Document yr6j5EDrV162DdvRrrw5ELN4r

HILL A\-n JvXqwltoN, Inc THE JOURNAL OF COMMERCE, Thursday, December 5, 1974 Plastics Corner SPI Petitions Federal Court of Appeals For Stay of OSHA Standard Heie is a run down on the legal maneuvering in the case of SPI versus OSHA. Originally. The Society of tiie Plastics Industry on Oct. 1 sought a judicial review of the OSIiA order, which had been announced that very day. Text, seeking administrative relief, the SPI on Nov. 5 asked OSHA to postpone the effective date of the standard. OSHA's subsequent silence has been interpreted negative ly. Tne latest step, taken on Dec. 3, was for the SPI to ask the United States Court of Ap peals for the Second Circuit to stay the OSHA order, pending the decision of the court on the terms of the order on ex posure to vinyl chloride. The OSHA standard, which requires new respiratory pro tective equipment, would go into effect Jan. 1, 1375. Oral arguments on the case are scheduled before a three judge panel of the court of appeals on Dec. 13,1374. The stay has been requested, because there is no possible way to supply -the required numbers of respiratory pro tective equipment by the end of the year. This would have the practical effect of requir ing many plants in the United Slates producing vinyl chlo ride monomer and polyvinyl chloride resin to close down on Dec. 31.1974. In its petition, SPI also ixhntcd out that much of the equipment specified Ior -work er use has not yet. been apptoved by the National In stitute of Occupational Safety and HcalLh INIOSH), nor is it likely to be by Jan. 1. According to SPI, the respiiator supply today "is only 26 per cent of current demand with optimum supply being only 78 per cent of current de- ' mand." SPI said these figures w ere prepared solely for the ; vinyl chloride monomer and1 > polyvinyl chloride resin manu- t fsetuters and do not reflect I additional demands which might be made by processors, r fabricators and other seg- t rr.ents of the industry affected t by the OSHA standard. In its petition to the court of appeals, SPI noted that it had similarly petitioned OSHA on Nov. 5, 1974, but, to date, OSHA has neither acted upon nor acknowledged their appli cation for a stay. In summary, SPI said the standard is, "beyond the comphance capabilities of the in dustry." The case is listed; as No. 74- 2281. The SPI is the petitioner, and the respondents are the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor; Peter J. Brennan, secretary. Department of Labor,, and John Stender, Assistant Secre tary for Occupational- Safety , and Health. Firestone Plastics j Company, a division of the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company is an intervenor, as is tlte Industrial Union Depart ment, AFL-CIO. The attorneys for the petitioner are Martin | JL. Shelton of Shea, Gould, Cli- ` menko & Kramer of New York, and Jerome H. Heck man or Keller and Heckman, Washington. Also of counsel are Joseph E. Hadley ajid Pe ter Thomas Smith of Keller and Heckman. ASI 0024 04 9 1