions against the ignition of flammable vapors (No. 80-2646). FC1 Inc.. Cleveland, Ohio, is contesting eight items of a nine-item serious citation and a $1,460 penalty, including 1910 212(a)(3Kii> for failure to guard machinery points of operation. I910.213(c)< l> for failure to guard a circular handfed ripsaw, and 1910.213(n)<3) for failure to guard the inrunning rolls of planing machine feed rolls. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1910.213(c)(3) for failure to equip a hand-fed ripsaw with a nonkickback finger or dog (No. 80-3287). FWA Drilling Company, Inc., Wichita Falls, Tex., in con testing a serious citation and a $910 penalty for 1910.23(c)(3) for failure to guard open-sided floors. 1910 133<a)(l) for failure to provide suitable eye protection equipment where required, and 1910.242(a) for failure to maintain equipment in a safe condition (No. 80-3385). Fibercrafters of Edinburg, Inc., Edinburg, Tex., is con testing a $420 additional penalty for failure to correct a serious violation of 1910.107(c)(6) for failure to equip a spraying area with approved wiring (No. 60-3392). Fire Protection Industries, t/a General Automatic Sprinkler Company, Hagerstown, Md., is contesting a serious citation and a $900 penalty for 1926.400(h)(1) for failure to use an assured equipment grounding conductor program for temporary wiring and 1926.400(a) for failure to ground cord connectors (No. 89-2652). Foniger-Pn Construction, Inc., Gatthersbeig, Md., is contesting a $650 penalty for a serious citation for 1926.400 (h)(1) for failure to use an assured equipment grounding conductor program for temporary wiring and 1926.4Sl(a)< 1) for failure to ground plug- and cord-connected equipment (No. 80-3434). Gaido-Ungle Company, Inc., Houston, Tex., is contesting a serious citation and a $400 penalty for 1910.134(a)(2) for failure to provide respirators to employees where required (No. 80-3509). General Motors Corporation, Delco Electronics Division. Detroit, Mich., is contesting a serious citation and a $400 penalty for 1910.212(a)(1) for failure to guard machinery in going nip points (No. 80-3424). Gregory Construction Company, Inc.. Hurst, Tex., is con testing a $700 penalty for a serious citation for I926.500(d)< 1) for failure to guard an open-sided floor (No. 80-3198). Groves-Brown A Lnmbrecbt-Denton Joint Venture, Minnenpolis, Mina., is contesting a serious citation and a $1,260 penalty for 1929.SS0(a)(lS)(i) for failure to ensure that equipment was not operated within 10 feet of unguarded power lines and 1926 500(a)(15)(iv) for failure to designate an observer to observe clearance and warn operators of proximity to a power line (No. 80-3371) 9-7-90 Occupational Safety 9 Health Ropertor QOSS-3337'SO.'SOO SO A. CURRENT REPORT 277 H R Products. Inc., South Bnd, Ind., is contesting a five-item serious citation and a $1,440 penalty, including 1910.215(a)(4) for failure to ensure that workrests on a grinder were adjusted closely to the wheel, 1910.309(a) for failure to guard live parts of electrical equipment against ac cidental contact, and 1910.309c b) for failure to ground lamps attached to conducting surfaces. The company also is contesting a five-item nonserious citation, including 1903.2(a)(1) for failure to post a notice informing employees of their rights and responsibilities un der the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1910.217(c)(5)(if for failure to provide a hand-fed power press equipped with two-hand controls with a brake monitor, and 19l0217(cxlXi> for failure to maintain records of power press inspection and maintenance (No. 8<K3370>. Halliburton Services, Duncan, Okla., is contesting a serious citation and a $630 penalty for 1910.176(f) for failure to provide derail or bumper blocks on spur railroad tracks to prevent cars from rolling free (No. 80-3393). Hoffman Construction Company, Bangor, Wash., is con testing a willful citation and an $11,200 penalty for 1926.451(a)(4) for failure to guard an open-sided platform and 1926.500<b)< 1 > for failure to guard floor openings. The company also is contesting a repeated citation and a $1,400 penalty for 1926.500(d)(1) for failure to guard an open-sided floor (No. 80-3402). Johns--Manvifle Safes Corporation. Denver. Ctfo.. is con testing a serious citation and a $280 penalty for 1910.213*gM D for failure to guard swing cutoff saws ade quately. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1910.132(a) for failure to ensure employees' use of personal protective equipment (No. 80-3102). S.J. Kuhnel Supplies. Karnes City, Tex., is contesting a serious citation and a $140 penalty for 1910 309(a) for failure to ground plug- and cord-connected equipment (No. 60-3510) Law Company. Inc., Wichita. Kansas, is contesting a serious citation and a $560 penalty for 1926.45l(y)(ll> for failure to guard a scaffold (No. 80-3282). Lenkart 4 Bennett, Inc., Snpulpa, Okla., is contesting a serious citation and a 11.450 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to protect employees from falls, for failure to protect employees from the hazard of a gas and oil fire due to an im properly secured blowout preventer, and for failure to protect employees from being struck by breakout tongs (No. 80-3508). Lindsay Manufacturing Company, Amarillo, Tex., is con testing a serious citation and a $1,160 penalty for 1910.134(e)(4) for failure to make available certificates of proof tests for alloy steel chain slings. 1910.132(a) for failure to ensure employees' use of protective equipment, and 1910.2l7tc)(l)(i) for failure to guard machinery points of operation. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1910 252(e) (2 Kiii) for failure to require workers adjacent to welding areas to wear face and eye protection (No. 80-3081). C.L. Maddox. Inc., Harrisburg. III., is contesting a serious citation and a $650 penalty for 1910 212(a)(3)(ii) for failure to guard machinery points of operation and 1910.309(a) for failure to guard live parts of electrical equipment against ac cidental contact. The company also is contesting three items of a 12-Uem nonserious citation, for 1910.157(a)(3) for failure to con spicuously indicate fire extinguishers, 1910.184(e)(1) for failure to affix durable identification to alloy steel slings. and 1910 219ien3i(i) for failure to guard a vertical belt (No. 80-3422). Menasha Corporation, Neenah. Wis., is contesting a serious citation and a $420 penalty for 1910.95(b)(1) for failure to reduce noise (No. 80-3378). Mid-Continent Builders. Inc.. St. Paul. Minn., is contesting a serious citation and a $350 penalty for 1926.500(b)(8) for failure to guard floor holes (No. 80-2940). Miles Interiors, Inc., Bridgeton, Mo., is contesting a $780 penalty for a serious citation for 1926.451(a)(2) for failure to ensure that unstable objects were not used to support a scaffold and I926.45l(aX4> for failure to guard a scaffold adequately (No. 80-3103). ML Well Service. Houston, Tex., is contesting a serious citation and a $320 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to protect employees from the hazard of wire failure (No 88-3190) Nickles Dry w all Inc., Geneva, III., is contesting a repeated citation and a $1,260 penalty for 1903.2(a)(1) for failure to post a notice informing employees of their rights and respon sibilities under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and 1926 400(h)(1) for failure to provide an assured equipment grounding conductor program for temporary wiring. The company also is contesting a serious citation and an $840 penalty for 1926.100(a) for failure to ensure employees' use of protective helmets and 1926.401(c) for failure to en sure a permanent, continuous grounding path from equip ment (No. 80-2999). Psaty-Hora Corporation, New York. N.Y., is contesting a $280 penalty fora serious citation for 1926.100(a) for failure to ensure employees' use of protective helmets. 1926.45l(il(8) for failure to ensure employees' use of safety belt lines, and 1926.451(i)(ll) for failure to guard scaffolds adequately (No. WV3153). Roadway Express, Inc.. Akron. Ohio, is contesting a willful citation and a $6,000 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to ensure that employees were not permitted or re quired to position multiple carts on a dragline conveyor system designed for single carts (No. 80-3367). Isadore Rosea 4 Sons, Inc., Yoaken, N.Y., is contesting a serious citation and a $980 penalty for 1926.500(b)(1) for failure to guard floor openings and 1926.500(d)< 1) for failure to guard an open-sided platform adequately (No 80-3147) Royal Steam Heater Company, Gardner, Mass., is con testing a nonserious citation for 1926.25(a) for failure to keep a work area clear of lumber and debris with protruding nails and 1926.400(0(2) for failure to post warning signs where contact with electrical power circuits could be made (No. 80-3365). SAM Plumbing Company, Inc., Bronx, N.Y., is contesting a serious citation and a I960 penalty for 1926 500(b)( i > for failure to guard floor openings adequately and 1926.500(d)(1) for failure to guard open-sided platforms adequately (No. 80-3149). Charles G.G. Schmidt 4 Company. Inc., Montvale. N.J., is contesting a serious citation and a $120 penalty for 1910.213(h)(1) for failure to guard the sides of the lower ex posed portion of the blade of a radial saw. The company also is contesting a $90 penalty for a serious citation for 1910.212(a)(1) for failure to guard rotating nonworking parts of saw blades (No. 60-2388) Sheridan Electric. Port Washington. N.Y., is contesting a serious citation and a 1240 penalty for 1926.500<b>< 1 for failure to guard floor openings and 1926.500(d)(2) for failure to guard open-sided runways. 8-7-80 Copyright 4 1980 by The Bureeg ot NetioneJ Affe*'* Inc. O095H3? 0 SOO SO MCI) 000013837 278 The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1926 25(a) for failure to keep work areas clear of debris. ]926.4S0ia)<9) for failure to ensure adequate ladder side-rail extension above a landing, and 1926.4S0(bX12> for failure to use filler blocks on rails between cleats of a jobmade ladder (No. 80-2640). Southern Fasteners Company, Greenville. Miss., is con testing an $8,100 additional penalty for failure to correct a serious violation of 1910.95(b)(1) for failure to reduce noise (No. 80-3180). Stepper Enterprises, Corpus Christi. Tex., is contesting a serious citation and a $360 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to equip a load hoisting mechanism to ensure safe operation (No. 60-3391). Sterling Organics, division of Sterling Drag. Inc., Rensselaer, N.Y., is contesting a nonserious citation for 1910.1000(a)(1) for failure to ensure that employees were not overexposed to iodine (No. 80-3172). Sirobic Air Corporation, Trenton, N.J., is contesting a serious citation and a $640 penalty for 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) for failure to guard points of operation in a forming roll, 1910 213(g)(1) for failure to guard a swing cutoff saw ade quately, 1910.213(i)(i) for failure to guard nonworking por tions of a bandsaw blade, and 1910.219(f)(3) for failwe Id .guard sprocket wheels and chains. The company also is contesting a six-item nonserious cita tion, including 1910.234 d H1H iv) for failure to equip stairways with handrails. 1910.178(p)(1 > for failure to withdraw defective industrial trucks from service, and 1910.212(b) for failure to anchor a machine designed for fix ed location (No. 80-3168). Texana Tank Car 4 Manufacturing Company, Nash. Tex., is contesting a $6,570 penalty for an ll-item serious citation, including Section 5(a)(1) for failure to ensure that portable electric lighting used inside metal tank cars did not exceed 12 volts, 1910.104(b)(8)<vi) for failure to protect bulk liquid oxygen storage containers and equipment from physical damage, and 1910.309(a) for failure to ensure that flexible cords were not used in a prohibited manner (No. 80-3506). Torson Construction Company. Inc., Columbia. Mo., h contesting a serious citation and n 91,260 penalty for 1926.100(a) for failure to ensure employees' use of protec tive helmets. 1926 402(c)(4) for failure to ensure that boxes and disconnecting means were waterproof, and 1926.652(h) for failure to ensure adequate means of exit from a trench more than four feet deep. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1903 2(a)< 1) for failure to post a notice informing employees of their rights and responsibilities under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and 1926.1S2(g)(U) for failure to provide fire extinguishers where required (No. 80-2938) Townes Sandblasting 4 Painting Company, Garland, Tex., is contesting a serious citation and a 9120 penalty for 1910.244(b) for failure to equip abrasive blast-cleaning nozzles with an operating valve requiring manual activation (No. 80-3384). Tyler Elevator Products, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, is con testing a serious citation and a 9400 penalty for 1910 2l2(a)(3Xii) for failure to guard machinery points of operation (No. 60-2854). United States Steel Corporation, Fairless Works. Pittsburgh, Pa., is contesting a serious citation and a 62.000 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER penalty for 1918.21(0 for failure to ensure that a gangway did not hang partially over the water. 1918.25(a) for failure to provide at least one safe and accessible ladder for each gang working in a hatch, and 1918.32(b) for failure to provide a safety net where required (No. 80-3430). United States Steel Corporation. Fairless Works, Pit tsburgh. Pa., is contesting a serious citation and a $1,120 penally for 1910.23(c)(1) for failure to guard an open sided floor and 1910.212(a)(1) for failure to guard machinery ingoing nip points. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 19i0.37(q)( 1) for failure to mark exits and access to exits (No. 80-3431). United States Steel Corporation, Fairless Works. Pitts, burgh. Pa., ie contesting a willful citation and a $10,000 penalty for Section 5(a)(1) for failure to ensure that employees did not mount aad cross the couplers of charging buggies. The company also is contesting a serious citation and a $400 penalty for 1910.24(h) for failure to provide an open sided stairway with handrails. The company also is contesting a nonserious citation for 1910.176(g) for failure to cover a pit (No. 80-3432). United Terminals, Inc., Bayonne, N.J., is contesting a $600 penally fora serious citation for 1918.52(a)(6) for failure to ensure that a winch driver did not make use of temporary seating (No. 80-3T72). Victor Industries Corporation, Newport. Ark..is contesting a serious citation and a $1,400 penalty for 1910.106(e)(2)liviu/) for failure to ensure safe transfer of flammable or combustible liquids. 1910.107(e)(3) for failure to use an ap proved system for bringing flammable or combustible li quids into spray-finishing rooms, and 1910.108(e)(1)(H) for failure to ensure that unapproved electrical equipment was not used in proximity to readily ignitable residues and ex plosive vapors. The company also is contesting a $2,200 penalty for a serious citation for 1910.106(eX2)(iv)(c) for failure to en sure that flammable liquids were not used where sources of ignition were present within the possible path of vapor travel. 1910.106(eHl)(i) for failure to ensure that ignition sources were not located in dip tank vapor areas, and 1910.212(a)(1) for failure to gain'd a machinery moving parts (No. 80-3511). Whillock Manufacturing Company. Inc., Springdale. Ark., is contesting a $1,000 penalty for a serious citation for 1910.213(b)(3) for failure to equip machinery with automatic restart devices, 1910.213(g)(1) for failure to guard a swing cutoff saw adequately. 1910 213(1X1) for failure to guard the unused portion of a bandsaw blade, and 1910.309(a) for failure to ground plug- and cord-connected equipment (No. 8(K3201). ABATEMENT PETITIONS Crown Cork 4 Seal Company, Inc., Philadelphia. Pa., is requesting an extension of abatement from June 1, 1980. to June 1. 1981. to reduce noise (No. 80-4065). Maystee! Corporation, Cabinetry Division, Allentown. Wis.. is requesting an extension of abatement from May 28. 1980. to September 28.1980. to provide approved respirators where required (No. 80-4060). S-740 0<Cupt*onol Ss(ty & Heolth Reporter OON 323? *0100 H> MCI) 0000 13838 279 Full Text EXCERPTS FROM INTERAGENCY REFERRAL MANUAL ON CONDITIONS TO BE REFERRED TO THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION ELECTWCAL UQUXREKEMTS Kora fir** era associated with alactrical installations and equip--nt than any other ecus*. Standard* par ts ininq to electrical equipment and its uaa in all industries have been cited as violations nor* frequent ly than any other*, 7b* purpose of the electrical standard is the practical safeguarding of persons and buildings and their contents from electrical hazards. Inspectors should not*: a Lack of grounding for: - ketal find electrical equip--nt; - Appliances such as --eu--*. polishers, etc.,and portable hand tools. Exposed wires, frayed cord, and deteriorated insulation; a Lack of coverings on junction bos**, switches, and fittings; The substitution of floaiblo cord* and cobls* for fixed wiring; splices and tap* oo flexible cords and wiring: Flexible cords and cobles hung fras walls, ceilings, or across tht floor; tack of Identification of breaker switches. VALUING AND MOVING SUVASS Falls arc * leading causo of injuries la all industries. So-- of the causes of fall* includo: Floors, passageways, and working places that art wet. slippery or bav* protruding naila. splinter*, or loose boards; Unguarded floor opening*, rur.uay*. and stairway*; X^roporly constructed scaffolds or lock of guerdrsil*: Qnsf* ladders; sad Unsafe stair*/stirw*ya. Inspectors should aota the following oajer violation* t Housekeeping Lack of clean end snitary floor*. For --t processes, false floors, platforms, nets* or other dry surface* must bo provided; Tripping hocord* such oo Milo, loose beards, splintors, belts, sharp cor--rs, and projoctio--; * Inadequate dseranc* in oisle* and passag--. Guard* for Floor snd wall openings and Holes * Lack of railings and to* boards for openings whose lst di--os len exceeds 12 inches; Lack of a railing or floor cower for s hole less than If but oore than 1 inch; and o inek of railings and too boards far platforas. runways, etc., that are 4 or nor* foot off the gro--d. Scaffolding Lack of footing that is sound and rigid; * Lack of ^jardrails and to* beards oo ell open aids* of platfsr-- --rs than 10 feet high; * Scaffold planks extending over their support oore then 1A inches or lss than A inches; and * Leek of overhead protection for workers oa a scaffold exposed to overhead hazards. Stairs Lack of standard guardrails/handrails on stair ways with four or ooro riasrt; ; Stairways less than 21 inches vide; o Stair* with less then 7-foot overhead clearance; aad o Stair* with an angle wore than SO* aad leas than JO*. Portable Ladder* Presence of ladders with broken naqi or side roils not tagged DANGEROUS, DO NOT USE; and The us* sf the top of step ladder as g step. Fixed Ladders o Lock of s IS'foot extension at the top of the lending; o Distance between the beek of ladder and the --treat permanent object less than 7 inches; and o Pitch --t between 7S* and 00*. Powered Flotfor-- g Lack of safety belts, attached by lifelines to the working platform or the building structure on men working on platforms suspended by two (versus four) wire ropos. Cranes * Hoisting, lowering, or traveling while an e-- loyee is on the load or book; m Carrying of loads over people; o Lack of scure fastenings on outside crane*: cad # Norm, corroded, cracked, or bnt wires. 8-7-80 Published by TX BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS INC WASHINGTON OC 20037 MCD 000013839 280 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER TUKOBS Trench esve-ins account for a large nvoter of serious and often fatal accidents each year. Inspectors should oote tha following violations; o Hater in the trench; Lack of shoring or sloping in trenches S or aore feet deep; * Cracks in the earth from changing weather conditions in unshored trenches, tnployees working without herdiats; Ose of heavy or vibrating eguifiit around trenches that haw* an shoring. Mid * Onfilled spaces between shoring and excavation wells in shared trenches. MAQ4XNE GUARDING One or norc method* of naehine guarding oust be provided to protect the operator and other eaiployees from hazards froa cutting blades, rotating parts, flying chips, and eparks. The guard oust prevent tha operator froa having any part of the body in the danger rone while the sifiuiw ia operating. Inspectors wheuld aatei o Lack of fiords an belts, pulleys, rotating shafts, chains, sprockets, gears, and nip points; a Lack of protective collars or recessing for all rotating parts.- o Lack of enclosures for sprockets or v-belt drives that are within reach of platforms or passageways or within 7 feat of tha floor; Lack of guards on cutting Machines, such as circular taws; and Lack of guards with openings of lass than H inch on fans less than 7 feat above the floor. MATERIALS MRNDLTNG AID SIDRAS fht storage of materials oust not. in itaalf. croots o hazard. Tbs handling of oateriala. especially by fork lift trucks, oust not post a hazard to the operator or the other eaployees. Inspectors should note: General Materials Handling o Lack of elearanee for equipment threu^t aislaa and doorways; o Insecura and xxtstable natarials storage; a Overloading of racks and platfaiws beyond tbeir capacity; o Lack of posting of nasinun load linits for floors and platforos (escape slabs with do basanants); and Tripping hazards in storage areas. Mechanized Forklifts Lack of protaetiWB overhead guards. *R0TXCTJVE EQUIPMENT OSM retires personal protective equipment wbanowar there are baeards that can do bodily here through absorption, inhalation, or physical contact. This equipment includes protective devices for the eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, and respiratory protection. Inspectors should note; Eye and Face Protection e Lack of goggles and/or face shields where there is danger of injury fro* flying particles, chips, sparks, and splashes. Mead Protection b lack of hard hat where workers nay be struck on tha bead by falling or flying objects. Q^as **** * appropriate gloves for eaployees handling hazardous liquids, resins, acids, or other hazardous materials. Respirators e Lack of respirators where air is contaninated by harmful dusts, fumes, mats, or vapors. lumuu AND COMBUSTIBLE LX0G1DS Tlemable and eoMistifek Liquids aro identified by bow easily they ignite (the flash point). Flumable liquids ignite sore readily then combustible ones. Examples of flanmables are gasoline, acetone, and lacquer thinner. Examples of combustibles art kerosene, fuel oil. and Stoddard solvent. Inspectors should note: Containers o Open containers of flammable and combustible liquids when Dot u use; 9 Spills of these liquids B Storage of waste material (oily rags. etc..) and pea centainars; a Itaraga of theot liquids in umapprovsd, nnm fin resistant safety containers; a Lack of grounding and bonding of bulk dnni of these liquids during dispensing (grounding and bonding prevent sparks from tha ecciaiulatien of static charge because of the transfer process); o Lack of HD SMOKING signs where materials are used or atarod. Storage Cabinets m Lack of label SLAI0VULE--KEE7 F1U AVAT on cabinet; o Lack of sturdy, lockable cabinets for storsgo; o Lack of HO SMOKING siqp both inside and outside storage areas; and o Leek of fire extinguisher within 10 feet of storage cabinet. Oxygen Oxygen amt bo considered, as o potentially hazardous element because materials burn ouch faster m an oxygem-onricbed acaoapharo. Tnvestigators should note: o Storage of oxygen inside s building; and m tech of safety devices on oxygen containers. 8-7*80 Published bv T* ftUAEAU OF NAT'OttAi AFFAIRS ttC WASHINGTON DC 20037 MCD 000013840 CURRENT REPORT VENTILATION Adqu*t ventilation is lnportant for nptoy*s in areas with dusts, vapors, aists, and fuacs. Investigators should not*: Lack of Mechanical ventilation in spraying areas adequate to remove vapors, aists. or dusts; and a lack of an independent exhaust duct systeo in each spray booth discharging to the exterior of tha building. 281 M01SI Excessive noise can eause peraanent ear daaage. yet the noice standard is conaonly violated. The current standard is 90 decibels for an 8-hour exposure. If the noise level increases, the exposure tuc oust be decreased. Inspectors should not*: a Lack of hearing protection devices in high noise areas. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ANO HEALTH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPROVAL FOR CALIFORNIA STATE PLAN SUPPLEMENTS [45 FA 51775, August 5, 1980] DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safaty and Health Administration 2* CFR Part 1*52 Approval of Supplements to California Stale Plan agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Department of Labor. action: Final rale. Summary: The State of California has made two changes (supplements) to its occupational safety and health program, which were submitted to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSKA) forepprovsL California operates its program pursuant to approval by federal OSHA. OSHA must also approve any substantive changes to the Slate's program. This notice announces the approval of the changes. The first change involves changes to the California program to allow it to interface with two Occupational Health Centers established by the University of California. That supplement also outlines the related purposes for which grant funds will be need. The other describes e new project called the Hazard Alert System (HALTS). HALTS is a computer data base of toxicologic and epidemiologic information that fa being developed as an early warning system to alert employers, employees, employee representatives, and others to hazards or potential hazards of substances that may be used in the workplace. EFFECTIVE OATS July 2S, 1080l FOE FUNTHEN INFORMATION CONTRACT: Patricia O. Horn. Project Officer. Office of State Programs. Occupational Safety end Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue. N.W~ Washington. investigation to determine health effects. D C 20210 (202) 523-0045. This supplement calls for one SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background epidemiologist and two industrial hygienists, plus one clerical position, for liaison activities to apply the research The California Occupational Safety and investigative operations of the and Health Plan was approved under faculty of the centen to Cal/OSHA Sec. 18(c) of the Occupational Safety functions in evaluating health risks and and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C 667(c)) in developing occupational health (hereinafter called the Act) and part standards. Their primary function of 1902 of this Chapter on April 24.1973 (38 liaison with the occupational health FR 10710). Part 1953 of this Chapter centers includes providing technical provides procedures for the review and expertise enabling DOSH to deal more approval of State plan change effectively with problems of determining supplements by the Assistsnt Secretary health risks, administering arrangements of Labor for Occupational Safety and for services purchased from the centers, Health (hereinafter called the Assistant and monitoring the centers' activities in Secretary). relation to purchased services. As a result of this function, these positions Descriptions of the Supplements are expected to strengthen the research A. Occupational Health Center* and compliance operations of Cal/ OSHA. By maintaining technical During the 1876 session nf the competence on information developed California Legislature, a bill wae peesed by the centers, they will have the to establish occupational health centers capability for assessing and affiliated with regional schools of documenting health hazards as a means medicine and public health. This for developing new or revised health supplement describes the ways in which standards; for developing criteria for Cal/OSHA will interface with these and performing health hazard research centers. Cal/OSHA will purchase from the geared to the program's specific standards and enforcement centers research, clinical, and responsibilities: and for providing laboratory services which are beyond interna) technical consultation to the the capability of the Cal/OSHA Cal/OSHA program. Organizationally program. Four categoriee of services that these positions will form the technical will be contracted to the centers are: development group within the Research 1. Training/Education--for training and Standards Development Unit. This industrial hygiene staff. supplement was submitted as a plan 2, Consultative Services--for dealing change on March 17.1960. with and following up on emergency situations and for help In designing B. Hazard Alert System (HALTS) studies of occupational exposures. The second supplement, which was g. Clinical and Analytics) Service*-- also established by legislation passed for providing medical assessment of by the 1978 legislature, describes the specific occupational exposures and Hazard Alert System (HALTS), a analytical tesla beyond the scope of repository of current data on toxic current DOSH staff. 4. Applied Study Services--for materials and harmful physical agents in use on potentially in use in places of conducting special testing for exposure employment 0-7-00 Published by thF BUREAU Of NATIONAL AffAlRS INC WASHINGTON DC 20037 MCD 000013^41 282 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER Located in Berkeley, the system is administered jointly by the Departments of Industrial Relations and Health Services to reinforce the administration of the State's OSH Act and to create the capability for recommending the development of occupational health standards. An interagency agreement outlines the separate responsibilities of the two agencies as well as their mutual responsibilities and relationships. It calls for one technical position in the Department of Industrial Relation*' Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Through this positron, the Cai/ OSHA program will have liaison with the Hazard Alert System. This technical linkage will assure effective use of the repository's findings in Cal/OSHA compliance and standard development activities, as well as assessment of the need for special studies and investigation of problems unrelated to specific enforcemenl actions. HALTS is being developed ae a multidisciplinary program (composed of specialists from such fields as toxicology, epidemiology, medicine, health administration, data processing, and information science] for collecting and organizing toxicologic and epidemiologic information on hazardous substances in California workplaces and channeling this information to workers, employers, and policy makers. Policies and procedures are being developed to assure that the repository uses end does not duplicate the resources of the Federal government and other States. This supplement was submitted as a education, voluntary compliance and plan change on January 23,1980. research functions contained in the Location of the Plan and its Supplements for Inspection and Copying approved plan which were previously made available for public comment. Good cause is therefore found for A copy of the plan and its approval of the supplements without supplements may be inspected and public comment and notice. copied during normal business hours at the following locations: Office of the Directorate of Federal Compliance and State Programs, Room N-3619, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W- Washington, D.C 20210 Office of the Regional Administrator. OSHA. 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Room 11349, San Frandeoo, 84102 California Occupational and Safety and Decision After careful consideration, the California plan supplements described above are hereby approved under Pari 1953 of this Chapter. This decision incorporates the requirements of the Act and implementing regulations applicable to State plans generally. In accordance with thie decision. Subpart K of 29 CFR1952 is amended by adding new paragraphs (d) and (e) as Health Administration, 455 Golden follows: Gate Avenue. San Francisco, California 94102 1 1952.175 Changes to approved ptans. Public Participation Under 1 1953.2(c) of this chapter, the Assistant Secretary may prescribe alternative procedures to expedite the review process or for any other good cause which may be consistent with applicable law. The Occupational Health Centers and the Hazard Alert System were established by the California legislature in accordance with the procedural requirements of the State legislative process which included public hearings. In addition, the Assistant Secretary finds that these (d) In accordance with Subpart E of Part 1953 of this Chapter. California's liaison with the Occupational Health Center*, implemented on April 25.1979, wee approved by the Assistant Secretary on July 25,1980. (e) In accordance with Subpart E of Pari 1953 of this Chapter, the California Hazard Alert System, implemented in ]uly. 1979, was approved by the Assistant Secretary on July 25,1980. (Sec. 16. Pub. L 91-596. 64 SUL 1006 (29 U.S.C. 667)) Signed at Washington. D.C- this 21st day of July. I960. projects are consistent with the standards-ietting. training and Eula Bingham. Aitistant Secretary oftabor. Journal MEETINGS SCHEDULED August 18-19 -- Toxic Chemical Safety. Wayne. N.J. (Registrar, Starson Corp., NHCI Div., P.O. Box 133. Stan ton. N.J. 08885; tel; (215) 258-7045). The course also will be held September 11-12 in Cleveland. Ohio, and September 15-16 in Pittsburgh, Pa. August 18-19 -- Hazardous Chemical Safety, Seattle. Wash (Carol Morris, J.T. Baker Chemical Company, Philljpsburg, N.J. 08865; tel: (201) 454-2500). The course also will be held August 21-22 in San Francisco, Calif .. September 8-9 in Boston. Mass., and September 11-12 in Saddle Brook. N.J. August 18-21 -- Hazardous Chemical Safety Management, Minneapolis. Minn. (Short Course Registrar. Eastek Corp.. 3543 Baldwin Drive. Easton, Pa. 18042; tel: (215) 252-1737). The course also will be held September 15-18 In Williamsburg. Va. August 18-22 -- Fundamentals of Modern Safety Manage ment. Sacramento, Calif. (International Loss Control Institute. P.O. Box 345. Loganville, Ga. 30249, tel ' 404 466-2208). August 18-22 -- Development and Growth of a Modem Safety Program. Sacramento. Calif. (Ernest Chaney Inter national Loss Control Institute, P.O. Box 345, Logaa^iu# Ga. 30249; tel; (209) 485-3720). August 19 -- Occupational Health Data Base Managemeai Systems. Cincinnati. Ohio (J.S. Ferguson, Univ. of Oar* nati. 3223 Eden Ave.. Cincinnati, Ohio 45267; tel 5i! 672-5733). The coarse also will be held October 15. August 19-21 -- Recognition, Evaluation, and Contra* Occupational Health Hazards. Monroeville, Pa. Mrxee* Russak. Industrial Health Foundation, 5231 Center a* Pittsburgh. Pa. 15232; tel: (412) 687-2100). 8-7-80 Occupational Sflltly A Health Reporter OOS% 3237 so 500 SO r,000l3ftA`